What is Effective Teacher Leadership?

I just re-read Carrie R. Leana's "The Missing Link in School Reform (2011)," and I agree that teacher collaboration, described by the author as a form of social capital, is what makes really good teachers become excellent.

The U.S. Department of Education's Blueprint for Reform (2009) suggests that teacher evaluation include room for multiple measures such as teacher leadership or peer-review (see p. 4).

I appreciate the flexible, aim-focused tone of the Blueprint. I wonder how the Department could be more explicit about what teacher leadership and peer review actually look like. How can the Department advance incentives, infrastructure or models that develop and sustain the essence of teachers' stewardship of the profession?

I also wonder about the future of the Blueprint, its intersection with Race to The Top and the reauthorization of Elementary and Secondary Education Act (aka No Child Left Behind). What can the Department do to foster policy that engages the millions of teachers we already have in our classrooms?

Mind the gap -- on education for democracy.

Is there is a gap between the power of the Gates Foundation, what teachers do everyday in the classroom, and what Teaching 2030 (T2030) proposes?  How closely are these three aligned?

The Center for Teaching Quality (CTQ) has emphasized the importance of cultivating and sustaining teacher involvement in local and national education policy.  What infrastructure has to be in place so that this happens more effectively and more frequently?  And how can we financially sustain such initiatives?  Supporting smart professional learning communities, and then publishing books like T2030, are no easy tasks.

Where, when and how do we look at the bigger picture?  Are we just fish, swimming is a school, hoping to influence the sway and swirl of our fellow educators, policy-makers, legislators and advocates?  Diplomacy is an anchor with CTQ, and sustained collaboration with the Gates Foundation would be nice.

Yet where, when and how do we draw the line?  Do the authors of Waiting for Superman merely have an accurate, however incomplete, picture of public education?  Or is there a coordinated effort to redirect the public education funding stream towards privatisation?  If so, what do we lose in the process?

In an article in today's New York Times (Behind Grass-Roots School Advocacy, Bill Gates), we are reminded of the Foundation's leveraged interest ($373 million since 2009; $3.5 billion projected 2011-2016) on education reform:

• Gates Foundation funding:
• Teach Plus - Indianapolis: "...outspoken teachers helped persuade state lawmakers...to eliminate seniority-based layoff policies."  (partial).
• American Enterprise Institute - DC: "...to influence the national education debates." $500,000 (2009).
• [P]hilanthropic advisory firm, - NYC: "...to mount and support public education and advocacy campaigns." $3.5 million.
• Harvard University: "...to place 'strategic data fellows' who could act as 'entrepreneurial change agents' in school districts...." $3.5 million [emphasis added].
• campaign lobbying of presidential candidates: $16 million (2008).
• Alliance for Excellence in Education (Jeb Bush), DC: "...to grow support for the common core standards initiatives...."  $550,000 (2009).
• Fordham Institute (Chester Finn), DC/OH: "...review common core materials and develop supporting materials...."  $959,000.
• Center for Education Policy, DC: "...to track which states adopted the standards." $1 million (2009-2011 est.).
• AFT & NEA, DC: $6.3 million (2008-2011).
• social action campaign focused on the film Waiting for Superman.  $2 million (2010).

To what end?  What is the Gates Foundation (and others) trying to accomplish?  The educational mission statement from the Gates Foundation websites prioritizes college readiness: The foundation has set an ambitious goal in K-12 education: to graduate all students college-ready. Currently, only a third of students graduate on-time with the skills and knowledge they need to succeed beyond high school. Together with our partners, we are working to provide all students—especially low-income and minority students—with the opportunity to realize their full potential.

Is college readiness an adequate platform for meaningful educational reform?  How does eliminating teacher seniority for layoffs increase college readiness?  How can the change levers within T2030 be leveraged to find common ground?

What if public education was about the cultivation of a civic democracy? 

Worthwhile education - Part 2

The program description from the RTTT includes four goals, one of which references competing in a "global economy" (see 4 goals below).  I commend Secretary Duncan and his OESE team for crafting an educational plan that includes an orientation to economy - we all need to eat and we all need energy:

• "Through Race to the Top, we are asking States to advance reforms around four specific areas: 
• Adopting standards and assessments that prepare students to succeed in college and the workplace and to compete in the global economy ;[emphasis added]
• Building data systems that measure student growth and success, and inform teachers and principals about how they can improve instruction;
• Recruiting, developing, rewarding, and retaining effective teachers and principals, especially where they are needed most; and
• Turning around our lowest-achieving schools.

I have to ask if the first goal is worthwhile.  Is this really what we want for our children?

There is nothing in the program description about a "sustainable" economy, which is much more egalitarian.  In fact, I would prefer "...participate in a global democracy" rather than "...complete in the global economy."  After all, the purpose of public education is to cultivate an engaged democracy that can make critical and creative decisions about the economy --- not the other way around.

I bring it up because I think the emphasis on economy (rather than democracy) reflects 1) an interest in privatizing public education, and/or 2) a technocratic mindset where education has a utilitarian, measurable function.  The assumptions of RTTT (and  Nation at Risk before it) have permeated our social discourse to the point where we are deliberating obediency & compliance (re.: accountability) and how and where to build prisons -- rather than liberty, equality and creativity.

As Chris Lehmann says in Practical Theory, we've got to dream about and create what we want for public education.  Worthwhile education is built on those dreams.

What are your dreams?  What has to be in place for the dreams to be realized?