Tag Archives: Teachers

Three Different Types of School Leadership for Learning: Results from TALIS 2018

This week’s post comes from Alex J. Bowers who draws from his recent working paper published by the OECD using the newly released TALIS 2018 dataset. Bowers is an Associate Professor of Education Leadership at Teachers College, Columbia University. 

Across countries, what is the role of school leaders and to what extent do teachers in schools agree with the leader on perceptions of their leadership practices? How many different types of leaders are there and how do these different types distribute across countries?

I examined these issues by analyzing the responses of over 152,000 teachers, across more than 9,000 schools with their principals, in 47 countries/economies on their perceptions of practices linked with the concepts of leadership for learning. I found three very different types of schools based on the alignment and mis-alignment of teacher and leader perceptions, and the results suggest that the proportions of the three different types of schools varies in important ways across national contexts.

I found three very different types of schools based on the alignment and mis-alignment of teacher and leader perceptions, and the results suggest that the proportions of the three different types of schools varies in important ways across national contexts.

Over the last few decades, researchers, policymakers, and school system leaders across the globe have shifted their conception of school leadership from the heroic single leader appointed at the top of the organization, to more distributed and shared conceptions of school leadership between teachers and principals. These new conceptions include leadership for learning, which encompasses aspects of transformational leadership – engaging teachers in the collaborative work of improving instructional practice – and instructional leadership – setting the vision, mission, and goals of the school, leading professional development, and supervising instruction. Importantly, leadership for learning also includes human resource development through mentorship and induction of teachers and strong management of resources to address specific student needs, community outreach, and student behavior and discipline.

To understand the extent to which teachers and leaders agreed across key aspects of leadership for learning, I analyzed data from the newly released TALIS 2018 survey items that asked teachers and principals similar questions around issues in their school of:

  1. Student assessment
  2. Feedback on teacher practices
  3. Teacher self-efficacy and a common set of beliefs about teaching and learning
  4. Professional development and trust
  5. Professional collaboration around lessons
  6. Mentoring and induction of teachers
  7. Engagement of stakeholders, such as teachers and parents
  8. A shared discipline climate

My results showed three different patterns of responses among teachers:

  • A high response type that has the highest responses across the eight domains and is the majority of teachers. These teachers have the highest work satisfaction, more often chose teaching as a career, and are the most experienced.
  • A low response type in which about a quarter of teachers responded with some of the lowest levels of perceptions of leadership for learning in their schools. These teachers reported the lowest job satisfaction and the highest workload stress.
  • A mixed response type in which about a fifth of all teachers reported high levels of self-efficacy, professional development, trust, stakeholder engagement, and a shared discipline climate, yet low levels of teacher feedback, professional collaboration, and mentorship and induction by the principal. These teachers have high job satisfaction and the lowest workload stress.

Second, I found three different patterns of responses between these three different types of teacher responders and their principals. In the first type, the principals have the highest responses across the leadership for learning domains, and thus are generally well aligned with the majority teacher type. In the second school pattern, principal responses are somewhat more in the middle providing a moderate response type. The third type of school, however, is typified by principals who disagree primarily around issues of mentorship and induction of teachers.

Importantly, while a large percentage of the school leadership research is grounded in the USA context and education research literature, the results from this analysis suggest that the USA may have only two of the three types of school leadership identified. The third type, in which leaders disagree more often across the survey, is a type of school that is more often found in countries such as Finland, as well as Portugal, Spain, Chile, Austria, and Argentina among others.

Percentage of respondents by school leadership type and country; Figure 10 from “Examining a congruency-typology model of leadership for learning using two-level latent class analysis with TALIS 2018

As I note on pages 53-54 of the working paper:

…it is intriguing that although the research that supports both theories of instructional leadership and leadership for learning, and the TALIS 2018 items, depends to a large extent on research from the USA context, the results of this study suggest that the USA has only two of the three types globally of leadership for learning schools… Given the global conversation on both leadership for learning, as well as policy in many nations attempting to implement instructional leadership theories and ideas, this finding that the United States is missing one of the three types of schools is intriguing. I will note, that I am not arguing here that the USA research is wrong, but rather that it may be incomplete, as USA researchers have not had access in their context to this third school type in the typology… The point that this model with the TALIS 2018 data captures the current global research issue that indicates that at the education policy level, mentorship by principals is “contested practice” across multiple national contexts provides a means to extend leadership for learning frameworks to include a wider global lens of schooling practice that includes these types of differences across national contexts (p.53-54).

Although no causal interpretations can be made, the results do provide an opportunity to surface previously unknown patterns and similarities across schools and countries, increasing the opportunity for collaboration and dialogue. For instance, in considering professional development and instructional improvement, the three different types of schools may need quite different types of supports and professional development resources. An intriguing professional development opportunity would be to bring together the principals and teachers from each of the three different school clusters, and provide them with the opportunity to collaborate, discuss, and surface the issues for instructional improvement that matter most to their type of school and their instructional practice with students in their community. Countries with similar patterns of leadership for learning across national contexts, may also find interesting and useful collaborative opportunities for improvement around shared interests and conceptions of teaching and school leadership.

Bowers, A.J. (2020) Examining a Congruency-Typology Model of Leadership for Learning using Two-Level Latent Class Analysis with TALIS 2018. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) Publishing: Paris, France. https://doi.org/10.1787/c963073b-en

SCANNING THE HEADLINES FOR RESULTS FROM TALIS 2018: TEACHING, LEARNING, AND LEADERSHIP

This week IEN provides a glimpse of how a few media outlets around the world have characterized the results from the OECD’s recent release of Volume II of the TALIS 2018 results, Teachers and School Leaders as Valued Professionals. This volume summarizes the results of a survey of teachers and school leaders from 48 countries, with a focus on questions related to 1) how society and teachers view the teaching profession, 2) employment contracts and salaries, 3) how teachers work together and 4) how much control teachers and leaders have over their work. This week’s online search for “TALIS 2018 volume II OECD” turned up very few stories in English. However, there were a number of headlines in smaller outlets and other languages, some of which were (google) translated below. More English headlines appeared in a scan of the TALIS headlines last June following the release of Volume I.

Australia

TALIS 2018: Valuing teachers and school leaders as professionals, Teacher Magazine (Australia)

9 out of 10 teachers from all OECD countries and economies are satisfied with their job, but only 26% think the work they do is valued by society; 14% believe that policy makers in their country or region value their view, and only 24% believe that they can influence education policy.

Croatia

Teachers overwhelmingly feel they have control over things (translated), srednja.hr

“About 98% of Croatian teachers believe that they have control over the choice of teaching methods and student evaluation, 93% of them have control over the discipline of students (92% in secondary school), 94% of them have control over the choice of homework.”  But only 9% of teachers agree that the teaching profession is valued in society.

Denmark

Danish teachers are more stressed than their Nordic colleagues (translated), folkeskolen.dk

43% of Danish teachers are considering another job, and 31% of “feel that their job has a negative impact on their mental health to some extent. In comparison, only 24 per cent of Swedish teachers, 23 per cent of Icelandic, 13 per cent of Finnish and 10 per cent of Norwegian teachers.”

England

England’s teachers ‘most stressed’ in developed world, Times Education Supplement

“70% of lower secondary teachers report being stressed either ‘a lot’ or ‘quite a bit’… 77% of teachers are ‘all in all’ satisfied with their job, however, this is the lowest rate in the OECD, with all the other countries having rates of above 80%.”

France

Talis: The French teachers, the most despised in the world? (translated), Café Pedagogique

“85% of French teachers feel satisfied with their work, but Talis demonstrates that French teachers are not only isolated and underpaid but also despised by their institution.”

Italy

80% Italian teachers perceive various degrees of stress, low salary always a reason for dissatisfaction (translated), Orizzontescuola.it

“Only 12.1% of teachers in upper secondary schools feel valued, without particular differences by geographic areas and by order of school. The data also shows that 7% of the entire teaching staff think they are listened to by the country’s political leadership class.”

Japan

TALIS — Teachers’ stress factors: “Amount of work” “Parents” (translated), Kyoiku Shimbun

“The percentage of Japanese elementary and junior high school teachers who have a lot of administrative work and stress on dealing with parents exceeded the average in participating countries. Principals at elementary and junior high schools were also stressed about their responsibility for their students’ abilities and dealing with parents.”

Korea

1 out of 4 middle school teachers “will quit teaching in the next 5 years” (translated), Chosun Edu

“Nevertheless, the proportion of teachers who agree that the teaching profession is valued is 67%, much higher than the OECD average of 26%.” However, only 54% OF teachers and 62% of principals said they were satisfied with their working conditions, slightly lower than the OECD average (66%).

Latvia

Almost all Latvian teachers are satisfied with their work, the survey shows (translated), nra.lv

“23% of teachers surveyed agree or totally agree with the statement that their profession is valued in the community, while 91% of Latvian teachers indicate that they are generally satisfied with their work”

Norway

Norwegian teachers work well together (translated), NEA Radio

95% of teachers say that there is a good culture for supporting each other and working together at the school…Teachers also feel that they have good control over their own teaching.”

Slovakia

Survey: Our educators receive little respect (translated), Felvideck.ma,

“Only 4.5% of teachers in Slovakia feel that teachers’ work has a high degree of social appreciation, while only 2.1% of school principals believe it”

Slovenia

They are not appreciated by the public or by policy makers (translated), Večer

The majority of “Slovenian teachers and principals were satisfied with their profession and workplace, and slightly less satisfied with their salary… but only 3% of teachers say policy makers value their views and opinions.”

  • Thomas Hatch

6 Things Educators Can Do From Home To Help Their Students

This week IEN is posting reflections from Thomas Hatch published initially on ThomasHatch.org. This post is just one of many providing personal reflections (like Larry Cuban’s discussion of his own experiences with the polio epidemic) or providing links and resources for educational activities including those from the New York Times (Coronavirus Resources: Teaching, Learning and Thinking Critically);NPR (Kids Around The World Are Reading NPR’s Coronavirus Comic and Coronavirus And Parenting: What You Need To Know Now); and Unesco. We invite readers to share their experiences and resources with us as well.

What can we do? That’s a question we are all asking right now. For all of us that question begins with what we can do to keep ourselves and those around us safe and healthy.  But parents and educators like me are also thinking about what we can do to support our children, students and colleagues as K-12 schools close and classes go online. There are no easy answers, but here are 6 things I’m thinking about to try to deal with the challenges and take advantage of the possibilities:

  1. Focus on health and wellness. Learning is an important goal, but health and wellness for everyone has to come first. Students will learn the most from the acts of courage and kindness that help keep us all going.
  1. Suspend Schoolwork. Suspend exams, grades, and any other requirements that may contribute to stress and anxiety – for teachers and parents as well as students. Children and parents need opportunities and guidance for engagement in positive and productive activities, not more reasons to fight over homework or “keeping up.”  
  1. Encourage invention, design, creative expression and meaningful engagement. Instead of trying to figure out how to cover the curriculum, educators can put the syllabi aside and focus on meaningful activities – activities related to important learning goals that might be motivating and interesting for students to do while they are out of school.  Instead of creating new demands, concentrate on creating new possibilities:
    • Encourage students to keep a weekly diary – in words, pictures or any other media
    • create online journals, newspapers and magazines that students can contribute to
    • Invite students to share artwork, music, writing, photographs, or videos in an online exhibition
    • Stage online “talent shows” for students to share videos they have produced
    • Provide links to online resources and tutorials for learning languages, playing an instrument, developing academic abilities or learning other skills and enable students to share their progress
  1. Connect, connect, connect. Educators are uniquely positioned to provide information and support for their students, particularly those who are struggling the most. We can check-in, ask how they and their families are doing, share the latest news and resources, and help to identify critical needs. Educators can also build relationships and fight isolation by finding and creating opportunities for students to connect with one another as well with adults, particularly those in retirement homes, hospitals or anywhere else people might be disconnected and in distress
  1. Find new ways to serve the community. Create online community service activities and virtual service projects. My oldest daughter, a senior in college, has been serving as a mentor and had to say goodbye to the elementary student she visited every week, but what if they didn’t have to say goodbye? What if they could stay in touch by text or video even for a short-time every week? With so many students of all ages out of school, we can create online clearinghouses where students – or anyone really – could connect with those looking for mentoring, tutoring, or just conversation. Reach out and partner with parents, those from community centers, after school programs, Americorps programs like City Year and Citizen Schools, museums,  and libraries to find and create these activities for students to engage in online. Together educators and these extended programs can work to focus particularly on the students and their families who may be unable to get online or stay connected.
  1. Embrace collective responsibility. From living in Norway for a year, I learned it is possible both to respect the rights of every individual and cultivate a sense of collective responsibility.  There is no more important time for reinforcing our common bonds and recognizing that everything we do has an impact on our neighbors. It could be as simple as inviting children to call their grandparents or extended family once a day or a couple of times a week or just calling down the hall, leaning out the window or talking across the fence. The most profound thing we can do in difficult times can be done anywhere in any circumstances, dedicate ourselves to working with and for each other.

— Thomas Hatch

Scanning the education news from the UK and Canada

stream_imgOur latest scan of education news in England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, Wales, and Canada, shows considerable attention to teachers: shortages of teachers in Scotland and England; “redundancies” and elimination of teaching positions in Northern Ireland and Wales; contract negotiations with the teacher unions in Ontario; and efforts to improve teacher training in Wales and address teacher turnover in Alberta.

The blog from the Institute of Education at the University of London has also had a series of post over the past month addressing key issues in England including income inequality, a new plan to penalize schools that are “coasting” (failing to increase student outcomes), a recent report on the (possible) effects of “free schools”; and the latest reforms related to initial teacher training.

“Local authorities reveal 470 teaching posts are vacant in Scotland,” stv

“Teacher supply agencies searching as far as Canada and Singapore to plug staffing gaps,” The Independent (UK)

“800 school staff redundancies after funding cuts” ITV News (Wales) 

“Ontario teacher unions agree to resume negotiations with Liberals in bid to agree to contracts,” National Post 

“University of Calgary program boosts training for rural teachers,” CBC News

“Education Minister endorses ‘radical plan’ to transform teacher training,” Penarth Times (Wales)

IOE Blog: 

Income distribution in times of austerity: why the cuts are likely to widen the gap, Nicola Pensiero

‘Coasting schools’: learning from international ‘best practice’,

Paul Morris & Christine Han

Free school effects: an impartial review, Francis Green

Teacher training and teacher supply, Chris Husbands

Opposition to the Carrera Docente (Teacher Career) Bill in Chile

profe-pulpo-descargarTeachers working in municipal schools in Chile have been in a strike for over a month now. The strike called by the Colegio de Profesores (CP), the Chilean National Teachers Association, began on June 1, 2015 as a way of expressing their opposition to the Carrera Docente Bill (the Teacher’s Career Bill). The bill is part of a national reform proposal in education that encompasses several areas of education, including:

  • regulating profit and student selection in schools subsidized by the state,
  • creation of the Subsecretariat for Early Childhood Education,
  • legislating a national teacher policy,
  • defining the structure for the de-municipalization of education, and
  • legislating a national policy for funding free higher education.

After approving the law that regulates the admission of students and profit in schools that receive state funding (Law #20.845), the government led by President Michelle Bachelet decided to continue the reform agenda with the legislation of a national teacher policy. The bill intended to define among other elements new teachers certification requirements, a teacher evaluation processes, a salary scale, and teacher workload. Teachers, as well as other members of society, have expressed their opposition to this bill through social demonstrations. Teachers are insisting that the bill be withdrawn, arguing that the legislative proposal maintains the individualistic, competitive, and market-driven logic that has prevailed in education, and generates no substantive positive changes. The Education Commission of the Chamber of Deputies formed a dialogue table and teachers acceded to talk to legislators in this tripartite table in mid-June. On June 27, the President named a new Minister of Education, Adriana Delpiano, who declared her willingness to dialogue with teachers but stressed that the government will not withdraw the bill. On June 30, the tripartite table at the Education Commission resumed its work. Teachers are expected to reevaluate the continuity of the strike.

Victoria Parra

For more information on this issue:

Carrera Docente Bill Does Not Meet Chilean Teacher’s Expectations | I Love Chile News http://buff.ly/1IU63Om

El Mostrador – El primer diario digital de Chile – Noticias, reportajes, multimedia y último minuto. http://buff.ly/1IU6bNS

Las críticas del Colegio de Profesores al Plan Nacional Docente « Diario y Radio Uchile http://buff.ly/1TuMRts

Chilean striking teachers take to the streets; million students with no classes — MercoPress http://buff.ly/1TuMT4C

Change of Chile Education Minister Could End University Strike | News | teleSUR English http://buff.ly/1TuMTSk

 

 
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
 

Teaching time in the U.S.

In The Mismeasure of Teaching Time, Sam Abrams exposes the myth that teachers in the United States spend nearly twice as much time leading classes as teachers in many other OECD countries. Abrams, Director of the National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education at Teachers College, Columbia University, details basic contradictions in the U.S. figures reported by the OECD and repeated by many journalists and scholars. His analysis suggests that U.S. teachers still do spend more time teaching than their counterparts in other OECD countries, but only about 15 percent more. This is still an important difference, but, as Abrams argues, one that has overshadowed more significant differences: in particular, teacher pay and the structure of the school day. Soon after the study was published last week by the Center for Benefit-Cost Studies of Education (CBCSE), we had a chance to ask Abrams when he first noticed the problems with U.S. figures, how he determined what was going on, and what the implications are for educators and the general public (see also recent EdWeek coverage). We share his response below:  

After repeatedly seeing this misinformation about teaching hours in books and articles, I wrote to the OECD in January 2012 to inform them that the U.S. hours were way off and provided as evidence terms of teacher contracts from several major school districts.  I moreover explained that I had been the scheduler of a public high school in New York City for seven years as well as a teacher for many more. The people I contacted at the OECD conceded the U.S. hours appeared inflated and relayed this information to the U.S. representative to the OECD, who, in turn, I was told, stood by the numbers.  I decided at that point to save my argument for a book I was writing on educational privatization.  But as that book was taking longer than expected and as this myth was getting repeated on a regular basis in op-ed pieces, think tank studies, and books, I decided in October of 2014, after compiling more evidence, to address the problem directly with the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES), the source of the U.S. figures.

Tom Snyder, the NCES Program Director for Annual Reports and Information, could not have been more helpful. When presented with my case, as I wrote in my study, Snyder undertook with his staff a review of their data and a week later reported that the United States had indeed been inadvertently overstating teaching time. Snyder’s openness and cooperation was a lesson to me that researchers can get a lot more assistance from authorities than I had thought.

I should add that if I had not been a teacher, I would not have been in much of a position to question the data.  This implicitly points to the divide between policy and practice. As a teacher, I had never heard of Education at a Glance and I didn’t read many books about education policy.  I read books about history and economics, as I was a teacher of history and economics, and I struggled to keep up with reading and grading my students’ papers.  It was only after I became a researcher and began to work on my book on educational privatization in 2008 that I started reading a lot of books about education policy.  With my background as a teacher, I could quickly see that some policy analysis, like this argument about teaching time, didn’t hold up.

The salient implication of this finding is that we’ve been tilting at windmills. Teaching time is a phantom problem.  U.S. teachers do teach more than their OECD counterparts but, as I explain in my study, only marginally more.  The real and telling differences between teaching in the United States and other OECD nations concern relative pay and the structure of the school day.  These problems have been obscured by the difference in teaching time because the alleged difference has been so dramatic.  For journalists and scholars, that dramatic difference has been impossible to ignore.  And they’ve understandably focused on it at the expense of these two other real and telling differences.

As I noted in my study, U.S. primary teachers, according to Education at a Glance, earn 67 percent as much as their college classmates while their OECD counterparts earn 85 percent; U.S. lower-secondary teachers earn 68 percent compared to 88 percent for their OECD counterparts; and U.S. upper-secondary teachers earn 70 percent in contrast to 92 percent for their OECD counterparts.  The data on pay appear quite reliable, as I explain in my study, because the method of collecting data on pay differs substantially from the method of collecting data on teaching time.

In absolute terms, U.S. teachers may make as much as their OECD counterparts but not in relative terms, because in other OECD nations, on average, bankers, lawyers, doctors, engineers, and management consultants make much less.  So, this is a social contract issue.  It isn’t so much that U.S. teachers don’t earn much. It’s that their college classmates who went into banking, law, medicine, engineering, and consulting make a lot more.  Teachers accordingly get priced out.  It’s thus hard to attract people to the profession and hard to retain them if they come aboard.  Fixing this problem constitutes a steep challenge.  It would necessitate raising not only teacher pay but also marginal income tax rates as well as tax rates on long-term capital gains.  But we at least need to look at this problem with our eyes wide open.

What’s not hard to fix is the structure of the school day.  In this regard, as I explain in my study, U.S. practice differs significantly from that of many other OECD nations. The architects of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and Race to the Top (RTTT) wanted to close the achievement gap by identifying academic deficiencies through regular testing and by holding school administrators and teachers accountable for their students’ results. The goal of closing the achievement gap is clearly noble. But the high-stakes testing that defines NCLB and RTTT has had perverse consequences. In particular, it has reduced, as I documented in my study, time for play, art, music, and drama because school administrators have felt great pressure to pack more academic instruction and test prep into the school day in order to boost test results.

School administrators have had little choice.  Test results are ultimately relative.  If school administrators in one district reduce time for play, art, music, and drama to make more time for academic instruction and test prep, then school administrators in neighboring districts are hard pressed not to do the same.  We have a stadium effect.  If spectators in the first row at a basketball game rise to see a big play, then spectators in the next row must do the same. In a heartbeat, everyone in the arena is on their feet. The same holds for test prep and schools.  The result is a narrowed curriculum, intense pressure on students, teachers, and principals alike, and a tight day, lacking the breaks between classes necessary for students, teachers, and principals alike to regroup, reflect, and get some fresh air.

There has long been an assembly-line pace to the school day in the United States, with short breaks between classes and brief lunch periods. Raymond Callahan made that clear more than fifty years ago in his incisive book Education and the Cult of Efficiency, published in 1962. But with the high-stakes testing introduced by NCLB and RTTT, the pace has intensified.

As a coach for several years with the Ice Hockey in Harlem program in Central Park, I’ve come to learn that kids of all ages, from five to seventeen, crave and need play. We can’t get the kids off the ice at the end of practice. Kids need to improvise with their bodies and experience the joy of playing with their peers. At a certain point, as I write in my study, more academic time becomes counterproductive. Leaders of such major companies as SAS and Google, in this light, have understood that more work at the expense of relaxation and recreation likewise becomes counterproductive and have accordingly encouraged their employees to take breaks and designed their offices with relaxation and recreation in mind.

We could fix this, as I explain in my study, by getting rid of high-stakes testing.  We have had the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) since 1969 to test samples of students in fourth, eighth, and twelfth grades.  We need little more than that. If we could move on from high-stakes testing, then our schools would be a lot more like schools in many other OECD nations, and the lives of U.S. teachers would be a lot more manageable.

Japan

5,274 Teachers Took A Leave From Work Due to Mental Health Reasons

Nikkei Shinbun (December 24, 2012)

*Link in Japanese

The Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) reported that the number of public school teachers who took a leave from their schools due to mental health reasons in year 2011 was 5,274. While this number is down 2.4% since 2010, the number is still twice as many compared to 10 years ago. The main reason for the increasing depression is a decrease in a healthy work-life balance.To improve the working environment for teachers, the ministry proposed two plans. One is to assign experienced teachers to new teachers as mentors. The second is to implement training programs for returning teachers, who took a leave from their work, to facilitate their re-entry.

For more information:

Depression, mental illness among Japan’s public school teachers increasing

Teachers too busy to deal with struggling students