Orwell Award Announcement SusanOhanian.Org Home

Improvements in Teaching and Learning

Publication Date: 2009-07-10

from Harvard Educational Review, Summer 2009. Here is their tagline: From the unique perspective gained heading Obama’s education policy transition
team, Darling-Hammond describes President Obama’s commitment to making the
education of every child a collective responsibility and reviews the major tenets of
the new administration’s plans for education. She reflects on the importance of
suggested policy changes, particularly focusing on the importance of legislation to
improve teacher capacity and retention. Finally, she considers how the field of education
might look in 2016 should the Obama administration’s education agenda succeed
as planned.

Darling-Hammond skips Obama's 2005 education speech, written by the Center for American Progress, "Teaching Our Kids in a 21st Century Economy."

There is plenty to discuss here--under the high-sounding rhetoric. Critiques welcomed.

President Obama and Education:
The Possibility for Dramatic

I write this article just as I am concluding my work heading President Barack
Obama’s education policy transition team, able finally to contemplate the
implications of the road map he has adopted for educational reform and
investment. Although there will be much politics and many competing pulls
as his plans roll out, I believe Obama’s administration has the opportunity to
transform our nation’s schools. The reasons have as much to do with the president
himself as with his plans, as comprehensive and strategic as those might
be. In this essay I touch on both, describing the potential that might be activated
in the coming years.

I volunteered to work with Barack Obama as a policy adviser shortly after
he announced his candidacy and long before most pundits thought he had
any chance of being nominated for the presidency. What attracted me to his
campaign, beyond his refreshingly thoughtful perspective on world affairs,
were his early pronouncements on education. I sensed a sincerity and a depth
of commitment to education, a genuine concern for improving the quality of
teaching and learning, an intolerance of a status quo that promotes inequality,
and a drive to move our education system into the twenty-first centuryâ€"not
only in math, science, and technology but also in developing creativity, critical
thinking skills, and the capacity to innovateâ€"a much-needed change from the
narrow views of the last eight years.

The early group of education policy advisers comprised of about fifty people
organized in subcommittees around key areas where this energetic young
candidate knew he wanted to make a mark. Over the course of several months,
we talked nearly daily, broached and discussed ideas, researched, wrote, vetted
policy papers, and sent them on to the campaign staff. As Obama decided on
his platform, he asked for further refinement of plans in the areas he cared
most about: the development of a strong teaching profession, math and science
education, citizenship and encouragement of a service ethic, access to
college, and supports for at-risk students to prevent dropping out and to get
kids back in school.

Clearly this candidate was someone who had ideas about education, about
what children are entitled to educationally, and about what is required by and
for our nation. Having worked with many political leaders at the state and federal
levels over many years, I was pleasantly surprised by his appetite for comprehensiveness
rather than a quick-fix approach bound to be partial and inadequate.

I was impressed by his attention to detail and to evidence about what
could actually work to solve the problems we face, rather than what would
merely score political points.

Senator Obama released the most detailed education plan offered by any
candidate in any party on the same day he gave his first major education
speech in November 2007, long before other candidates began to talk about
education at all. He began this speech with a critical point that sits at the heart
of his leadership on this issue: all of us are responsible for the success of all of
our children. He said:

I was talking with a young teacher [at the Dodge Elementary School in Chicago],
and I asked her what she saw as the biggest challenge facing her students. She
gave me an answer that I had never heard before. She spoke about what she
called "These Kids Syndrome"â€"the tendency to explain away the shortcomings
and failures of our education system by saying that "these kids can’t learn" or
"these kids don’t want to learn" or "these kids are just too far behind." And after
awhile, "these kids" become somebody else's problem.

And this teacher looked at me and said, "When I hear that term it drives me
nuts. They’re not 'these kids.' They're our kids. All of them."

She's absolutely right. The small child in Manchester or Nashua whose parents
can't find or afford a quality pre-school that we know would make him
more likely to stay in school, and read better, and succeed later in lifeâ€"he is
our child.

The little girl in rural South Carolina or the South Side of Chicago whose
school is literally falling down around her, and can't afford new textbooks, and
can't attract new teachers because it can't afford to pay them a decent salaryâ€"
she is our child.

The teenager in suburban Boston who needs more skills and better schooling
to compete for the same jobs as the teenager in Bangalore or Beijing--he is
our child.

These children are our children. Their future is our future. And it's time we
understood that their education is our responsibility. All of us. (Obama, 2007b)

Barack Obama's belief that every child is "our child," that the education of
each child is a collective responsibility, drives not only his education platform
but his fundamental, unshakeable commitment to making the investments
necessary to ensure each child’s opportunity to learn. This commitment was
visible in all twelve education speeches he delivered during the campaign and
in the transition process, as a dozen of us fine-tuned the implementation plans
and developed proposals for what would become a massive early investment
in education through the stimulus bill. In the short time since he was inaugurated,
President Obama has continually reiterated that he will make the investments
in education, as well as health care and green energy, that our nation
and its children need for a vibrant future. The more than $100 billion for
education passed in the stimulus bill is a sum nearly twice the size of the current
Department of Education budget and a down payment on his substantive
plans (U.S. Department of Education, 2009a).

No candidate has made such intense and consistent rhetorical and financial
commitments to education since Lyndon Baines Johnson, who was deeply
affected by his experience as a high school teacher before he went into politics.
After signing the Higher Education Act in 1965, Johnson returned to Southwest
Texas Teachers Collegeâ€"where his teacher training beganâ€"and noted:

I shall never forget the faces of the boys and the girls in that little Welhausen
Mexican School, and I remember even yet the pain of realizing and knowing
then that college was closed to practically every one of those children because
they were too poor. And I think it was then that I made up my mind that this
nation could never rest while the door to knowledge remained closed to any
American. (Johnson, 1965)

Both Barack and Michelle Obama enjoyed educational opportunities that
were, in part, enabled by what Johnson had accomplished forty years earlier.
These opportunities, together with the commitment of Barack's parents to
education and his own children's experiences receiving a high-quality education
at the University of Chicago's Lab School, have allowed him to see firsthand
the benefits of serious educational investments. Further, in his experiences
as a community organizer in Chicago, he witnessed the debilitating
effects of dismal education; and his participation in watching and guiding
school reform initiatives in the city allowed him to see the intense need for
these investments, which hold high stakes for children and communities.

Whatever the reasons, Barack Obama has outlined a set of ambitious plans
to transform American education on a scale not seen since the days of the
Great Society. Here I describe these plans from the vantage point of someone
deeply involved in developing them, and I discuss what I think they
could, under the right circumstances, accomplish. While the details will evolve
over time, with better or worse outcomes depending on the paths they take,
Obama's deep, personal commitment will drive major investments in education
in the United States on his watch. Fortunately, Obama is a thoughtful
and pragmatic politician with a thirst for effectiveness, so I expect midcourse
corrections to address false steps and problematic implementations that may
occur along the way.

A Framework for Obama’s Education Platform

While campaigning for the presidency, Senator Obama repeatedly pointed out
the acute need for dramatic education reform and investment, noting that,
as the bar for education is rising, U.S. performance has fallen further behind
other industrialized nations on every measure: early education enrollment,
Kâˆ'12 achievement, graduation rates, college-going, and degree attainment,
especially in fields like math, science, engineering, and technology. He often
used an economic frame for these messages to make the case for those concerned
about American jobs and competitiveness. For example, in a May 2008
speech, Obama observed:

In a world where good jobs can be located anywhere there's an internet connection;
where a child in Denver is competing with children in Beijing and Bangalore,
the most valuable skill you can sell is your knowledge. Education is the
currency of the Information Ageâ€"no longer just a pathway to opportunity and
success, but a pre-requisite. . . . In this kind of economy, countries who outeducate
us today will out-compete us tomorrow. (Obama, 2008)

Indeed, U.S. students now rank thirty-fifth out of the top forty countries in
mathematics achievement and thirty-first in science. High school graduation
rates have slipped from first in the world in the 1970s to the bottom half of
industrialized nations as other countries have pulled ahead. The 30 percent of
young people who drop out cause an annual loss of $300 billion in wages and
taxes and additional social service and prison costs. The United States incarcerates
more people than any other nation on Earth, both absolutely and proportionately;
most inmates are high school dropouts and functionally illiterate.
At a time when three-quarters of the fastest-growing occupations require
postsecondary education, America’s college participation rates have declined
from first in the world to fifteenth. Educational resources and outcomes are
starkly unequal and are growing more so as our nation becomes “majorityminority”
(Darling-Hammond, in press).

While the economic frame often dominates education discourse, Obama
also returns continually to the moral arguments that drive his concerns for
equity and for an education that supports democratic citizenship. For example,
he argued that "this kind of America is morally unacceptable for our children.
It's economically untenable for our future. And it's not who we are as a
nation." He went on to say:

We are the nation that has always understood that our future is inextricably
linked to the education of our childrenâ€"all of them. We are the country that
has always believed in Thomas Jefferson's declaration that ". . . talent and virtue,
needed in a free society, should be educated regardless of wealth or birth."
That's who we are. (Obama, 2008)

This identification of the American mission with the education of all children
is a theme we can expect to recur as the president marshals the nation
toward a major commitment to educational quality and equity.

The president's broader education agenda combines forward-looking
reforms of teaching, assessment, and school design with critical strategic
investments that can reap large benefits for children's learning and for society.
I list the major elements below to describe why these elements are viewed
as important and how they are intended to fit together so that the educational
community at large can evaluate the platform. The central elements include:

A major investment in early childhood education. A $10 billion commitment
includes new support for states to create high-quality Zero to Five initiatives,
expansion of successful Nurse-Family Partnerships, and significant growth in
child care and Head Start programs. A Presidential Early Learning Council
and Early Learning Councils in each state, along with state challenge grants,
are intended to create a more seamless, high-quality, well-functioning system
out of the patchwork that currently exists. These investments are meant to
ensure that parents learn to support their children well in early life and that
all children have access to high-quality early learning programs, as these can
make an enormous difference in later educational success (for a review, see
Zigler, Gilliam, & Jones, 2006).

Initiatives to recruit, prepare, train, and reward teachers and leaders. As I discuss
further below, a strong professional teaching and leadership force is the backbone
of a strong education system. A comprehensive $6 billion investment
is intended to develop such a cadre of teachers. I expand on this element of
Obama's agenda in the greatest detail for the purposes of this essay.

Investments in innovation and student supports in public schools. Educators must
work in high-functioning organizations in order to serve students well. To provide
incentives to redesign schools still based on a factory-model created a
century ago, a set of investments targets reforms to create more personalized
and engaging middle and high schools, use technology to reinvent education,
invest in extended school days and years, expand afterschool and summer programs
to support healthy development, and foster new, more productive models
of education in charter schools and regular district schools. With a strong
interest in examining and funding effective strategies, the president proposes
to double funding for education research and development and create a new
Grow What Works fund.

Incentives to transform curriculum, assessment, and accountability. In addition to
moving toward higher levels of funding for No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and
its successor, when it is reauthorized, President Obama has stressed that he
will seek to dramatically improve assessments, using richer measures that help
teachers teach and students learn. His plans also envision a more thoughtful
accountability system that considers how students and schools are progressing
on multiple measures of learning and performance.

Greater college access. As the United States falls rapidly behind other nations
in college access, Obama wants to turn around the shrinking federal commitment
to student financial aid so that any student who has earned admission to
college can attend. Plans include a $4,000 annually refundable and advanceable
college tuition tax credit for any American who completes 100 hours of
community service, which will cover about two-thirds of the cost of a four-year
public higher education, along with increases in Pell grants and direct
student loans that save money for students and the government. The plans
also include efforts to strengthen America’s community colleges, help them
improve their completion rates, and provide programs that prepare people
for well-paying jobs (Obama, 2007a).

While these programmatic elements may sound like disconnected pieces
when listed in speeches, they are pieces of a larger puzzle that fits together to
address the most pressing needs in our education system in ways that are appropriate
for federal action. In addition, Obama's plans for health care, employment
and housing supports, and community development to reduce poverty
are aimed at creating the wrap-around conditions necessary for children to
grow up in healthy, supportive neighborhoods. We know that the highest-achieving
nations create comprehensive supports for children's health, welfare,
and early learning, while developing a high-quality teaching force, thoughtful
curriculum pointed at higher order skills, supportive school organizations,
and accessible higher education (Darling-Hammond, in press).

Each of these elements is a focal point in Obama's plans, and each is currently
missing in the patchwork quilt of opportunity in the United States. Such
commitments have been either neglected by federal policy since the early
1980s, when the Reagan administration pushed back on most of the Great
Society programs, or undermined by the unintended consequences of No
Child Left Behind. Obama sees these pieces as connected and essential to
achieving his goals, and he has stubbornly resisted pressures to scale back his
thinking about what our children need in order to thrive.

Obama's agenda will require a new and different federal role in education--
not a more intrusive one, but a more strategic one that recognizes the
importance of innovating toward success rather than regulating toward compliance.
This role should encourage state and local innovation and continuous
improvement, enhance research and development to inform investments
in approaches that work, support success through useful technical assistance
and incentives, and create less fragmentation in federal programs.

Policy for Meaningful Learning and Assessment

What is unusual about this agenda, aside from its size and scope, is the extent
to which it goes beyond the usual policy concerns regarding funding, regulations,
and sanctions to consider the nature of teaching, learning, and schooling.
Central themes in Obama’s education plan are improved teaching focused
on the thinking and performance skills needed in a twenty-first-century society,
innovation in the design of schooling, and the reform of outmoded systems.

In what follows, I focus on these aspects of the agenda, which I believe are
both central for transforming schools and a needed antidote to the regulatory
approach of the last eight years, which has often reinforced the factory model
practices our schools have been trying to shed.

Improving Learning Goals

Speaking at an Expeditionary Learning school in Thornton, Colorado, Obama
(2008) talked about the twenty-first-century learning goals to which we should
aspire and the changes in curriculum and testing that those goals require.

As President, I will work with our nation’s governors and educators to create and
use assessments that can improve achievement all across America by including
the kinds of research, scientific investigation, and problem-solving that our children
will need to compete in a 21st century knowledge economy. The tests our
children take should support learning, not just accounting. If we really want our
children to become the great inventors and problem-solvers of tomorrow, our
schools shouldn't stifle innovation, they should let it thrive.

This statement signals that discussions about school improvement and
accountability will begin to include issues of curriculum, teaching, and learning
that have been ignored in the emphasis on high-stakes testing under No
Child Left Behind. Current state standards are typically a mile wide and an
inch deep, and tests focus on lower-level skills of recall and recognition. While
we increasingly use multiple-choice tests to deliver ever more hard-edged sanctions
to students, teachers, and schools, thus driving teaching to emulate the
tests, high-achieving nations use assessments that focus on disciplined understanding
by emphasizing essay questions and open-ended responses as well
as research and scientific investigations, complex real-world problems, and
extensive use of technology. These assessments are not used to rank or punish
schools or to deny promotion or diplomas to students. In fact, several countries
have explicit proscriptions against such practices. They are, instead, used
to evaluate curriculum and guide investments in professional learning-in
short, to help schools improve (Darling-Hammond & McCloskey, 2008).

Many analysts believe these curricular and assessment differences are
among the reasons U.S. students have fallen further and further behind their
international counterparts on assessments like the Program in International
Student Assessment (PISA). International studies have found that U.S. curricula
provide superficial coverage of too many topics without the in-depth
study, research, and writing needed to secure deep understanding (see, e.g.,
Schmidt, Wang, & McKnight, 2005). U.S. curricula also remain bounded by
the set of courses and topics recommended by the Committee of Ten in 1893
and is largely measured by multiple-choice testing technology that was a "modern"
innovation in the 1950s.

Encouraging more performance-oriented measures of student achievement
is critical to getting the kind of learning we need in schools and to closing
the "global achievement gap" (Wagner, 2008). However, the every-grade,
every-year testing requirement of NCLBâ€"coupled with the way the law has
been administeredâ€"has discouraged the use of performance assessments that
motivate ambitious intellectual work. Several states abandoned performance
measures because of the law's requirements; others have had to fight to keep
those tasks that meaningfully engage students in writing, analysis, open-ended
problem solving, and scientific investigations.

There are also serious problems
with the use of inappropriate tests for evaluating English-language learners
and special education students, who require more sophisticated measures to
show what they know and more sensitive accountability tools to monitor their

To address these problems, Obama has pledged to provide funding for
individual states and consortia of states to develop higher-quality assessments,
including an Innovation Fund that encourages a "Race to the Top" among
states (U.S. Department of Education, 2009b) to adopt better assessments
that drive richer curriculum and instruction. Investments would enable states
to make sure such assessments are reliable, valid, and practically feasible by
supporting teacher professional development and training for scoring assessments,
developing moderated and audited scoring systems, and establishing
calibration processes that help ensure that scores are fair and consistent, like
those in high-achieving countries. Investments in assessment development in
a renewed research and development enterprise within the Institute of Education
Sciences could support not only more performance-oriented approaches
but also more appropriate assessment for special education students and
language learners. Efforts to develop, test, and disseminate more valid
assessments in the content areas for these students would help states include
them more appropriately in accountability systems and provide more useful
information to their teachers and school systems.

Finally, the federal government can also model higher-quality items and
tasks that better measure standards by accepting and refining the newly developed
blueprints for the National Assessment of Educational Progress, which
are designed to evaluate students' abilities to solve problems and explain and
defend their ideas. Together these efforts could finally and firmly point the
United States toward twenty-first-century knowledge and skills rather than
holding it hostage to the nineteenth-century conception of learning and
mid-twentieth-century testing technologies that currently render much of the
knowledge acquired in school inert and unused.

Improving Teaching Capacity

Of course, a more ambitious curriculum requires a strong teaching force able
to engage in sophisticated practices. Although NCLB requires that all teachers
be "highly qualified," strategies for producing and equitably distributing a
strong supply of well-prepared and effective teachers have been lacking since
the 1970s.1 Shortages of teachers in high-need urban and rural schools have
grown worse as inequality in school funding and salaries has grown. Concerns
about the quality of preparation are widespread, and demands made on teachers
for sophisticated knowledge and skills to meet the needs of diverse learners
are growing, but little has been done to improve most teacher preparation programsâ€"
either through investments or strong accountability that could leverage
productive change (Darling-Hammond, 2006; in press). High-
nations routinely prepare teachers to very high levels at state expense, pay
them competitively and equitably, and support their learning throughout their
career (Darling-Hammond, in press). By contrast, the United States makes no
systemic investments on this scale, and teacher quality is both haphazard and
unequal across the country.

President Obama has emphasized the need to recruit, prepare, retain, and
reward a strong, equitably distributed teaching force; to improve the quality
of preparation for teachers; to develop compensation systems that reward
and develop excellent teaching; and to ensure a supply of strong teachers in
all communities. One of the areas of the platform on which I worked most
intensely is the development of a long-term infrastructure for a universally
strong teaching force based on what we have learned from research and successful
practice. These outcomes will depend, however, not only on a systemic
approach that engages states, localities, and institutions in transforming current
practices in sustainable ways but also on the resolution of the deep inequities
in school funding that continue to make teachers the least equitably distributed
resource in our schools.

Recruitment and Retention

To enlist and keep well-qualified teachers in every classroom, Obama's education
agenda includes $1 billion annually in service scholarships that cover all
tuition costs for preparing high-ability teachers who will commit at least four
years to teaching in high-need fields and locations. This investment will underwrite
the training of 40,000 teachers annually, enough to ensure qualified
teachers in all of the classrooms currently filled with untrained teachers and,
by reducing attrition, to stem the churn in these schools. Similar programs
have successfully brought and kept talented candidates in high-need fields in
North Carolina and South Carolina, among other states (Darling-Hammond
& Sykes, 2003). As Obama has stated, "I will make this pledge to all who sign
up--if you commit your life to teaching, America will commit to paying for
your college education" (Obama, 2008). Nations with high-achieving students
routinely offer all of their teachers full financial support for high-quality preparation
(Darling-Hammond, in press). Such support is the least we can offer
those who teach in the schools where they are most needed.

The plan also includes incentives to attract expert veteran teachers to high-need
schools through a career ladder initiative, which will offer additional compensation
to teachers based on their expertise as well as their willingness to mentor
and coach other teachers and to work in the places they are most needed.
The plan will support mentoring programs for all beginning teachers nationwide
through a matching grant to states and localities to upgrade and expand their
efforts to ensure coaching. These programs will draw on the skills of expert
teachers to help beginning teachers survive and succeed, reducing attrition
and increasing the capacity of the teaching force while supporting serious
evaluation prior to tenure.

Teacher Preparation

We must also reinvent teacher preparation so that teachers can meet twenty first-
century learning needs and develop sophisticated pedagogical skills. Providing
strong ongoing learning opportunities for teachers will require incentives
to reform preparation, including stronger national accreditation standards
that evaluate programs through a nationally available teacher performance
assessment, and incentives to drive programs toward the most successful preparation
models that focus on how to teach standards-based content to diverse learners,
including special needs learners and English-language learners.

As I have seen repeatedly since I entered teaching myself, and in the many
years during which I have worked with teachers, a key element of reinventing
preparation is addressing inadequate clinical training in most traditional
and alternative programs. Just as medical education had to invent the teaching
hospital to ensure that doctors would learn to practice more effectively,
teacher education must ensure that candidates learn under the direct supervision
of expert teachers working in schools that serve high-need students well.
Teaching cannot be learned only from books or even from periodic mentoring.
New teachers must see expert practices modeled in all of their complexity
and must practice such pedagogy with ongoing support from coaches in
the classroom (Darling-Hammond, 2006). Where this support occurs, teachers
make gigantic strides in their abilities to serve students effectively and are
more likely to continue in the profession.

However, student teaching often occurs either without models of expert
practice or in classrooms that do not serve high-need students, so what teachers
learn cannot be generalized to meet the needs of the students most new
teachers will teach. Practice teaching under the wing of a veteran teacher is
often reduced or omitted entirely in the alternative programs to which many
urban districts turn. This leaves many teachers trying to imagine what good
practice would look like, and most failing to reach the levels of success their
students need them to reach. This fundamental problem must be tackled and
solved at scale if we are to prepare an adequate supply of teachers who are
competent and confident enough to work effectively in our highest-need areas
across their careers.

Obama has proposed to expand the use of professional development school
models that, like teaching hospitals, offer year-long clinical experiences under
the guidance of expert teachers. In addition, he has proposed to launch a
set of urban teacher residency programs where teacher candidates apprentice
with the city's best teachers while completing coursework in curriculum,
teaching, and learning at a partnering university. Rather than the usual sink-or-
swim model that leaves many urban teachers floundering for much of their
(often short) careers, these recruits watch experts in action and are tutored
into accomplished practice. They receive a salary, master's degree, and teaching
credential and two years of additional mentoring. In exchange, they teach
for at least four years in the city schools--the point at which most commit to a
career in teaching. Models like this in Chicago, Boston, and Denver have kept
more than 90 percent of recruits in teaching for five years or more (Darling-
Hammond, 2008).

Programs like these can solve several problems simultaneouslyâ€"building
a pipeline of committed teachers who are well-prepared to engage in best
practices for children in high-need schools while creating demonstration sites
that serve as models for urban teaching and teacher education. Obama has
pledged $200 million for such programsâ€"enough to send tens of thousands
of better-trained recruits into high-need classrooms each year and to begin
to turn around the unremitting problems of education for poor children in

Professional Development

We know that effective professional development requires intensive, sustained
opportunities for learning that are embedded in the subject matter and connected
to teachers' work with their own students. Furthermore, teaching
improves when teachers get time to collaborate to share best practices, review
student work, and plan curriculum and lessons together (Darling-Hammond,
Wei, Richardson, Andree, & Orphanos, 2009). Yet, the conditions for this
kind of learning are relatively rare in the United States, where most teachers
typically have only about three to five hours per week for independent planning
and tend to attend short workshops rather than receive sustained, job-embedded
professional learning experiences. By contrast, in most European
and Asian countries, teachers have about fifteen to twenty-five hours per week
to spend on preparing, analyzing, and observing teaching with other teachers.
Teachers do most of their planning collectively, in the context of subject-matter
departments, grade-level teams, or large teacher rooms where their
desks are located to facilitate collective work. This allows them to develop
coherent curricula and well-designed lessons that Stevenson and Stigler (1992)
refer to as "polished stones," as well as to work together to solve problems of
practice. Obama's plan includes incentives not only for designing more effective
professional development but also for establishing common planning and
professional learning time that is the norm in high-achieving nations.

Career Ladders for Teachers

Obama's Career Ladder Initiative is intended to provide funding to districts
that are prepared, in collaboration with teachers, to create opportunities for
high-achieving veteran teachers to gain additional compensation by serving as
mentors and by leading curriculum planning, professional development, and
school reform efforts. Programs in participating districts are intended to build
professional learning and compensation systems that develop and recognize
knowledge, skills, and accomplishment in the classroom, including contributions
to student learning as well as willingness to provide leadership in hard-to-
staff locations.2

Career ladder programs must include differentiated supports and compensation
in ways that recognize and develop growing expertise. Such ladders
would include support for beginners, who will have the opportunity to move
from a novice level of teaching to professional status as they demonstrate competence
and effectiveness, thereby earning tenure and increased compensation.
Professional career ladders would also offer opportunities for advancement
as teachers gain expertise and move into leadership roles associated with
their knowledge and skills. The opportunity to mentor and coach other teachers
creates an incentive for expert veterans to remain in teaching as they gain
from sharing and learning with their colleagues.

Finally, the Career Ladder
model would reward teachers for deep knowledge of subjects, increased skill
in high-need areas (i.e., special education or bilingual education), and expert
teaching performance.
This approach to compensation and recognition can have positive spillover
effects for both individual and organizational improvement that are more
productive than annual merit pay bonuses for a handful of teachers, which
often lead to competition rather than collaboration and discourage growth
in collective knowledge and skills. Schools should also benefit as they become
organized to take advantage of the knowledge of accomplished teachers and
to incorporate professional learning at every stage of the continuum, ending
the teacher isolation that has impaired the improvement of teaching in many

American Education in 2016

While federal policy agendas are invariably reduced to lists of specific initiatives,
Obama's platform takes a much bolder and potentially more productive
approach by tackling key issues at scale, including early learning, strong teaching,
forward-looking curricula and assessment, and college access. The proposed
investments in teaching and school leadership are particularly critical
for Kâˆ'12 education, where ideas for specific projects, interventions, and fads
constantly swirl, coming and going with dizzying regularity. Studies of educational
reforms consistently confirm that the success of any innovation depends
on the capacity of teachers to carry it out. Schools without a stable group of
competent, committed educators simply cannot get traction on educational
improvement (Fullan, 2007).

If the promise of the Obama education agenda is realized, in 2016 we could
see a nation in which all children have access to the health care, housing, and
high-quality preschool experience that will allow them to start each school
day ready to learn. We could see a nation in which all children enter well-resourced
schools where highly skilled and well-supported teachers organize
exciting learning opportunities that prepare students for this technological,
knowledge-based world. We could see a nation in which young people have
access to the higher education opportunities that will be required to open
doors throughout their lives. If Obama's educational vision can survive and
guide the messy policy process that lies ahead, our children may have the kind
of opportunity to learn that will ensure our nation’s future.

1. Federal Law 107-110 (the No Child Left Behind Act) requires that teachers be “highly
qualified” by demonstrating competence in the subject area they teach and holding a
regular, non-emergency state certificate.
2. Where districts are addressing shortages in high-need schools, they will need to address
the teaching conditions in those schoolsâ€"ensuring strong administrative leadership;
reasonable class sizes; and the necessary books, materials, and equipment to support

Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Powerful teacher education: Lessons from exemplary programs. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2008). A future worthy of teaching for America. Phi Delta Kappan,
89(10), 730âˆ'733.

Darling-Hammond, L. (in press). The flat world and education: How America’s commitment to
equity will determine our nation’s future. New York: Teachers College Press.

Darling-Hammond, L., & McCloskey, L. (2008). Assessment for learning around the world:
What would it mean to be internationally competitive? Phi Delta Kappan, 90(4),

Darling-Hammond, L., & Sykes, G. (2003). Wanted: A national teacher supply policy for
education: The right way to meet the “highly qualified teacher” challenge. Educational
Policy Analysis Archives, 11(33). Retrieved May 4, 2009, from http://epaa.asu.

Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R. C., Richardson, N., Andree, A., & Orphanos, S. (2009). Professional
learning in the learning profession: A status report on professional development in the
U.S. and abroad. Washington, DC: National Staff Development Council.

Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). New York: Teachers College

Johnson, L. B. (1965). Remarks at Southwest Texas State College upon signing the Higher
Education Act of 1965. Lyndon Baines Johnson Library and Museum. Retrieved
November 4, 2006, from http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/lbjforkids/edu_

Obama, B. (2007a). Barack Obama’s plan for lifetime success through education. Retrieved
November 3, 2008, from http://www.barackobama.com

Obama, B. (2007b, November 20). Our kids, our future: Remarks of Senator Barack

Obama, Manchester, NH. Retrieved May 4, 2009, from http://usliberals.about.com/

Obama, B. (2008, May 28). What’s possible for our children: Remarks of Senator Barack

Obama, Mapleton Expeditionary School of the Arts, Thornton, CO. Retrieved May 4,
2009, from http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_9405199

Schmidt, W. H., Wang, H. C., & McKnight, C. (2005). Curriculum coherence: An examination
of US mathematics and science content standards from an international perspective.
Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(5), 525âˆ'559.

Stevenson, H. W., & Stigler, J. W. (1992). The learning gap: Why our schools are failing and what
we can learn from Japanese and Chinese education. New York: Simon & Schuster.

U.S. Department of Education. (2009a). Budget overview. Retrieved May 4, 2009, from

U.S. Department of Education. (2009b). The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009: Saving and creating jobs and reforming education. Retrieved May 4, 2009, from

Wagner, T. (2008). The global achievement gap. New York: Basic Books.

Zigler, E., Gilliam, W., & Jones, S. (2006). A vision for universal preschool education. New York:
Cambridge University Press.

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of education issues vital to a democracy. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information click here. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.