The Marshall Order: An Investigation into the Marshall Plan for Teaching for Bridging the Public Education

Achievement Gap Introduction The realities of our ever-shrinking world have illuminated the need for a quality teaching profession. This necessity demands a process of developing and nurturing teacher quality such that the desired resultsenhancing student performance so the existing achievement gap in public education narrows to nonexistenceare secured and maintained. Best captured by the authors of What Matters Most: Teaching for Americas Future, the National Commission on Teaching & Americas Future (1996) provides that, there has been no previous time in history when the success, indeed the survival, of nations and people has been so tightly tied to their ability to learn[and] because of this, Americas future depends now, as never before, on our ability to teach (p. 3). Understanding this importance and complexity of the teaching profession has engendered both research and discussion regarding the nature of teaching as the main vehicle for student achievement. As established by McKinsey & Company (2007) in How the Worlds Best-Performing School Systems Come Out on Top (2007), available evidence suggests that the main driver of the variation in student learning at school is the quality of the teachers (p. 12). To elucidate this point, they recognize that despite United States education policy reform on structural enhancements of either the schools themselves or the child-to-teacher ratio, doing so produces, at best, limited improvement if any at all (McKinsey & Company, 2007). The inattention to the issue of effective teacher quality is appalling. This reaction stems from the established strength of the student-teacher association and the apparent ignorance of policy efforts and reforms thus far to address that relationship head on. While

it may be argued that policy efforts focused on student-teacher ratios or class size reduction can be viewed as addressing the student-teacher relationshiptaking as premise the notion our teachers are adequate, they are just worn thin by overwhelming class sizesthis argument is deflected by McKinsey & Company (2007) who found that, variations in teacher quality completely dominate any effect of reduced class size (p. 11). In addition, though the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 included wording that every student receive highly qualified teachers, it mandates that states use the qualifications that teachers bring to the classroomrather than their performance as teachersas a measure of whether [a] teacher meets the laws standard (Toch & Rothman, 2008, p. 2). From this example of an apparent disconnect between policy and purpose, my concern here is not teacher quality in isolation. Rather, my thesis founds upon the inability of current policy attempts to bridge the achievement gap and highlights teacher quality as a means to that end. The following exercise in discussing the student performance achievement gap in the United States and the manner in which teacher quality is critical, will invoke an in-depth review of Linda Darling-Hammonds Marshall Plan for Teaching: What It Will Really Take to Leave No Child Behind (Education Week, 2007). In her presentation before the Subcommittee on Higher Education, Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness, Committee on Education and Labor, United States House of Representatives on May 17, 2007 (Hearing before the Subcommittee), Dr. DarlingHammond clearly outlines an approach for building a strong teaching force that would last decades and effectively combat the incessant achievement gap. Dr. Darling-Hammonds plan is particularly appealing since she, as presented, includes a specific budget and accounts for government spending that could accomplish its goal for $3 billion annually (Hearing before the Subcommittee, 2007).

Darling-Hammonds plan encompasses two main themes:

Increasing the supply and quality of teachers targeted to high-need fields and locations;

Improving retention and mobility of well-qualified teachers (Hearing before the Subcommittee, 2007).

Under these headings are a total of five critical points of enhancement for the teacher education process and the teaching profession at large. Drawing support from other authors and sources, Dr. Darling-Hammond illustrates the critical role of teacher quality, offers how to refine the teacher education process, and provides for accessibility to high-needs areas. Through this detailed assessment, her Marshall Plan for Teaching (the Plan) fundamentally demonstrates what previous policy heretofore lacked: direct, purposeful attention and funding to the teacher-student relationship as a means to close the achievement gap in the United States.

A Marshall Plan for Teaching

The recovery of Europe has been far slower than had been expected. Disintegrating forces are becoming evident. The patient is sinking while the doctors deliberate. So I believe that action cannot await compromise through exhaustionwhatever action is possible to meet these pressing problems must be taken without delay (Bryan, 1991 p. 493).

These are the words of former Secretary of State George C. Marshall as broadcasted to a national radio audience upon his return from Moscow. The content of his speech centered on the current economic status in Europe and, the following day, he ordered his staff to proscribe constructive recommendations for the European mess (Bryan, 1991). Eventually would follow the Marshall Plan: the underscoring of critical problems still affecting a war-torn Europe and the invitation for the nations of Europe to craft their own coordinated program of economic reconstruction with pledged United States assistance (Steinberg et al, 1997). Though the Marshall Plan often bears recognition as one of the great foreign economic policy achievements of the 20th century (Eichengreen et al, 1992) its contributions to policy thought extend beyond those of the originating circumstances. Outside of the specific context to which the Marshall Plan was tiedforeign economic policythe process used for properly applying aid for purposes of reconstruction is applicable to different policy realms. In the context of education policy, certain aspects of the Marshall Plan as a process merit replication; specifically: recognizing that structural reform takes time but, effective aid can still improve living standards more quickly by getting direct assistance to selected existing enterprises while still pressing for needed reforms (Steinberg et al, 1997). In the realm of education policy and reform, Linda Darling-Hammond, Ed. D. has attempted exactly that. During her time as Executive Director of the National Commission on Teaching & Americas Future, she co-authored the publication What Matters Most: Teaching for Americas Future (1996) that addressed, above all else, the need for a qualified teaching force in the United States to combat the current lacking issues in American public education. Though it included much discussion and data on the needs of teacher quality, it does state

succinctly the crux of education policy reform wherein the bottom line is that there is just no way to create good schools without good teachersschool reform cannot be teacherproofed (p. 10). Mention of the inability of education policy to teacher-proof acknowledges the necessity of teacher quality in education reform, the role teachers play in schools for effective student performance, and the apparent lack of current policy reform to address teacher quality directly. Unmediated attention to these issues, she argues, would already have in place measures and action that take into account the student-teacher relationship, such that all students have access to teachers who are indeed highly qualified (Hearing before the Subcommittee, 2007); but, this is not the case. The present situation is in need of a Marshall Plan. Currently the teaching profession, analogous to the post-World War II European economic situation, is in shambles. If the future of the nation and the narrowing of the achievement gap rest upon students who are well taught, then that end can only be achieved by well-educated, wellsupported teachers (National Commission for Teaching and Americas future, 1996). While most states have long had surpluses of candidates in elementary education, English, and social studies, there are inadequate numbers of teachers trained in high-need areas like mathematics, physical science, special education, bilingual education and English as a Second Language (ESL). Further, teacher shortages in poor urban and rural schools are usually met by lowering standardsan especially dysfunctional response because the students in these schools need the most highly skilled teachers if they are to close the gap (Hearing before the Subcommittee, 2007).

Increasing Teacher Supply and Quality in High-Need Fields and Locations

Under this heading as presented to the Subcommittee on High Education, Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness, Committee on Education and Labor, United States House of Representatives (2007), Dr. Darling-Hammond outlined the first three steps toward improving the teaching profession along with a corresponding financial plan:

1.

Service scholarships for entering teachers, with special focus on high-need fields and locations (40,000 @ $25,000 each = $1 Billion annually;

2.

Recruitment incentives for expert, experienced teachers to teach in high-need schools (50,000 teachers x $10,00 stipends ($500 million) + $300 million to improve teaching conditions in high-need schools = $800 million); and

3.

Improved preparation for teaching high-need student and for programs in high-need areas ($500 million, including $200 million for state-of-the-art teaching schools partnered with universities in hard-to-staff communities) (p.50).

1. Service Scholarships For Entering Teachers Presented and discussed in this order, this first criterion of the Marshall Plan for Teaching targets a fundamental bane of the teaching profession: attracting the right candidates. This step emphasizes the evident fact that: all the appropriate teaching reform efforts do not serve the intended purpose if the people willing and able to teach well are not supplied. To this end and in great detail, Dr. Darling-Hammond outlines how to potentially lure high-quality candidates into teacher education specifically for high-need fields and

locations. Going beyond the too few, existing federal grants, the Marshall Plan for Teaching insists that the federal government maintain a substantial, sustained program of service scholarships that completely cover training costs in high-quality pre-service or alternative programs at the undergraduate or graduate level for those who will teach in a high-need field or location for at least four years (Hearing before the Subcommittee, 2007). Supporting the four-year commitment, Dr. Darling-Hammond provides that after three years, teaching candidates are much more likely to remain in the profession and make a difference for student achievement (Hearing before the Subcommittee, 2007; National Commission on Teaching & Americas Future, 1996). As the original Marshall Plan sought strategic investment for the reconstruction of European economy (Steinberg et al, 1997), following from this stage in the Plan, nearly all of the vacancies currently filled with emergency teachers (those insufficiently trained) could be filled with talented, well-prepared teachers if 40,000 service scholarships of up to $25,000 were offered annually, totaling $1 billion (Hearing before the Subcommittee, 2007). Taking into account undergraduate, graduate, and mid-career recruits, scholarships to ensure teacher quality would be awarded accordingly: on the basis of academic merit and indicators of potential success in teaching, such as perseverance, capacity and commitment; targeted especially to areas of teaching shortage as defined nationally and by individual state, and awarded in exchange for teaching four years in priority schools, defined on the basis of poverty rates and educational needs (Hearing before the Subcommittee, 2007 p. 50). Implications of this first criterion challenge the current dysfunctional practice of lowering teaching standards to supply high-need urban and rural populations. Dr. DarlingHammond provides that fully prepared beginning teachers are twice as likely to stay in teaching as those who enter without complete training. And, because high turnover rates for

untrained teachers cost urban districts hundreds of millions of dollars in attrition costs, the district shortages in teacher supply could be reduced rapidlyas fewer teachers would need to be hired to replace those who lefthence eventually compensating for the $1 billion annually invested federal aid (Hearing before the Subcommittee, 2007).

2. Recruitment Incentives For Expert, Experienced Teachers Upon establishing the need for high-quality candidates to join the teaching profession, attention and focus turns to the second blight of the teaching profession: attrition management. To keep high-quality teachers in high-poverty communities, schools need to offer working conditions that support teacher and student success. Hence, the Plan advises federal aid of $300 million as sufficient to address, teaching conditions including: smaller classes, pupil loads, administrative supports, time for teacher planning and professional development (Education Week, 2007). Though working conditions are cited as a significant element for keeping qualified teachers in critical high-need classrooms, a figurative elephant in the room with regard to teacher attrition, frankly, is salary compensation. This feat will be adequately addressed with $500 million to provide $10,000 in additional compensation for 50,000 teachers annually and would be allocated to expert teachers through state- or locally-designed incentive systems (Hearing before the Subcommittee, 2007). A 2002 study by Michigan State University Professor Peter Youngs supports the impact of salary compensation on teacher retention finding that the Connecticut Beginning Educator Support and Training program and higher teacher salaries combined kept teacher attrition low (Toch & Rothman, 2008). Though Toch and Rothman (2008) do not indicate to what degree salary played in low attrition rates for the Bristol and New Brittan school districts, the presence of salary compensation as a contributing factor in

the Youngs study parallels Darling-Hammonds own contention that a combination of salary incentives and improvements in teaching conditions are required to hedge against new teacher attrition (Education Week, 2007). The Plan acknowledges and accepts the critical association between teacher attrition and salary by incorporating this knowledge accordingly. The second criterion supports teacher compensation and working conditions as vital to maintenance for a strong teaching profession. As Executive Director of the Commission on Teaching & Americas Future (1996), Dr. Darling-Hammond et al, confirm that without abandoning the important objectives of the current salary scheduleequitable treatment, incentives for further education and objective means for determining paywe believe compensation systems should provide salary incentives for demonstrated knowledge, skill, and expertise that move the mission of the school forward and reward excellent teachers for continuing to teach (p. 95). 3. Improved Preparation For Teaching High-Need Students This final element of the first prong of Darling-Hammonds A Marshall Plan for Teaching draws direct comparisons between the field of medicine and the teaching profession. Her presentation before the Subcommittee is, in essence, an answer to the question loosely captured as: what can the federal government do about the current status of the achievement gap and the state of the current education system in the United States (Hearing before the Subcommittee, 2007)? Darling-Hammond begins her answer with an analogous example of federal attention to the field of medicine that is now needed for education policy:

A strategic role is needed to create an infrastructure for strong teaching across the country. Individual

innovative programs at the local level will not alone solve the problems we face. Federal strategies for enhancing the supply of teachers have precedents in the field of medicine as well as teaching. Since 1944, Washington has subsidized medical training to meet the needs of underserved populations, to fill shortages in particular fields, and to build teaching hospitals and training programs in high-need areas. This consistent commitment has contributed significantly to Americas world-renowned system of medical training and care. Intelligent, targeted subsides for preparation coupled with stronger supports at entry and incentives for staying in high-need schools are needed to ensure that all students have access to teachers who are indeed highly qualified (Aring before the Subcommittee, 2007)

If nothing more, this passage signifies that what was accomplished once before can be accomplished again with directed purpose and appropriate funding. Her belief that attention afforded to the medical profession can and should be reflected in education policy provides for acknowledgement that there is no coordinated system for helping colleges decide how many teachers in which fields should be prepared or where they will be needed. Neither is there regular support of the kind long provided in medicine to recruit teachers for highneeds fields and locations (Commission on Teaching & Americas Future, 1996, p. 38). With candid attention on improved preparation for high-need teaching, the Plan would allocate $300 million to enhance teacher preparation to teach all grade levels and 10

other high-need areas. Another $200 million of appropriated funds would provide for stateof-the-art teacher education programs in hard-to-staff communities and, similar to the medical profession, support teaching residencies and professional development school models serving to familiarize student teachers under tutelage of expert teachers (Education Week, 2007). In sum, this first prong of the Marshall Plan for Teaching brings the running total of federal funding to $2.3 billion dollars. To put into perspective this dollar amount on an investment in the economic security of a nation, the expenditure in 2007 on the campaign in Iraq neared $300 billion; Dr. Darling-Hammond contends that for less than 1% of this figure ($3 billion) annually, the United States could accomplish a serious effort towards teacher quality and teacher supply policy (Education Week, 2007). The following final details of the Plan highlight the remaining expenditure and a crucial feature necessary to maintaining the teaching profession: teacher performance evaluation and assessment.

Improving Teacher Retention and Mobility

Existing data and research regarding the high rate of attrition for the United States education system is appalling. Though discussed earlier by way of luring and keeping new teachers through salary incentive, actual statistics are very bleak: national data indicate an overall attrition rate of about 75% along the pipeline from the beginning of undergraduate teacher education through about the third year in teaching (National Commission on Teaching & Americas Future, 1996, p. 34). In appreciation of the stark statistics surrounding attrition, Dr. Darling-Hammond proposes the final steps in her Plan for the improvement of the teaching quality in the United States:

11

4.

Mentoring for all beginning teachers through investments in state and district mentoring programs (150,000 @ $4000 each = $600 million); and

5.

A high-quality, nationally available teacher performance assessment to guide training, improve quality, and facilitate interstate mobility ($100 million) (The Subcommittee 2007, p. 50).

4. Mentoring For All Beginning Teachers Mentoring is a crucial element for new teachers and, by that, for the teaching profession at large. Usually associated with a mastery for the ability to teach (Wang et al, 2003), mentoring supplies new teachers with confidence and a foundation upon which to build a solid teaching career instead of having to brave unfamiliar territory alone (Toch & Rothman, 2008). In homage to the role of teacher mentoring as support for teacher quality, DarlingHammond would like to allocate $4000 for each beginning teacherthese funds are to be matched by states or local districtsthereby providing funding for a mentor for every 10-15 beginning teachers; at 125,000 new teachers each year, an investment of $500 million could ensure that each novice is coached by a trained, accomplished mentor with expertise in the relevant teaching field (Hearing before the Subcommittee, 2007). As based on the funding model used in Californias successful Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment program (Education Week, 2007, p. 30), a complete and thorough mentoring practice for beginning teachers will help to buffer the alarming attrition rate.

12

At the time of the 2007 hearing, estimates provided that an average of $15,000 per teacher every year was needlessly lost due to teachers who abandon the profession, leaving a grand total of nearly $2 billon/year, literally, wasted (Hearing before the Subcommittee, 2007). The Plan imposes ample avenues of federal spending that fuel systemic progress eventually making up for those significant financial losses originating in high teacher turnover; to wit, the high costs of grade retention, summer school, remedial programs, lost wages and prison costs for dropouts (increasingly tied to illiteracy and school failure) (Hearing before the Subcommittee, 2007). Though this fourth criterion of the Marshall Plan for Teaching hints at the underlying premise that qualified, new teachers must be willing and present to produce the desired effect upon student populations, the only tried and true method for maintaining excellence in teaching is by filtering and weeding out those who do not belong to the profession (Wang et al, 2003). This notion is stressed in the most significant facet of the Plan: teacher assessment.

5. High-Quality, Nationally Available Teacher Performance Assessment This final level of the Marshall Plan for Teaching needs $100 million to guarantee teacher performance assessments measure actual teaching skill in the content areas, and which can facilitate interstate mobility (Hearing before the Subcommittee, 2007). Here, the Plan illustrates something other industrialized nations have demonstrated for some time in their respective educational systems. Perhaps having an element of centralized certification can be beneficial instead of being viewed as a negative imposition of local authority. DarlingHammond supports this assertion with providing federal support of $100 million for the development of nationally available, performance assessment for licensing would not only

13

prove a useful tool for accountability and improvement, but it would facilitate teacher mobility across the states if it were part of an effort to unify the current medieval system of teacher testing that has resulted in 50 separate fiefdoms [feudal estates] across the country (The Subcommittee, 2007, p. 52). In Wang et als Preparing Teachers Around the World (2003), they posit that other industrialized countriesJapan, Singapore, Korea, Netherlands, etc.with centralized education systems allow for tighter control over teacher education and certification yielding more regulation over who can become eligible for the teaching profession. Their findings were spurred by evidence that certain nations produced eighth graders who were more successful in Math and Science scores on the Repeat of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. In consideration of what could account for such improved scores over the United States eighth graders, Wang et al (2003) overwhelmingly found that centralized education policy does have a significant effect on student performance. If there is any level for which the federal government should mandate regulation to achieve closure of the achievement gap, it is at the level of teacher certification and assessment. The inability of well-trained, well-prepared teachers to circulate throughout the country is an unfortunate condition of the current fragmented education situation (Wang et al, 2003). Dr. Darling-Hammond submits her determination for the role of centralized teacher evaluation and nationalized teacher accreditation (Education Week, 2007) to combat a worsening symptom.

Discussion Linda Darling-Hammonds Marshall Plan for Teaching demonstrated how to build a bridge across the achievement gap by outlining a directed response to the present lacking

14

support and development for teacher quality. At the hub of her policy directive rests the valued student-teacher relationship: a key principle of education policy that is inappropriately addressed and insufficiently supported in current education policy reform. As reiteration, the Plan identifies teacher quality as fundamental for student performance; it recognizes the importance of centralized elements within the United States education policy all while invoking state and local level action within a budget that is 1% of the 2007 funds ($300 billion) provided to Iraq. Yet, the Marshall Plan for Teaching was not implemented as outlined. To date, current education policy has not implemented nor recognized Darling-Hammonds criteria. Engaging an oppositional stance, the most potent contention is fiscal feasibility. Despite well-intentioned adherence to the $3 billion bottom-line, the Plan underestimated the actual costs of completion. An example: a compelling level of salary compensation. There was much ado in the Plan about providing a set amount to stimulate talented candidate involvement. Despite this contention, there was no acknowledgement that the $25,000 stipendthough a significant amountis not enough to draw potential high-quality teachers into high-need fields and locations. The question is that a persuasive amount for the intended purposes? is inevitable and lingers still.

Conclusion Despite pitfalls in fiscal approach, appeal of this program is in large part attributed to a comprehensive approach for elevating the teaching profession and an attempt to isolate the student-teacher relationship for increased student performance by means of an excellent, well-prepared teaching force. As illuminated throughout this discussion, prior education policy fails in both aforementioned areas. The intended focus of this discussion was

15

essentially to draw attention toward misguided policy and wasted public funds. Hopefully, it was imparted that the ability to teach an entire nation encompasses numerous criterion; not least of which are attracting individuals to the teaching profession with the capacity to teach well; teaching education and retention, andof crucial importancemaintaining a level of teaching prowess that breeds an excellent teaching force and the student achievement sought. From these determinations, any exercise delineating the purpose of teacher evaluations need not venture beyond the function of the profession. This is to say that teacher evaluations should encompass a dual purpose: that of regulation for existing teachers and of improvement for the teaching profession. While the former aspect appears evident, the latter catches upon difficulties of simply achieving credentials versus actually having the skills and ability to teach subject matter to a diverse range of student ability (Toch & Rothman, 2008). Therefore, to produce student achievement for the Achievement Gap to narrow until non-existence, teaching ability through evaluation and teacher performance assessment must be recognized as the essential mechanism of direct federal action.

16

References Bryan, Ferald J. (1991). George C. Marshall at Harvard: A Study of the Origins and Construction of the Marshall Plan Speech. Presidential Studies Quarterly. 21(3) pp. 489-502. Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org.offcampus.lib.washington.edu/stable/pdfplus/27550768.pdf?a cceptTC=true Accessed: November 21, 2010. Darling-Hammond, Linda (2007). A Marshall Plan for Teaching: What It Will Really Take to Leave No Child Behind. Education Week 26(18). Retrieved from: http://www.edcoe.org/departments/curriculum_instruction/documents/031407CI LC_MarshallPlan.pdf Accessed: November 21, 2010. Eichengreen, B., Uzan M., Crafts N., & Hellwig M. (1992). The Marshall Plan Economic Effects and Implications for Eastern Europe and the Former USSR. Economic Policy 7(14). Pp. 1375. Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org.offcampus.lib.washington.edu/stable/pdfplus/1344512.pdf Accessed: November 21, 2010. McKinsey & Company (2007). How the Worlds Best-Performing Schools Systems Come Out on Top. Retrieved from: https://eres.bothell.washington.edu/eres/coursepage.aspx?cid=1559&page=docs Accessed: November 21, 2010. National Commission on Teaching & Americas Future (1996). What Matters Most: Teaching for Americas Future. Retrieved from: http://www.nctaf.org/documents/WhatMattersMost.pdf Accessed: November 21, 2010. Preparing Teachers for the Classroom: The Role of the Higher Education Act and No Child Left Behind: Hearing before the Subcommittee on Higher Education, Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness, Committee on Education and Labor, United States House of Representatives, 110th Cong., 1st Sess. 49 (2007) (Testimony of Linda Darling-Hammond, Professor, Stanford University) Retrieved from: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/education/index.html Accessed: November 21, 2010. Steinberg, D. J., Barry R. L., & Weiss C. (1997). Marshall Plan Productivity. Foreign Policy, 107. pp. 174-177. Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org.offcampus.lib.washington.edu/stable/pdfplus/1149368.pdf?ac ceptTC=true Accessed: November 21, 2010. Toch, Thomas & Rothman, Robert (2008). Rush to Judgment: Teacher Evaluation in Public Education. Education Sector Reports. Retrieved from: https://eres.bothell.washington.edu/eres/coursepage.aspx?cid=1559&page=docs Accessed: November 21, 2010.

17

Wang, A. H., Coleman, A. B., Coley, R. J., Phelps, R. P. (2003). Preparing Teachers Around the World. Educational Testing Service. Retrieved from: https://eres.bothell.washington.edu/eres/coursepage.aspx?cid=1559&page=docs Accessed: November 21, 2010.

18