Chapter 3: Effective Retention Strategies
Chapter Summary
Teacher turnover contributes to shortages, and teacher movement out of schools and out of teaching has adverse effects on the students and schools they leave behind. Teacher churning—the term used to describe a revolving door of teachers—is destabilizing for the students, staff, and community and undermines efforts to build a strong school culture rooted in trusting relationships—a key factor in student and school success. Turnover rates are higher in Title I schools and schools serving the largest concentration of students of color.[70] Strategies explored include improving teaching and learning conditions through adequate and equitable investments, providing mentoring and induction for new teachers, creating opportunities for ongoing professional learning and growth, and establishing collaborative leadership structures and practices.
It is not enough to recruit and prepare a more diverse teacher workforce. Creating thriving schools where students have access to the learning opportunities and supportive relationships essential to their social-emotional well-being and academic success also requires supporting and retaining teachers.
On average, roughly 8% of all teachers leave the profession each year, accounting for about 90% of the annual demand for teachers in the United States. Another 8% annually switch schools or districts.[71] Keeping more teachers in the profession—and reducing year-to-year teacher turnover among schools—is one of the most pressing equity issues in schools today. The cost of this revolving door of teachers is disproportionately born by students of color and students from low-income families.
Reasons Teachers of Color Leave Teaching
Responding to the federal teacher follow-up survey in 2013, teachers of color were more likely than the average teacher to list the following reasons as very or extremely important to their decisions to leave teaching:
Concern about compensation tied to performance
Lack of administrative support
Lack of classroom autonomy and school influence
Poor teaching conditions
Desire to pursue another career or improve their opportunities in education
Source: Carver-Thomas, D. (2018). Diversifying the teaching profession: How to recruit and retain teachers of color. Learning Policy Institute.
Although teachers of color and White teachers exit the profession at similar rates over time, turnover—or the combined rate at which teachers move to a new school or leave the profession—is higher for teachers of color (about 19% for teachers of color versus about 15% for White teachers).[72] This higher turnover rate is due, in part, to the fact that teachers of color are more likely to work in schools serving higher percentages of students of color, which are typically less well-resourced than schools serving predominantly White students.
Teachers of color also navigate a cascading set of challenges that contribute to higher-than-average turnover (see “Reasons Teachers of Color Leave Teaching”). In schools staffed by predominantly White teachers, teachers of color face isolation and are often expected to take on added duties, such as serving as the disciplinarian, being the expert on matters of cultural diversity, or coaching students on how to navigate racism. In the next chapter, we discuss the critical role that school leadership plays in creating an environment that supports teachers of color.
Improving Retention Is Key to Building Teacher–Student Relationships
In California, a collaboration between a student organization and its local school district calls attention to the impact of teacher turnover on students of color and developing strategies to recruit and retain teachers and build their capacity to support diverse students.
For the past 5 years, Californians for Justice (CFJ), a statewide student organizing network, has been engaged in recruiting and retaining teachers, especially teachers of color, in several school districts. The work grew out of CFJ’s Relationship Centered Schools (RCS) campaign, launched in 2015 when a statewide survey showed that 1 in every 3 students could not identify a caring adult on their school campus. That troubling statistic has propelled the campaign forward, intending to transform school culture and eliminate racial bias by building authentic relationships between students and school staff. CFJ has active RCS campaigns underway throughout the state—in Fresno Unified School District; East Side Union High School District in San Jose; Oakland Unified School District (OUSD); and Long Beach Unified School District. Although the work looks different in each district, it is grounded in three levers of change: creating space for relationship building, investing in school staff, and valuing students’ voices.
In Oakland, CFJ identified the district’s high teacher turnover rate—one study estimated that 71.5% of new teachers in OUSD leave within 5 years—creating a critical barrier to teachers and students forming relationships. To increase retention, in 2017, Oakland’s CFJ student leaders surveyed 84 teachers, interviewed principals and education policymakers, and held focus groups with teachers and students. Their findings echo research on teacher turnover showing that inadequate compensation, unsustainable teaching conditions, and a lack of ongoing mentorship and administrative support are key reasons for teacher attrition in the district, especially among teachers of color. Moreover, their research found that relationship building between students and staff is a pivotal contributor to school and teacher success.
For teachers of color, who often feel overworked and undervalued by administrators and colleagues, the obstacles to retention are even more significant. In response, CFJ has engaged in a number of efforts to increase job satisfaction for teachers of color, including centering co-learning in professional development to advance cultural awareness and relationships and working with the OUSD Office of Equity on student-led antibias training for school staff.
CFJ has also collaborated closely with the OUSD Talent Division to devise strategies for recruiting and keeping Oakland teachers in the district and the profession. Recruitment strategies have included marketing and outreach to teacher candidates attending HBCUs and minority-serving colleges and universities and expanding local GYO options to recruit and support residents to become teachers. As part of a shared commitment to elevating students’ voices, CFJ students are also part of the teacher hiring committee at Oakland High School.
Although some movement of teaching staff is expected and even healthy, high mobility rates—both from one school or district to another and out of the profession entirely—exact a heavy toll on the students and colleagues they leave behind. High turnover creates instability and undermines relationships, collaboration, and the building of institutional knowledge and culture. Not surprisingly, it also undermines the achievement of all students in a school—not just those with a new teacher.[73]
The process of replacing teachers also diverts much-needed financial resources away from classrooms. Urban school districts spend more than $20,000 to replace a single teacher.[74] Researchers estimate that school systems collectively spend more than $2.2 billion each year replacing teachers who have left their districts or the profession. Those are funds that could be spent on comprehensive mentoring and induction programs or other supports and opportunities that research shows increase teacher effectiveness, satisfaction, and retention.
The Cost of Turnover
Research suggests that the cost of replacing a single teacher can range from $9,000 for rural districts to more than $20,000 for large urban districts. Use this calculator from the Learning Policy Institute to estimate the cost of teacher turnover in your district.
Teacher turnover’s academic and financial costs are disproportionately borne by students of color and students from low-income families, who attend schools with higher turnover rates and are more likely to rely upon teachers with little to no preparation to fill vacancies. For example, an analysis of Civil Rights Data Collection 2014 and 2016 data on teacher qualifications and experience found that in 2016, schools with high numbers of students of color were four times more likely to employ uncertified teachers than schools with a low enrollment of students of color.[75] An earlier study of data from the 2013–14 school year found similar patterns. It noted that uncertified teachers were also more common in schools with the most students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch than in those with the fewest students from low-income families.[76]
High-Impact Investments
This chapter explores key strategies and practices that build the capacity of teachers to support their students and colleagues and stay in the profession for the long haul. These include supports for beginning teachers, ongoing professional learning opportunities that enable all teachers—no matter where they are in their careers—to expand their knowledge and refine their skills, and cultivation of collegial school environments that provide ample opportunities for collaboration and shared leadership.
The chapter concludes with a discussion of the critical role of adequate and equitably distributed resources and highlights one evidence-based equity strategy, community schools. Without sufficient funding, schools and districts cannot adequately invest in high-quality, tailored teacher support and development and lack the resources to create the safe, well-equipped, and fully staffed school environments vital to teacher retention and student success.
Induction and mentoring
Mentoring and Induction Toolkit
The Center on Great Teachers and Leaders has developed a Mentoring and Induction Toolkit for states working closely with districts to build strong mentoring and induction programs. Toolkit materials summarize research and best practices, highlight relevant examples, and provide streamlined processes for action planning.
Even for teachers who have completed a high-quality preparation program, the first years of teaching are challenging. Strong induction and support for novice teachers during their first years in the profession can increase their success and effectiveness. Further, teachers who participate in a high-quality induction program stay in the profession at rates that are twice as high as those who do not receive this early support.[77]
National statistics from the Schools and Staffing Survey indicate that the vast majority of first-year teachers participate in some kind of induction program.[78] However, the term can refer to a variety of activities for new teachers, including everything from brief orientation sessions and occasional seminars to the assignment of a mentor who provides extensive coaching and feedback over one or more years. Research points to several key elements of high-quality induction programs, including having a mentor from the same field, having common planning time with other teachers in the same subject, and having regularly scheduled collaboration with other teachers. However, only a small proportion of beginning teachers receive this comprehensive set of supports.[79]
Teacher retention is a particularly pressing issue in schools serving high numbers of students of color and students from low-income families. Although these schools tend to have a greater number of novice teachers, they also typically have weaker induction programs, mainly due to resource constraints and a mismatch between the number of expert teachers on staff available to mentor and the number of novice teachers needing mentoring.[80] The result is a revolving door of early-career teachers that limits a school’s ability to provide students with the quality instruction and support they need and deserve.[81]
In contrast, high-quality induction can change the experience and career trajectory of new teachers. For example, one analysis of the Texas Beginning Educator Support System (TxBESS) found that program participants left teaching at significantly lower rates than novice teachers in Texas who did not participate in TxBESS. Additionally, the analysis found improved retention rates were high among participating teachers working in schools serving large numbers of students of color and students from low-income families. Attrition rates tended to be quite high at these schools, where teachers of color are most likely to teach. The finding suggests that participation in a strong induction program would be particularly beneficial for teachers of color.[82]
The important role of state policy
State policies can be instrumental in determining the availability and the quality of teacher induction programs. One important lever is requiring that new teachers participate in an induction program or receive mentoring support to earn full professional certification. In a 2019 analysis of state policies, the Education Commission of the States (ECS) reported that 31 states require induction and mentoring support for new teachers.
Such policies vary, but typical components include the number of years a new teacher must participate in induction and parameters around what the programs must include. Policies on whether school districts are required to offer and/or bear the cost of the programs are more variable, and current analysis of state policies is not available. In 2016, the New Teacher Center reported that 16 states provided at least some funds, but only 9 of those states provided funding to all their school districts.[83]
Experience suggests that states’ financial support for induction and mentoring programs is vulnerable in economic downturns when education funding levels drop. Mentoring and induction programs became more widely available in the United States during the 1990s and early 2000s, but many programs then lost funding during the Great Recession. Data from the National Center for Education Statistics Schools and Staffing Surveys indicated that far fewer new teachers were receiving mentoring in 2012 than in 2008.[84] Some states, however, have continued to provide strong support for their induction programs, including Connecticut, Delaware, and Iowa.
State policies to support induction
Connecticut Teacher Education and Mentoring Program
Connecticut has required teacher mentoring since the early 1990s. In 2009, the state established a new statewide, district-driven teacher induction program for all new teachers—the Teacher Education and Mentoring (TEAM) program. As part of the TEAM program, new teachers are paired with a mentor who coaches and guides them through their first two years in the profession. Beginning teachers work with their mentors to set goals, implement new learning in the classroom, and receive feedback on their teaching practice and student outcomes.
In a 2013 evaluation of TEAM, beginning teachers overwhelmingly reported that the program positively impacted their practice. Specific benefits included:
reflection time with their mentors on teaching effectiveness;
discussions about establishing safe and productive classrooms; and
identification of strategies for using assessment data to make instructional decisions.
Connecticut allocates funds to school districts based on the annual budgets they submit as part of their 3-year plans for their local TEAM programs. According to the ECS analysis of induction policies, Connecticut’s state regulations require that mentors (or mentor teams) and beginning teachers receive at least the equivalent of 4 school days of release time annually to engage in mentoring activities.
Delaware Comprehensive Induction Program
Delaware requires that all new teachers participate in a 4-year induction and mentoring program to advance their license. The Comprehensive Induction Program (CIP) requires several activities characteristic of high-quality induction:
weekly meetings between mentor and novice teachers to provide real-time support;
8 lesson observations (four observing and four being observed) in each of the first 2 years; and
participation in evidence-based professional learning during every program year.
The state requires districts to pay a salary supplement to teachers and administrators who act as mentors. In addition, the Delaware Department of Education (DDOE) created a competitive grant program to fund the development and/or delivery of new, innovative induction models. In the first five rounds of the grant, the state awarded about $1 million in funding to districts and charter schools.[85]
Delaware’s commitment to continuously improving its induction and mentoring support for new teachers appears to be associated with improved teacher practice and teacher retention. In a 2017 statewide survey of teachers,[86] the vast majority of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed that the additional supports:
improved their instructional practice (78%);
helped them to impact their students’ learning (79%); and
were important in their decision to continue teaching at their current school (71%).[87]
Iowa Mentoring and Induction Program
Iowa has prioritized teacher induction since 2001. That is when the Iowa legislature enacted the Teacher Quality Act, which expanded teacher induction statewide and made it a requirement for second-tier teacher licensure,[88] which awards a teacher a professional certification or license. By 2018, the Iowa Mentoring and Induction (M&I) program was supporting approximately 3,000 first- and second-year teachers across the state.
Iowa’s M&I framework gives districts the flexibility to design programs that fit their local needs and contexts. The program provides general outlines that districts must follow when developing their induction programs. For example, it stipulates minimum levels of beginning teacher support, including release time to design lessons and plan with a mentor, opportunities to observe experienced teachers, and constructive feedback on instruction. Districts, however, are responsible for designing programs that include meaningful activities that support the Iowa teaching standards and meet the needs of beginning educators.
Iowa’s M&I structure provides evidence-based minimum induction requirements but offers broad flexibility in program design. This combination offers the benefit of district tailoring and appears to have long-standing support in the state. However, the flexibility and variability of this approach complicates rigorous evaluation of its overall effectiveness.
Up until 2018, Iowa supported the program by distributing $1,300 to districts and Area Education Agencies for each first- and second-year educator, with $1,000 of each payment going toward mentor stipends and the remainder toward other program costs. The state allocated more than $4 million to the statewide mentoring program for 2016–17.
In 2018, the Iowa General Assembly made the M&I program voluntary for school districts while still requiring that beginning teachers complete some form of induction and mentoring. Oversight of the M&I program is now housed under the state’s Teacher Leadership and Compensation (TLC) program, and the separate allocation for the program has been eliminated. Districts can choose to provide induction support using an M&I program or a locally designed option within a district’s TLC program. (See Chapter 5.)
It is unclear how those changes will impact Iowa teachers’ access to induction and mentoring and the quality of those supports. Still, the original design remains a model worth exploring by states looking to design a high-quality induction program.
Ongoing Opportunities for Professional Growth and Learning
As in most professions, teachers need to update and improve their knowledge and skills continuously. Effective professional development ensures that teachers at whatever level in their careers have opportunities to learn new skills and practices, better equipping them to support students. However, professional learning investments often get crowded out by tight budget conditions and constraints on teachers’ time.
In 2018, about two thirds of states had policies requiring or encouraging teachers to undertake continued professional learning throughout their careers. Some have formal certifications for those who step into leadership roles. State and local policies can be instrumental in setting expectations, but they do less to ensure that learning experiences are of high quality.
A 2017 Learning Policy Institute analysis of 35 studies identified 7 shared features of effective professional development. According to the study, effective professional development: (1) focuses on content; (2) incorporates active learning utilizing adult learning theory; (3) supports collaboration, typically in job-embedded contexts; (4) uses models and modeling of effective practice; (5) provides coaching and expert support; (6) offers opportunities for feedback and reflection; and (7) is of sustained duration.[89]
Implementing effective professional development requires responsiveness to teachers’ and learners’ needs and the contexts in which teaching and learning will occur. Traditional approaches to professional development have often been “one-and-done” models that focus on a topic chosen by school or district administrators and do not provide time and space for teachers to work with the ideas they are exposed to. Recent research on best practices elevates the importance of involving teachers to determine what they need to best support their students and their professional growth.
High-quality professional development can be especially critical in supporting teachers with skills and competencies that they may not have learned in their original preparation but that are essential to creating and sustaining racially just classrooms and schools. These skills and competencies might include family engagement, social and emotional learning, culturally responsive teaching, and restorative justice.
In some schools and districts educators are learning with and from students and families of color to build the capacity of their predominantly White teacher workforce. They are helping teachers understand and address implicit bias, develop culturally responsive strategies to support students and partner with families, and learn more about the culture and assets of the diverse communities in which they teach. For example, in Oakland, CA, students at Oakland International High School (OIHS) lead their teachers on community walks at the start of each school year. Students, all recent migrants to the United States, and many unaccompanied minors, provide teachers with an up-close look at their lives and communities outside of school. Community School Manager Lauren Markham says of the walks:
[They are] professional development sessions [that] educate teachers about students’ backgrounds, challenges, [and] community and cultural assets and [about] the educational concerns of OIHS’s diverse students and families. They also serve to immerse teachers in the home environments of their students and allow students and family members to serve as leaders, inverting roles such that our teachers become the students and our students and families become the teachers [90].[ii]
Policies and guidance around professional learning and growth
Thirty-nine states have adopted the standards developed by Learning Forward that “outline the characteristics of professional learning that lead to effective teaching practices, supportive leadership, and improved student results.”
According to Learning Forward standards, to increase teacher effectiveness and improve student outcomes, professional learning should:
occur within learning communities committed to continuous improvement;
be led by skilled facilitators who develop capacity, advocate, and create support systems for professional learning;
prioritize, monitor, and coordinate resources for educator learning;
use a variety of sources and types of student, educator, and system data to plan, assess, and evaluate professional learning;
integrate theories, research, and models of human learning to achieve its intended outcomes;
apply research on change and sustain support for the implementation of professional learning for long-term change; and
align its outcomes with educator performance and student curriculum standards.
Many of the most respected professional learning initiatives, including those described in this chapter, use approaches that are consistent with the Learning Forward standards.
As is the case with induction and mentoring programs, funding for professional development is particularly vulnerable when school systems and states reduce education funding. Conversely, state policies can incentivize local school districts around the quantity and the quality of professional development they provide. California serves as one example. The state provided $490 million in Educator Effectiveness funding during the 2015–16, 2016–17, and 2017–18 school years, and the funds were accompanied by state guidance on how to maximize effectiveness. The funds, designated to support the implementation of the state’s new academic standards, could also be used for beginning teacher and administrator induction and mentoring.
Supporting teachers’ continued growth and leadership
For experienced teachers who want to stay in education, too often the only path toward advancement and increased compensation is to leave the classroom to become a site or district administrator. However, high-quality, teacher-led professional learning opportunities can provide experienced teachers with challenging and engaging opportunities to deepen their skills, develop their leadership, and, often, earn a salary increase or bonus.
National Board Certification, overseen by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS), represents one of the most widely respected and available professional growth opportunities for experienced teachers. The National Board Standards define what accomplished teachers should know and be able to do in 25 certificate areas. Many state departments of education, school districts, teachers unions, institutions of higher education, and other educational organizations recognize the rigorous certification process and provide support to participating teachers, in some cases including fee assistance or salary enhancements (see Chapter 5).
Research shows that earning National Board Certification has a positive impact on participating teachers, their students, and their colleagues. National Board–certified teachers (NBCTs) appear to be more effective than colleagues with similar experience who have not earned the certification. They also provide substantial educational benefits to students from low-income families. Support for teachers’ cohorts to earn their National Board Certification has also been an effective school improvement strategy. Other benefits include accelerating learning gains for students taught by an NBCT-mentored teacher (compared to students whose teachers were not mentored by NBCTs). A 2020 report from South Carolina’s Center for Educator Recruitment, Retention, & Advancement concluded that turnover rates for the state’s NBCTs were significantly lower than those of all teachers in the state over a 5-year period. For example, in the 2018–19 school year, turnover for all South Carolina teachers was 9% and only 3.6% for the state’s NBCT teachers. (See Chapter 5 for examples of state policies to incentivize and reward teachers financially who have received National Board Certification.)
Micro-Credentials Gaining Traction
Micro-credentials offer teachers a way to be recognized for the skills they have, regardless of when or how they developed them.
Digital Promise, an organization that has taken a leading role in this movement, says micro-credentials “can provide new ways for school systems to recognize which teachers and administrators are accomplished in teaching certain skills and/or leading improvement efforts as well as provide highly personalized professional learning to help those with specific needs.”
The National Education Association (NEA) has launched its micro-credentialing system and platform as part of its Center for Great Public Schools. NEA is partnering with Digital Promise to make more than 150 micro-credentials that offer on-demand professional learning freely available to its members. NEA encourages teachers to work with their affiliate unions to create professional learning communities whose members complete the credentials together.
As of 2017, nine states were offering continuing education units (CEUs) through the Digital Promise ecosystem, and several more state proposals were pending approval. Beyond CEU approvals, several states include micro-credentials in their professional development structures, including Arkansas, North Carolina, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Tennessee.
In partnership with the Appalachia Regional Comprehensive Center, the Tennessee Department of Education developed a 3-year pilot to use micro-credentials for teacher professional development. The pilot began in the 2016–17 school year with 75 teachers and currently includes approximately 800 teachers. The program provides teachers with flexibility and choice, allowing them to earn micro-credentials in topics they believe are most relevant to their positions and professional learning needs.
Digital Promise has also published guidance for policymakers around the use of micro-credentials.
Professional Learning Program Descriptions
California Subject Matter Project
The California Subject Matter Project (CSMP) is a network of nine different projects, each with its own curricular focus. The nine project areas are: (1) arts, (2) global education, (3) history and social science, (4) mathematics, (5) physical education and health, (6) reading and literature, (7) science, (8) world languages, and (9) writing. The network’s overarching mission is “to improve student learning and literacy by providing comprehensive, content-focused professional learning for teachers, by building teacher leadership, and by creating and maintaining collaborative networks of k–12 teachers and university faculty.”
The network offers k–12 teachers the opportunity to partner with university scholars in education and academic disciplines. As a result, its professional learning programs are informed by the latest disciplinary and educational research. Working in communities of practice, educators focus on a problem of shared practice to develop, test, and refine new ways to improve instruction. The nine projects recruit, apprentice, and support teacher leaders through ongoing partnerships with local schools and districts. In 2018–19, approximately 25,000 educators from more than 1,200 school districts participated in CSMP professional learning opportunities. A 2018 study of professional learning opportunities in California describes the CSMP as “an important, structural approach to providing professional learning opportunities through networks connected to higher education.”
CSMP initially launched in 1988 but was discontinued for several years because of state budget cuts. The state reauthorized CSMP in 2011. The University of California, Office of the President, administers the network in partnership with the state’s k–12 and higher education systems. Each project has a statewide office, regional sites, and an advisory board. CSMP receives state and federal funds to help the state meet teacher-quality goals and assist its k–12 partners with whole-school reform efforts in low-performing schools. Projects and sites also receive grants from foundations, private industry, and other state and federal sources.
The broad curricular coverage of the CSMP projects, combined with the vertical integration of k–12 and higher education institutions, proved particularly valuable as the state grappled with virtual instruction challenges in 2020 as a result of COVID-19. An extensive offering of professional development programs and events was quickly made available to support educators throughout the state.
Instructional Leadership Corps
California’s Instructional Leadership Corps (ILC) develops and taps into the expertise of local teachers and other educators who lead ongoing professional development for peers in their districts. ILC is a collaborative project led by the California Teachers Association (CTA) in partnership with the Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education (SCOPE) and the National Board Resource Center (NBRC) at Stanford University.
ILC supports teacher leaders in developing professional learning that is attentive to local needs and attuned to teachers’ specific challenges. A 2019 study demonstrates the impact of leveraging teacher leadership to improve instruction. As they help shape their peers’ practice, teacher leaders’ own sense of professional efficacy increases. By broadening their professional reach beyond their classrooms, more experienced teachers can amplify their leadership skills, initiate innovative activities, and solidify professional relationships. ILC also aims to increase administrator involvement in instructional change and develop other structural arrangements that support collaboration. Districts often leverage grants and other local resources to sustain the work.
To maximize their learning, teachers are given opportunities to try out new strategies, receive feedback, address challenges in implementation, and iteratively improve throughout multiple workshops with advisors and coaches. Over time, ILC teams have also developed strategic relationships with district administrators, teacher associations, county offices of education, universities, and philanthropic organizations that support deep, widespread professional learning in schools.
The impact of the project has been significant. More than 32,000 educators in more than 2,000 schools and at least 495 districts statewide have participated in professional learning led by ILC teacher leaders since the initiative was established in 2014. Further, 30,000 more educators participated in ILC-related conferences and presentations, and 38,000 educators were indirectly impacted by the project, such as having ILC-trained instructional coaches.[91]
Advancing High-Quality Professional Learning
Local school and district leaders primarily drive teacher development and career progression. However, the Education Commission of the States points to structures and incentives that policymakers in many states are using to support high-quality systems for teacher professional learning.[93] These include:
creating a licensure system that allows teachers to advance beyond a standard professional license;
offering a teacher-leader licensure or endorsement, ideally based on adopted teacher-leader standards and/or a state-level definition of the role of the teacher leader; and
providing formal supports or incentives to those who become teacher leaders.
Esther Wu, an English teacher and the English Department coordinator at Mountain View High School in Mountain View, CA, and an ILC alumna, described her participation in the ILC as “a turning point” in her career: “I was able to learn how to provide professional development to my colleagues; I was learning from other colleagues; I was talking with teachers across disciplines, across schools and districts.… It helped me to see that these alliances and collaboratives that can form in education really help position educators to do even more impactful work.”[92]
National Writing Project
The National Writing Project (NWP) is a network of sites anchored at colleges and universities and serving teachers across disciplines and at all levels, from early childhood through university. The NWP network provides professional development, develops resources, generates research, and uses the knowledge its participants generate to improve improve learning and the teaching of writing in schools and communities.
NWP sites offer summer institutes for developing a leadership cadre of local teachers (called “teacher-consultants”); customized in-service programs for local schools, districts, and higher education institutions; and an array of continuing education and research opportunities for teachers at all levels.
Along with the importance of actively teaching writing and effective practices for doing so, the NWP’s national program model rests on these core principles:
Teachers at every level are the agents of reform, and universities and schools are ideal partners for investing in that reform through professional development.
Teachers who are well informed and effective in their practice can be successful teachers of other teachers and partners in educational research, development, and implementation. Collectively, teacher leaders are our greatest resource for educational reform.
A 2015 study by SRI is one of several that document significant gains in writing performance among students of teachers who have participated in NWP’s College-Ready Writer’s Program. The study found benefits to participating teachers and their students. For example, teachers in participating districts were more likely to teach students essential writing skills, such as connecting evidence to claims and selecting evidence from source material, than teachers who did not participate in the training.
One participating teacher reflected, “The professional development that [the Writing Project] put together and presented to us has been exceptionally helpful because everything that they have gone over has been something that we could immediately go back to the classroom and implement and see results.”[94]
Parent/teacher home visit to Frost Elementary family in Lowell, MA. Courtesy of 1647, 2016.
Parent Teacher Home Visits
Parent Teacher Home Visits (PTHV) are designed to foster deeper understanding and relationships of trust between educators and families. The national model, developed through a partnership between families and the teachers union in Sacramento, CA, includes a professional development component that has built the capacity of tens of thousands of teachers around the country since the program’s inception in 1998.
The training, developed and led by teachers and parents or caregivers, is designed to (1) build teachers’ understanding of the home visiting model, including its impact on relationships and student success; (2) prepare them to conduct culturally responsive home visits; and (3) teach them how to build on the practice for ongoing partnership with families. When COVID-19 necessitated the shift to distance learning, PTHV adapted its model and began training teachers in virtual, or “bridge,” home visits, deepening teachers’ capacity to build trusting relationships with students and families in a virtual setting. Teams comprising at least one parent or caregiver and teachers who have participated in home visits themselves lead in-person and virtual trainings.
National evaluations describe how the model was found to interrupt assumptions and implicit bias among participating parents, caregivers, and teachers. It also found that schools that systematically implemented the model “experienced decreased rates of student chronic absenteeism and increased rates of student English Language Arts and math proficiency.”[95]
Peer Assistance and Review
Originally implemented in 1981 by the Toledo Federation of Teachers in Ohio, peer assistance and review (PAR) is a model of professional learning and support that relies on teachers as educational experts to evaluate and coach their peers. Although still not commonplace, PAR programs have been established in districts across the country.
While specific features might vary, all PAR programs rely on a cadre of consulting teachers to provide instructional feedback to their novice and struggling veteran peers as part of a comprehensive system of evaluation and support. In Toledo, each consulting teacher typically manages a caseload of 10–20 teachers, and they provide feedback on teaching standards that become part of a teacher’s summative evaluation. In Toledo and elsewhere, a panel of union members and administrators (with typically one more teacher than administrator) oversees the program, including assigning consulting teachers, managing the budget, and acting on the recommendations of consulting teachers. Staffing recommendations to the superintendent require a majority vote plus one.[96]
Alongside providing evaluation and feedback, consulting teachers provide critical support and mentorship for early-career teachers, which may reduce early-career turnover. For example, in Rochester, NY, a school district that has had a PAR program in place since 1988, district officials report having an 88 percent retention rate among new teachers.[97] A key component of PAR is the distributed leadership model, which provides teachers instructional leadership opportunities that also serve to build collective ownership of instructional improvement.
Underpinning effective PAR programs are strong labor-management partnerships and collaborations. One study noted that union leaders and management “found common ground” in planning their PAR program.[98] Other critical elements include continuous training for all participants—consulting teachers and administrators—to ensure alignment of evaluation practices and criteria, clearly defined staffing roles, and a process for evaluating program effectiveness.[99]
One barrier to more widespread PAR implementation is cost—districts need to hire additional staff to fill in for consulting teachers when they are observing and supporting colleagues.
Senate Bill 13: Tribal History/Shared History
In 2017, Oregon passed Senate Bill 13: Tribal History/Shared History to develop a statewide curriculum that centers and acknowledges the rich culture and contributions of Native Americans in Oregon and to provide professional development to teachers to support their use of these valuable resources. This historic investment in Oregon’s education system is made possible by an agreement between the state of Oregon and the governments of each of the nine tribes that reside in the state. The initiative is an example of how states can partner with tribal nations to ensure teachers have access to the curriculum and training needed to educate students in the full and rich history of their states and regions.
The Tribal History/Shared History curriculum covers the Native American experience in Oregon, including tribal history, tribal sovereignty, culture, treaty rights, government, socioeconomic experiences, and current events. The initial 2-year rollout plan included three phases.
Source: Oregon Department of Education, Accessed 2021: Tribal History / Shared History. Also read and view more on the associated story page.
Phase One, completed in 2020, focused on developing the nine Essential Understandings of Native Americans in Oregon and on lesson plan development. The Oregon Department of Education (ODE) provided the nine tribal governments with resources to build place-based lesson plans specific to their tribes. ODE also contracted with Education Northwest to create lesson plans in grades 4, 8, and 10, informed by the Essential Understandings and aligned with state standards. Lesson plans provide teachers with an overview of which Essential Understandings and state standards are addressed, expected learning outcomes, materials needed, suggested activities, and further resources. Including these lesson plans and the Essential Understandings is a requirement for programs to receive Oregon’s GYO grants funds.
Phase Two focused on providing professional development for educators, a requirement of the legislation. ODE offers online professional development courses covering lesson plans, supports educators in implementing the curriculum, and offers professional development units for completing the course. More than 1,000 educators have accessed and participated in ODE trainings and professional development opportunities. Educators stay connected through an online support network that allows for discussion and questions on the new curriculum.
Phase Three began in the 2019–20 school year when educators started to implement the curriculum developed by the tribal nations. ODE continues to gather feedback from districts through a pre- and post-assessment evaluation process to inform improvements to professional development and support opportunities.
Lead by Learning: Supporting Educators in Their Professional Learning
High school English teacher Nina Portugal wanted to better understand her students’ progress as writers, so she recorded conversations with her students about their writing. In the process, she learned something about her own teaching. “I started to realize my own biases,” Portugal said. “I was completely talking differently to a student with an IEP than to a student without an IEP. In my head, one was the strong writer and one not strong.” Her perceptions showed in the grades the students were receiving.
Portugal shared her discovery with colleagues as part of her department’s work with Lead by Learning, a program of Mills College School of Education. Its services help education leaders to create conditions for adult learning and to build educators’ knowledge about how students learn:
This was our third year in partnership. We had built this community where I could go to my colleagues and say, “I need support.” I needed them to help me adapt my teaching. We had created this container where I was able to be self-reflective and get their support.
Lead by Learning describes its approach as a combination of specific mindsets related to the teaching profession and a set of practices that support adult and student learning.
Four key mindsets help create the conditions for adult learning that serve student learning:
Teaching, leading, and learning are uncertain and complex work.
Equity requires questioning assumptions.
Learning is fundamentally social and emotional for adults as well as students.
Agency and purpose drive curiosity and deep learning.
The most visible practice, and perhaps the most challenging for teachers, is “public learning.” Portugal’s willingness to present her teaching challenge to her colleagues and get their help epitomizes a learning culture. It stands in contrast to the more typical professional development approach of highlighting and displaying an educator’s most successful teaching practices as a model.
Integral to public learning is the practice of using data to make learners’ experiences visible. The necessary data are not dashboards and proficiency scores but data that provide a window into student thinking. When Portugal looked beyond the writing grades her students received to those conversations she recorded, she learned how they saw the writing process. That led her to questions about her own instruction.
Public learning is not, however, a one-way street. It depends on supportively challenging conversations between the public learner and his or her colleagues. Learning conversations that involve questioning a colleague’s idea or tackling a deeper purpose together are rare. Portugal and her colleagues benefited from having spent 3 years working together on their learning.
Practicing public learning through supportively challenging conversations and based on data about student learning becomes a strategy for equity when educators share collective goals. Portugal recognized the importance of changing her perceptions of students because she and her colleagues had identified an equity goal related to students with disabilities. Inviting other teachers’ perspectives on her insights was also an equity strategy, as everyone on her team then shared with her the responsibility for supporting those students.
Working Conditions Influence Teachers’ Career Decisions
Good learning conditions are also good teaching conditions.
Research has long shown that teachers’ working conditions affect their ability to teach well. The same conditions can also have direct implications for teacher attitudes about their work and their decisions to remain at their schools or in the profession. District and state-level investments in sufficient instructional materials and supplies, safe and clean facilities, reasonable student-to-teacher ratios, and adequate support personnel can positively affect teacher retention rates. Compared to other regions in the country, for example, the higher-spending Northeast region of the United States averages the lowest turnover rates across all district types.[100]
As is discussed in detail in the next chapter, principals play a critical role in teacher retention by creating a school climate in which staff are supported, respected, and provided opportunities for collaboration and shared leadership. Studies suggest that working environments are typically more challenging and less supportive for teachers of color, who experience unique adverse teaching conditions, dubbed an invisible tax, regardless of the quality of the schools in which they teach.
“Amplify created a safe space and a brave space for teachers of color to come together and take off the masks they carry with them on a daily basis .”
Recognizing the isolation, implicit bias, and overt racism experienced by teachers of color, many districts, such as those highlighted in Chapter 1, are revamping their hiring policies and working with school principals to improve school climate and working conditions and develop systems of support for teachers of color. In Kansas City, KS, for example, an annual convening designed by and for teachers of color—called Amplify—has grown into a regional community. Supported by the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, Amplify grew out of a desire to provide educators of color in the Kansas City bi-state region with an opportunity to build community, engage in networking opportunities, and help to create conditions that would support them in remaining in the profession—and in the area.
Explained Cornell Ellis, one of the founding organizers, “Amplify created a safe space and a brave space for teachers of color to come together and take off the masks they carry with them on a daily basis.”[101] Convenings provide educators of color in the region a chance to get to know colleagues while learning new skills. National education leaders of color provide participants with inspiration and validation of their contributions and their challenges working in schools and districts with predominantly White educators.
Karis Parker, another of the Amplify organizers, noted the tangible impact of attending one of the annual convenings. “I’ve seen many times when educators of color were likely on their way out, and then they connected to a new space and were rejuvenated to the work.”[102] Connections made at the weekend gathering extend and deepen throughout the year. Contributions to the education field, such as the Better Lesson’s Culturally Responsive Master Teacher Project, came from the Amplify community. These connection points even result in new professional opportunities, as they did for both Parker and Ellis.
Now the principal of Crossroads Academy in Kansas City, Parker was introduced to her superintendent at an Amplify event, which led to her current leadership position. Building on the mission of Amplify, Ellis now leads a new Kansas City-area nonprofit, Brothers Liberating Our Communities, whose aim is to support the development and retention of Black male educators in the region.
Responding to the desire of participants to stay connected throughout the year, Amplify started a Facebook page and coordinators are designing ongoing opportunities to bring educators of color together for support, professional learning, and action planning. “It’s a powerful space,” observed Parker. “There’s brilliance in the room.”
Assessing School Climate
To better understand how teachers experience their school environments, more than 18 states and many school districts have implemented teacher surveys.[103] One of the most commonly used surveys is the Teaching, Empowering, Leading and Learning (TELL) survey. While there is limited research on the impact of survey use on improving teaching and learning conditions, examples of uses in North Carolina and Kentucky demonstrate how survey use can inform policy and practice change. For example, North Carolina’s TELL survey results spurred statewide education initiatives, including increased planning time for teachers. In Kentucky, the state developed standards for teaching and learning, based on survey results.
A 2008 study of a representative sample of 25,135 k–12 teachers used a subset of questions from the Massachusetts’ TELL survey to identify which working conditions predicted teacher satisfaction, teacher career intentions, and student achievement growth. Teachers’ responses to questions related to school culture, principal leadership, and relationships among colleagues most strongly predicted teachers’ job satisfaction and career plans, according to the study. Researchers also found that responses to this subset of TELL questions were associated with growth in student achievement, even when controlling for student demographics.
In a subsequent 2017 study that included 24,645 schools across 16 states, researchers estimated the relationship between instructional leadership, teacher leadership (school leaders with an instructional focus) in schools, school characteristics, and student achievement. Researchers found that increases to instructional leadership are positively associated with school-level student achievement, even controlling for background school characteristics. Similarly, as teachers’ roles in leadership increase, school-level student achievement also increases. Notably, these relationships persist even after accounting for school background characteristics (e.g., percent of students from low-income families), although teachers at lower-poverty schools are more likely to report higher levels of teacher leadership.[104]
These findings suggest that the use of surveys (like TELL or another locally developed instrument) could help districts identify schools with whom to partner to improve working conditions to support teacher retention and student achievement. The federal Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) allows states to use surveys on teaching and learning conditions as one measure of school functioning in a multiple-measures school accountability system.
Community Schools Add Resources, Strengthen Relationships and Collaboration
View the Community Schools Playbook online.
Increasingly, communities and states are identifying community schools as an evidence-based equity strategy. Community schools focus resources on historically underserved communities. They create the infrastructure and foster the type of respectful and collaborative school community that enables students, families, and school staff to thrive. In many of these schools, close partnerships with the community have become a catalyst for inquiry-based learning, often connected to local issues of concern to students and families. What makes community schools unique is the combination of four key pillars (or features) that together create the conditions necessary for student success and well-being: (1) integrated student supports, (2) expanded and enriched learning time and opportunities, (3) active family and community engagement, and (4) collaborative leadership and practices.[105]
Although research on teacher retention rates in community schools is limited, opportunities for collaboration and shared leadership (Pillar 4) are highly valued by teachers and are associated with increased retention. A study from the Learning Policy Institute and WestEd showed that in North Carolina, increased access to collective leadership and increased community support and parent/family engagement (Pillar 3) can improve teacher retention.[106]
Case studies of community schools show this strategy’s promise. Research by the UCLA Center for Community Schooling, for example, describes the impact of providing the staffing, supports, and services to meet students’ needs together with a collaborative leadership structure. Researchers found that UCLA Community School, a k–12 school in Los Angeles, has maintained a teacher retention rate ranging from 80% to 96% over its 10-year history.
In their March 2021 brief on the impact of the school’s collaborative leadership policies, structures, and practices, the authors write:
Maintaining high retention rates at the UCLA Community School has been critical in providing students with a stable learning environment and in establishing a culture wherein teachers can conduct the collaborative work of revisiting and improving practice that taps into students’ strengths and talents and meets comprehensive needs. The school’s deliberate focus on workplace conditions—including teachers’ sense of leadership and decision-making power—contributes to this steadiness.[107]
State Investments in Community Schools
As was described in the Partnership for the Future of Learning’s Community Schools Playbook, Kentucky was the first state to invest in community schools through its funding formula. Beginning with its 1990 Education Reform Act, Kentucky has supported Family Resource and Youth Services Centers (FRYSCs) across the state. In 2008, Senate Bill 192 established Family Resource Centers, which serve elementary school–age children and provide early childhood education, after-school care, family education and literacy services, and health services and referrals. Youth Services Centers serve students in middle and high schools and provide career exploration and development, substance abuse education and counseling, and referrals to health and social services. Every school in which at least 20% of the student population is eligible for free or reduced-price meals may compete for FRYSC funding, which totaled $51.5 million in 2017 and supports more than 800 centers serving more than 500,000 students.
A 2016 study reported that educators, parents, and community partners believe the centers are “a necessary component of Kentucky educational programming.” The program, now recognized as the nation’s largest school-based family support initiative, has achieved strong results. According to Education Week’s 2016 Quality Counts rankings, Kentucky has moved from consistently having one of the country’s largest socioeconomic achievement gaps to outperforming half of all states academically. In the Building a Grad Nation 2015 Report, Kentucky was identified as having the smallest graduation rate gap in the country between students from low-income families and students not from low-income families.[108]
Since 2016–17, New York has allocated a portion of its school funding formula to support community schools in high-need districts throughout the state. Funds to support community schools’ development and sustainability have increased from $100 million in 2016–17 to $250 million in 2019–20 The state maintained this funding level in 2020–21. New York has also funded three Community Schools Technical Assistance Centers (CSTACs): the New York City CSTAC, the Central/Western CSTAC, and the Eastern CSTAC.[109]
More recently, the Maryland legislature in February 2021 approved the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future, a comprehensive effort to invest in and improve educational opportunities and outcomes for the state’s public school students. Beginning in fiscal year 2021, the state’s revised funding formula includes concentration-of-poverty grants to support the development of community schools. The grants are distributed in two phases, with a personnel grant first paying for a community school coordinator and a full-time health practitioner in qualifying schools. After completing a needs assessment, schools will receive a second per-pupil grant to support the establishment of a community school.[110]