Mills Teacher Scholars

Written by Claire Bove, Associate Director (more about Claire)

In the national conversation about education, many voices are asking questions about teacher quality: how do we quantify it? How should we report it? But shouldn’t we begin by asking, What is teacher quality? What does it look like? And how can we help teachers develop it, increase it, and share it?

In the Mills Teacher Scholars  program, we provide coaching and tools to teachers in East Bay schools, so that they can understand their students’ learning, and figure out what is getting in the way of learning. The teachers we work with frequently use standardized test scores and assessments such as benchmark tests and standard reading scores. For example, teachers rely on Diagnostic Reading Assessment scores to find out where students are having difficulty learning, but standardized assessments do not tell teachers what is getting in the way of learning, nor how to help a student overcome the obstacles to learning. The teacher scholars in our program collect data to find out how their students learn, and they work collaboratively to develop teaching strategies to help their students overcome obstacles to learning. The following example illustrates this process with Shelley Grant, an eighth-grade science Mills Teacher Scholar.

When Shelley wrote the words that follow, she had been teaching for five years, and had been a Mills Teacher Scholar for two years. At the beginning of those two years, she used the results from the standardized science test her students had taken at the end of the year as a catalyst for her inquiry. Her students’ scores on the questions about balancing chemical reactions were very low, so that is where she decided to focus her attention. In a paper that Shelley presented at AERA on the complexities of differentiation she writes:

[F]rom my first year’s data, I learned that counting atoms was the fundamental concept. Namely, students who mastered atom counting proceeded to learn how to balance a reaction. Students who could not atom count could proceed no further. Atom counting is the lock. From watching my year one video, I figured out how to engage my students in the fundamental task of atom counting.  My video data gave me the key.

The camera was framed on my focal student group: Eliki, Stephanie, Andrew, and Rondie (pseudonyms).  Their task for the period was to build molecular models. (We used model building at the start of this unit hoping to give students a concrete introduction to atoms and molecules before introducing the abstract chemical language of chemical reactions.) Eliki was my FBB student in the group. He struggled to learn science. This activity was designed specifically for him.

Stephanie, Andrew, and Rondie dutifully built the assigned molecules (CH4, H2O, CO2). Eliki built bracelets, dogs, and spinning tops. On several occasions during the video sequence, I stop at his table and try to get him back on task. But in each case, when I walk away, he returns to his own creations. In the same video sequence, I observed other students coming to my Eliki’s table to show him their elaborate designs. In each case, they had not built the assigned molecules. They built their own creations. At the end of the segment, the video shows Eliki copying all the drawings and atom counts from Andrew who had made all the assigned molecules. Eliki, as well as many other students, did not learn to count atoms or balance chemical reactions. Conversely, Andrew, Stephanie, and Rondie, who had build and drawn all the molecules and counted atoms, learned to balance chemical reactions.

As a classroom teacher, I was horrified to watch Eliki off-task for much of the period. I was disappointed that he had missed the opportunity to complete the activity that was planned with him in mind, and that he didn’t learn to count atoms or balance chemical reactions. But then I realized that it wasn’t Eliki who was at fault, but it was the curriculum. It was the activity that had failed to engage him. He and his classmates wanted to build molecules, just not the boring ones we had assigned. So in the second year of my study, I took advantage of my students’ creativity and love of building. I let the students build their own molecules and count the atoms. It worked beautifully. Nearly all my students learned to count atoms and subsequently balance chemical reactions. After finding the key, I could unlock the lock.

The approach Shelley took to understand how students, and especially students who struggle with chemistry, learn was very specific and fine-grained. She looked at one Far Below Basic student, Eliki, learning (or rather, not learning) one specific skill: balancing chemical equations. She spent considerable time looking at one piece of videotape, a piece of videotape that questioned her teaching ability. Together with other Mills Teacher Scholars, Shelley found that the “best practice” she was using, an adult-designed, hands-on, kinesthetic activity, intended to engage students, failed to engage Eliki (and probably others).

By struggling to understand what had gone wrong, by using her colleagues’ insights, by noticing what did engage this student, that is, creating his own “molecules,” Shelley was able to design an activity that would engage all students. The result was that, in the second year of her study, nearly all of her students were able to balance chemical equations. Furthermore, by sharing with the other teachers in her department the lessons she developed through this inquiry, nearly all the students in the eighth grade at her school are now able to master this difficult skill, in stark contrast with students from past years.

There are two important points about this study: first, it took a collaborative effort to figure it out. It was not one teacher toiling alone in her classroom to discover what was wrong, and to figure out how to make it right. It took collaboration among a small group of Mills Teacher Scholars to notice Eliki’s actions and interest and to redefine this as an asset to exploit in future teaching. Furthermore, the results have benefited more than just Shelley’s students in that one classroom. A new teacher coming to her school, the colleagues who did not take part in this inquiry, and a teacher who will join the department in the future, all benefit from her insight and teaching that followed.

Second, this study of Shelley’s took time: two years. If Shelley had been assessed on the quality of her teaching after that first year with the results of the standardized test that she had used to decide where to focus her inquiry, she would have failed. She is currently studying how her students learn graphing, and she is in the third year of that study, the implications of which include changing the way graphing is taught in her department from sixth through eighth grade.

As we continue the conversation about teacher quality, let’s listen to the voices of educators who have a deep and nuanced understanding of teaching and learning: to Pam Grossman on the essential role of teacher retention in the development of teacher quality ; to Linda Darling-Hammond on the importance of treating teachers as professionals, providing them with opportunities to learn with one another:  what keeps good teachers in schools; to Anthony Cody on the complex nature of learning, and of the relationship between great teaching and dynamic learning.

And most importantly, let’s listen to the voice that has so often been left out of this conversation, that of teachers.

Written by Carrie Wilson, Executive Director (more about Carrie)

After more than a decade of placing far too much emphasis on standardized test results, there is (finally) growing acknowledgement that standardized tests cannot be considered a reliable measure of what students know. The discussion is shifting to focus on formative assessments, which provide teachers with information that can actually shape instruction and change the learning opportunities for their students.

However, in school districts’ drive towards common formative assessments, there is risk of over-simplifying, yet again, what it means for a teacher to understand student learning – the commonly assumed purpose of formative assessment. We rarely hear new ideas about what is actually involved for a teacher or a team of teachers to create and analyze assessments that provide information about student understanding. Perhaps even less likely is to hear if and how teachers communicate those results in a meaningful way to students and, eventually, to families and administrators.

Last week I received an email message from Tracey, one of the teacher scholars I work with through the Mills Teacher Scholars, a teacher learning program of the Mills School of Education. Her message highlights the work of using formative assessment data to inform instruction. Over the course of the school year Tracey has been working with her colleagues in our monthly meetings at her school-site to understand what independent reading should look like for her Kindergarten students—particularly those who struggle to settle in and engage with their books. Tracey’s school is in its second year of implementing a reading curriculum that relies heavily on kids finding “just right books” and spending a significant amount of time in their school day using those books for multiple purposes.

In a classroom of 21 five- and six-year-olds, it was hard for Tracey to keep track of what individual students were doing (and were not doing) during independent reading time. She did know that there were a few students who were struggling to engage with the text independently. As part of her Mills Teacher Scholars inquiry project she decided to video tape these focal students during reading time in a systematic way so that she could understand what was and was not happening. For the past few months, Tracey has been watching these videos with colleagues, trying to use these video data to come up with ways to support her students to better engage with their books.

In her recent e-mail she writes:

I have to tell you that my focal student had a real breakthrough during Independent Reading today. Last night, I was watching a 12-minute video of him during the Private Reading portion of Independent Reading. He had his eyes on print for a total of about 1 minute. Then I watched him with his partner in Partner Reading, same thing. They did not read one book together. Of course, it was very disheartening to see, but the reason I am doing this work, right?

Both Tracey’s close look at what is happening in her class through the use of video data and her willingness to face what is not happening, even if it is disappointing, are essential features in her quest to understand her students’ learning. Looking closely and acknowledging what her students are and are not able to do, rather than discussing the intentions of the lesson or framing the problem as a student deficiency (a common responses in this high stakes/pacing guide-driven world of public education) opens the door to meeting her students where they are and appropriately planning for where they will go next.

Tracey continues in her e-mail, sharing what she did with one of her focal students, after the Mills Teacher Scholars meeting at her school site.

This morning before school started, I showed him the “movie” I made of him and we talked about how his eyes were hardly ever on the book. We completed the Kindergarten version of a goal setting sheet…. (I made it yesterday immediately after our Mills Teacher Scholars meeting.) We also set a goal for him to keep his eyes on his book during Private Reading. I told him that I would make another movie of him and we would watch it to see if he reached his goal.

Tracey pulled both of her focal students aside and they watched a short clip of the day’s recordings. She writes that

We then made an assessment of whether or not they reached their goal based on the rubric on the goal sheet. Everybody saw that they both reached Superhero status and they were both thrilled! I cannot believe how motivating this was for both of them. You can really see it in the video. I’m especially excited to see if this motivation will be sustained by continual use of the goal sheet (without looking at the videos each time) and how I can bring this to the entire class without it being too time consuming.

In getting more clear about what her students are doing during private reading and about which element to focus on with these students—in this case eyes on text—Tracey is able to enter a partnership with her students where the students can take an active role in their learning. On one level, the goal chart serves as a formative assessment of their independent reading progress; but it is the video data that give Tracey the information she needs to present a goal sheet in a way that would precisely address the needs of these particular focal students.

Tracey’s story provides an example of the multiple steps a teacher takes in using formative assessments to determine what her students know. As a community interested in improving learning outcomes for all children—especially those children who struggle in school—let’s find more ways to support teachers as they develop the skills required to plan and implement formative assessment.

Written by Dr. Anna Richert,  Faculty Director of Mills Teacher Scholars (more about Anna).

Given Bill Gates’ fiscal role in supporting matters educational, I was happy to read his NYTimes OP-ED piece opposing the publication of individual performance assessments of teachers.  Gates claims he is not against teacher evaluation per se, but, he writes, “publicly ranking teachers by name will not help them get better at their jobs or improve student learning.” I agree.  At the same time I wonder if Gates is overly optimistic with his assumption that the purpose of teacher evaluation—conceived as it is with this “value added” scoring and then publishing methodology—is actually designed to improve teaching and student learning. As implemented, the connection is not clear.

Designed as a means to promote teacher learning and build practice rather than judge teachers and rank them, the Mills Teacher Scholars (MTS) provides support for teachers to explore areas of their teaching that they want to improve, and then support for making the changes that will help them better meet their students’ learning needs. Teachers identify an area of the school curriculum where students struggle.  They frame a question about their students’ learning in that area about which they want to gain understanding.  They pursue this question by systematically collecting examples of student work over time, and collaboratively analyzing that work with colleagues who help them make sense of what the students do and do not know as well as what they can and can not yet do. Teacher learning about student learning is at the heart of the Mills Teacher Scholars work. Only with a deep understanding of student learning—one that goes beyond the reading of a standardized test score—can teachers alter their practice in ways that open up new and targeted opportunities for their students to achieve academic success.

Aija, one of seven Mills Teacher Scholars at New Highland Academy in Oakland, provides an example. Aija is a fifth grade teacher and a four-year teacher scholar.  Last year she focused her MTS work on her students’ reading comprehension after identifying their low scores on the state standardized test.  She learned that she needed to make her students’ thinking both more visible to them and to her. In response she developed a new methodology for teaching students what it meant to “think while you read.”  After experiencing excellent student learning outcomes and presenting her research findings at a school-wide forum, several of Aija’s colleagues decided to try that methodology in their reading instruction as well.

Developing a robust multi-faceted approach to evaluating teachers is clearly needed as we work to eliminate the achievement gap and reach better academic outcomes in our nation’s public schools. Publicizing teachers’ evaluation scores strikes me completely counter productive to that goal. Not only is it disrespectful of the teachers, it misrepresents the incredibly complex work they do.  I fear the outcome will be to shut teachers down rather than open them to change.

If we are aiming for better student outcomes, a more urgent need in our nation’s public schools than evaluating and ranking teachers is a system-wide teacher-directed opportunity for professional development. Let’s move away from ranking teachers and instead support them to develop their practice.  My suggestion is we begin by drawing on the expertise and professionalism of teachers by soliciting their ideas about areas of needed growth. They are “on the ground” doing the work and therefore best situated to understand their professional learning needs. We have learned in our work with the Mills Teacher Scholars that turning to teachers as a place to start brings about authentic engagement in reforming practice.  I have seen evidence that this approach can lead to the student outcomes we desire.

We invite you to read our latest Newsletter (November 2011)

We invite you to read our latest Newsletter (April 2011)

On May 31, 2011, the Mills Teacher Scholars’ presented their inquiry findings in the Mills College School of Education Building, room 101, 5-8pm. (Mills campus map)

You can download a pdf copy of the Presentations Announcement using this link.

She is a Carnegie Scholar and for the last three years has been working with teachers in the
Aija Simmons, a third-year Mills Teacher Scholar participant was quoted in a September 14, 2010 Oakland Tribune article discussing the recent California State Test score results. Aija’s school, New Highland Academy, was one of a handful of schools in California that exited program improvement this year.

The Mills Teacher Scholars project is excited to be working with New Highland Academy teachers this year as part of our School-site Scholars initiative. She has been a district mentor, and a cooperating teacher. She is a Carnegie Scholar and for the last three years has been working with teachers in the She has been a district mentor, and a cooperating teacher. She is a Carnegie Scholar and for the last three years has been working with teachers in the

Monday, September 13, 5 – 8

Saturday, October 2, 9:30 – 3:00

Monday, November 15, 5 – 8

Monday, December 6, 5 – 8

Saturday, January 22, 9:30 – 3:00

Monday, February 7, 5 – 8 (practice presentations)

Monday, March 14, 5 – 8

Monday, April 25, 5 – 8

Saturday, May 21, 9:30 – 3:00 (optional)

Tuesday, May 31, 5 – 8 (roundtable presentations)

The Mills Scholars are teachers who meet monthly to discuss their questions with their colleagues and to systematically study the data that they collect to answer their questions, including classroom video data, student work, student interview data, and observational data. At the end of the academic year, Mills Scholars share their new understandings at the Roundtable Presentations.