# data[].attributes.body
How effective is standardization in education?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
March 1999 | Volume 56 | Number 6
Using Standards and Assessments Pages 8-15

W. James Popham

A standardized test is any examination that's administered and scored in a predetermined, standard manner. There are two major kinds of standardized tests: aptitude tests and achievement tests.

Standardized aptitude tests predict how well students are likely to perform in some subsequent educational setting. The most common examples are the SAT-I and the ACT both of which attempt to forecast how well high school students will perform in college.

But standardized achievement-test scores are what citizens and school board members rely on when they evaluate a school's effectiveness. Nationally, five such tests are in use: California Achievement Tests, Comprehensive Tests of Basic Skills, Iowa Tests of Basic Skills, Metropolitan Achievement Tests, and Stanford Achievement Tests.

A Standardized Test's Assessment Mission

The folks who create standardized achievement tests are terrifically talented. What they are trying to do is to create assessment tools that permit someone to make a valid inference about the knowledge and/or skills that a given student possesses in a particular content area. More precisely, that inference is to be norm-referenced so that a student's relative knowledge and/or skills can be compared with those possessed by a national sample of students of the same age or grade level.

Such relative inferences about a student's status with respect to the mastery of knowledge and/or skills in a particular subject area can be quite informative to parents and educators. For example, think about the parents who discover that their 4th grade child is performing really well in language arts (94th percentile) and mathematics (89th percentile), but rather poorly in science (39th percentile) and social studies (26th percentile). Such information, because it illuminates a child's strengths and weaknesses, can be helpful not only in dealing with their child's teacher, but also in determining at-home assistance. Similarly, if teachers know how their students compare with other students nationwide, they can use this information to devise appropriate classroom instruction.

But there's an enormous amount of knowledge and/or skills that children at any grade level are likely to know. The substantial size of the content domain that a standardized achievement test is supposed to represent poses genuine difficulties for the developers of such tests. If a test actually covered all the knowledge and skills in the domain, it would be far too long.

So standardized achievement tests often need to accomplish their measurement mission with a much smaller collection of test items than might otherwise be employed if testing time were not an issue. The way out of this assessment bind is for standardized achievement tests to sample the knowledge and/or skills in the content domain. Frequently, such tests try to do their assessment job with only 40 to 50 items in a subject field-sometimes fewer.

Accurate Differentiation As a Deity

The task for those developing standardized achievement tests is to create an assessment instrument that, with a handful of items, yields valid norm-referenced interpretations of a student's status regarding a substantial chunk of content. Items that do the best job of discriminating among students are those answered correctly by roughly half the students. Devlopers avoid items that are answered correctly by too many or by too few students.

As a consequence of carefully sampling content and concentrating on items that discriminate optimally among students, these test creators have produced assessment tools that do a great job of providing relative comparisons of a student's content mastery with that of students nationwide. Assuming that the national norm group is genuinely representative of the nation at large, then educators and parents can make useful inferences about students.

One of the most useful of those inferences typically deals with students' relative strengths and weaknesses across subject areas, such as when parents find that their daughter sparkles in mathematics but sinks in science. It's also possible to identify students' relative strengths and weaknesses within a given subject area if there are enough test items to do so. For instance, if a 45-item standardized test in mathematics allocates 15 items to basic computation, 15 items to geometry, and 15 items to algebra, it might be possible to get a rough idea of a student's relative strengths and weaknesses in those three realms of mathematics. More often than not, however, these tests contain too few items to allow meaningful within-subject comparisons of students' strengths and weaknesses.

A second kind of useful inference that can be based on standardized achievement tests involves a student's growth over time in different subject areas. For example, let's say that a child is given a standardized achievement test every third year. We see that the child's percentile performances in most subjects are relatively similar at each testing, but that the child's percentiles in mathematics appear to drop dramatically at each subsequent testing. That's useful information.

Unfortunately, both parents and educators often ascribe far too much precision and accuracy to students' scores on standardized achievement tests. Several factors might cause scores to flop about. Merely because these test scores are reported in numbers (sometimes even with decimals!) should not incline anyone to attribute unwarranted precision to them. Standardized achievement test scores should be regarded as rough approximations of a student's status with respect to the content domain represented by the test.

To sum up, standardized achievement tests do a wonderful job of supplying the evidence needed to make norm-referenced interpretations of students' knowledge and/or skills in relationship to those of students nationally. The educational usefulness of those interpretations is considerable. Given the size of the content domains to be represented and the limited number of items that the test developers have at their disposal, standardized achievement tests are really quite remarkable. They do what they are supposed to do.

But standardized achievement tests should not be used to evaluate the quality of education. That's not what they are supposed to do.

Measuring Temperature with a Tablespoon

For several important reasons, standardized achievement tests should not be used to judge the quality of education. The overarching reason that students' scores on these tests do not provide an accurate index of educational effectiveness is that any inference about educational quality made on the basis of students' standardized achievement test performances is apt to be invalid.

Employing standardized achievement tests to ascertain educational quality is like measuring temperature with a tablespoon. Tablespoons have a different measurement mission than indicating how hot or cold something is. Standardized achievement tests have a different measurement mission than indicating how good or bad a school is. Standardized achievement tests should be used to make the comparative interpretations that they were intended to provide. They should not be used to judge educational quality. Let's look at three significant reasons that it is thoroughly invalid to base inferences about the caliber of education on standardized achievement test scores.

Testing-Teaching Mismatches

The companies that create and sell standardized achievement tests are all owned by large corporations. Like all for-profit businesses, these corporations attempt to produce revenue for their shareholders.

Recognizing the substantial pressure to sell standardized achievement tests, those who market such tests encounter a difficult dilemma that arises from the considerable curricular diversity in the United States. Because different states often choose somewhat different educational objectives (or, to be fashionable, different content standards), the need exists to build standardized achievement tests that are properly aligned with educators' meaningfully different curricular preferences. The problem becomes even more exacerbated in states where different counties or school districts can exercise more localized curricular decision making.

At a very general level, the goals that educators pursue in different settings are reasonably similar. For instance, you can be sure that all schools will give attention to language arts, mathematics, and so on. But that's at a general level. At the level where it really makes a difference to instruction-in the classroom-there are significant differences in the educational objectives being sought. And that presents a problem to those who must sell standardized achievement tests.

In view of the nation's substantial curricular diversity, test developers are obliged to create a series of one-size-fits-all assessments. But, as most of us know from attempting to wear one-size-fits-all garments, sometimes one size really can't fit all.

The designers of these tests do the best job they can in selecting test items that are likely to measure all of a content area's knowledge and skills that the nation's educators regard as important. But the test developers can't really pull it off. Thus, standardized achievement tests will always contain many items that are not aligned with what's emphasized instructionally in a particular setting.

To illustrate the seriousness of the mismatch that can occur between what's taught locally and what's tested through standardized achievement tests, educators ought to know about an important study at Michigan State University reported in 1983 by Freeman and his colleagues. These researchers selected five nationally standardized achievement tests in mathematics and studied their content for grades 4-6. Then, operating on the very reasonable assumption that what goes on instructionally in classrooms is often influenced by what's contained in the texbooks that children use, they also studied four widely used textbooks for grades 4-6.

Employing rigorous review procedures, the researchers identified the items in the standardized achievement test that had not received meaningful instructional attention in the textbooks. They concluded that between 50 and 80 percent of what was measured on the tests was not suitably addressed in the textbooks. As the Michigan State researchers put it, "The proportion of topics presented on a standardized test that received more than cursory treatment in each textbook was never higher than 50 percent" (p. 509).

Well, if the content of standardized tests is not satisfactorily addressed in widely used textbooks, isn't it likely that in a particular educational setting, topics will be covered on the test that aren't addressed instructionally in that setting? Unfortunately, because most educators are not genuinely familiar with the ingredients of standardized achievement tests, they often assume that if a standardized achievement test asserts that it is assessing "children's reading comprehension capabilities," then it's likely that the test meshes with the way reading is being taught locally. More often than not, the assumed match between what's tested and what's taught is not warranted.

If you spend much time with the descriptive materials presented in the manuals accompanying standardized achievement tests, you'll find that the descriptors for what's tested are often fairly general. Those descriptors need to be general to make the tests acceptable to a nation of educators whose curricular preferences vary. But such general descriptions of what's tested often permit assumptions of teaching-testing alignments that are way off the mark. And such mismatches, recognized or not, will often lead to spurious conclusions about the effectiveness of education in a given setting if students' scores on standardized achievement tests are used as the indicator of educational effectiveness. And that's the first reason that standardized achievement tests should not be used to determine the effectiveness of a state, a district, a school, or a teacher. There's almost certain to be a significant mismatch between what's taught and what's tested.

A Psychometric Tendency to Eliminate Important Test Items

A second reason that standardized achievement tests should not be used to evaluate educational quality arises directly from the requirement that these tests permit meaningful comparisons among students from only a small collection of items.

A test item that does the best job in spreading out students' total-test scores is a test item that's answered correctly by about half the students. Items that are answered correctly by 40 to 60 percent of the students do a solid job in spreading out the total scores of test-takers.

Items that are answered correctly by very large numbers of students, in contrast, do not make a suitable contribution to spreading out students' test scores. A test item answered correctly by 90 percent of the test-takers is, from the perspective of a test's efficiency in providing comparative interpretations, being answered correctly by too many students.

Test items answered correctly by 80 percent or more of the test takers, therefore, usually don't make it past the final cut when a standardized achievement test is first developed, and such items will most likely be jettisoned when the test is revised. As a result, the vast majority of the items on standardized achievement tests are "middle difficulty" items.

As a consequence of the quest for score variance in a standardized achievement test, items on which students perform well are often excluded. However, items on which students perform well often cover the content that, because of its importance, teachers stress. Thus, the better the job that teachers do in teaching important knowledge and/or skills, the less likely it is that there will be items on a standardized achievement test measuring such knowledge and/or skills. To evaluate teachers' instructional effectiveness by using assessment tools that deliberately avoid important content is fundamentally foolish.

Confounded Causation

The third reason that students' performances on these tests should not be used to evaluate educational quality is the most compelling. Because student performances on standardized achievement tests are heavily influenced by three causative factors, only one of which is linked to instructional quality, asserting that low or high test scores are caused by the quality of instruction is illogical.

To understand this confounded-causation problem clearly, let's look at the kinds of test items that appear on standardized achievement tests. Remember, students' test scores are based on how well students do on the test's items. To get a really solid idea of what's in standardized tests, you need to grub around with the items themselves.

The three illustrative items presented here are mildly massaged versions of actual test items in current standardized achievement tests. I've modified the items' content slightly, without altering the essence of what the items are trying to measure.

The problem of confounded causation involves three factors that contribute to students' scores on standardized achievement tests: (1) what's taught in school, (2) a student's native intellectual ability, and (3) a student's out-of-school learning.

What's taught in school. Some of the items in standardized achievement tests measure the knowledge or skills that students learn in school. In certain subject areas, such as mathematics, children learn in school most of what they know about a subject. Few parents spend much time teaching their children about the intricacies of algebra or how to prove a theorem.

So, if you look over the items in any standardized achievement test, you'll find a fair number similar to the mathematics item presented in Figure 1, which is a mildly modified version of an item appearing in a standardized achievement test intended for 3rd grade children.

This mathematics item would help teachers arrive at a valid inference about 3rd graders' abilities to choose number sentences that coincide with verbal representations of subtraction problems. Or, along with other similar items dealing with addition, multiplication, and division, this item would contribute to a valid inference about a student's ability to choose appropriate number sentences for a variety of basic computation problems presented in verbal form.

If the items in standardized achievement tests measured only what actually had been taught in school, I wouldn't be so negative about using these tests to determine educational quality. As you'll soon see, however, other kinds of items are hiding in standardized achievement tests.

A student's native intellectual ability. I wish I believed that all children were born with identical intellectual abilities, but I don't. Some kids were luckier at gene-pool time. Some children, from birth, will find it easier to mess around with mathematics than will others. Some kids, from birth, will have an easier time with verbal matters than will others. If children came into the world having inherited identical intellectual abilities, teachers' pedagogical problems would be far more simple.

Recent thinking among many leading educators suggests that there are various forms of intelligence, not just one (Gardner, 1994). A child who is born with less aptitude for dealing with quantitative or verbal tasks, therefore, might possess greater "interpersonal" or "intrapersonal" intelligence, but these latter abilities are not tested by these tests. For the kinds of items that are most commonly found on standardized achievement tests, children differ in their innate abilities to respond correctly. And some items on standardized achievement tests are aimed directly at measuring such intellectual ability.

Consider, for example, the item in Figure 2. This item attempts to measure a child's ability "to figure out" what the right answer is. I don't think that the item measures what's taught in school. The item measures what students come to school with, not what they learn there.

Figure 2. A 6th Grade Standardized Achievement Test Item in Social Studies

1. leave lights on even if they are not needed.

2. wash small loads instead of large loads in a clothes-washing machine.

3. write on both sides of a piece of paper.

4. place used newspapers in the garbage.

In Figure 2's social studies item for 6th graders, look carefully at the four answer options. Read each option and see if it might be correct. A "smart" student, I contend, can figure out that choices A, B, and D really would not "conserve resources" all that well; hence choice C is the winning option. Brighter kids will have a better time with this item than their less bright classmates.

But why, you might be thinking, do developers of standardized tests include such items on their tests? The answer is all too simple. These sorts of items, because they tap innate intellectual skills that are not readily modifiable in school, do a wonderful job in spreading out test-takers' scores. The quest for score variance, coupled with the limitation of having few items to use in assessing students, makes such items appealing to those who construct standardized achievement tests.

But items that primarily measure differences in students' in-born intellectual abilities obviously do not contribute to valid inferences about "how well children have been taught." Would we like all children to do well on such "native-smarts" items? Of course we would. But to use such items to arrive at a judgment about educational effectiveness is simply unsound.

Out-of-school learning. The most troubling items on standardized achievement tests assess what students have learned outside of school. Unfortunately, you'll find more of these items on standardized achievement tests than you'd suspect. If children come from advantaged families and stimulus-rich environments, then they are more apt to succeed on items in standardized achievement test items than will other children whose environments don't mesh as well with what the tests measure. The item in Figure 3 makes clear what's actually being assessed by a number of items on standardized achievement tests.

This 6th grade science item first tells students what an attribute of a fruit is (namely, that it contains seeds). Then the student must identify what "is not a fruit" by selecting the option without seeds. As any child who has encountered celery knows, celery is a seed-free plant. The right answer, then, for those who have coped with celery's strings but never its seeds, is clearly choice D.

But what if when you were a youngster, your folks didn't have the money to buy celery at the store? What if your circumstances simply did not give you the chance to have meaningful interactions with celery stalks by the time you hit the 6th grade? How well do you think you'd do in correctly answering the item in Figure 3? And how well would you do if you didn't know that pumpkins were seed-carrying spheres? Clearly, if children know about pumpkins and celery, they'll do better on this item than will those children who know only about apples and oranges. That's how children's socioeconomic status gets mixed up with children's performances on standardized achievement tests. The higher your family's socioeconomic status is, the more likely you are to do well on a number of the test items you'll encounter in a such a test.

Suppose you're a principal of a school in which most students come from genuinely low socioeconomic situations. How are your students likely to perform on standardized achievement tests if a substantial number of the test's items really measure the stimulus-richness of your students' backgrounds? That's right, your students are not likely to earn very high scores. Does that mean your school's teachers are doing a poor instructional job? Of course not.

Conversely, let's imagine you're a principal in an affluent school whose students tend to have upper-class, well-educated parents. Each spring, your students' scores on standardized achievement tests are dazzlingly high. Does this mean your school's teachers are doing a super instructional job? Of course not.

One of the chief reasons that children's socioeconomic status is so highly correlated with standardized test scores is that many items on standardized achievement tests really focus on assessing knowledge and/or skills learned outside of school-knowledge and/or skills more likely to be learned in some socioeconomic settings than in others.

Again, you might ask why on earth would standardized achievement test developers place such items on their tests? As usual, the answer is consistent with the dominant measurement mission of those tests, namely, to spread out students' test scores so that accurate and fine-grained norm-referenced interpretations can be made. Because there is substantial variation in children's socioeconomic situations, items that reflect such variations are efficient in producing among-student variations in test scores.

You've just considered three important factors that can influence students' scores on standardized achievement tests. One of these factors was directly linked to educational quality. But two factors weren't.

What's an Educator to Do?

I've described a situation that, from the perspective of an educator, looks pretty bleak. What, if anything, can be done? I suggest a three-pronged attack on the problem. First, I think that you need to learn more about the viscera of standardized achievement tests. Second, I think that you need to carry out an effective educational campaign so that your educational colleagues, parents of children in school, and educational policymakers understand what the evaluative shortcomings of standardized achievement tests really are. Finally, I think that you need to arrange a more appropriate form of assessment-based evidence.

Learning about standardized achievement tests. Far too many educators haven't really studied the items on standardized achievement tests since the time that they were, as students, obliged to respond to those items. But the inferences made on the basis of students' test performances rest on nothing more than an aggregated sum of students' item-by-item responses. What educators need to do is to spend some quality time with standardized achievement tests-scrutinizing the test's items one at a time to see what they are really measuring.

Spreading the word. Most educators, and almost all parents and school board members, think that schools should be rated on the basis of their students' scores on standardized achievement tests. Those people need to be educated. It is the responsibility of all educators to do that educating.

If you do try to explain to the public, to parents, or to policymakers why standardized test scores will probably provide a misleading picture of educational quality, be sure to indicate that you're not running away from the need to be held accountable. No, you must be willing to identify other, more credible evidence of student achievement.

Coming up with other evidence. If you're going to argue against standardized achievement tests as a source of educational evidence for determining school quality, and you still are willing to be held educationally accountable, then you'll need to ante up some other form of evidence to show the world that you really are doing a good educational job.

I recommend that you attempt to assess students' mastery of genuinely significant cognitive skills, such as their ability to write effective compositions, their ability to use lessons from history to make cogent analyses of current problems, and their ability to solve high-level mathematical problems.

If the skills selected measure really important cognitive outcomes, are seen by parents and policymakers to be genuinely significant, and can be addressed instructionally by competent teachers, then the assembly of a set of pre-test-to-post-test evidence showing substantial student growth in such skills can be truly persuasive.

What teachers need are assessment instruments that measure worthwhile skills or significant bodies of knowledge. Then teachers need to show the world that they can instruct children so that those children make striking pre-instruction to post-instruction progress.

The fundamental point is this: If educators accept the position that standardized achievement test scores should not be used to measure the quality of schooling, then they must provide other, credible evidence that can be used to ascertain the quality of schooling. Carefully collected, nonpartisan evidence regarding teachers' pre-test-to-post-test promotion of undeniably important skills or knowledge just might do the trick.

Right Task, Wrong Tools

Educators should definitely be held accountable. The teaching of a nation's children is too important to be left unmonitored. But to evaluate educational quality by using the wrong assessment instruments is a subversion of good sense. Although educators need to produce valid evidence regarding their effectiveness, standardized achievement tests are the wrong tools for the task.

References

Freeman, D. J., Kuhs, T. M., Porter, A. C., Floden, R. E., Schmidt, W. H., & Schwille, J. R. (1983). Do textbooks and tests define a natural curriculum in elementary school mathematics? Elementary School Journal, 83(5), 501-513.

Gardner, H. (1994). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. Teacher's College Record, 95(4), 576-583.

Author's note: A longer version of this article will appear in the final chapter of W. James Popham's book Modern Educational Measurement: Practical Guidelines for Educational Leaders, 3rd ed., (forthcoming); Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

W. James Popham is a UCLA Emeritus Professor. He may be reached at IOX Assessment Associates, 5301 Beethoven St., Ste. 190, Los Angeles, CA 90066 (e-mail: wpopham@ucla.edu).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why Standardized Tests Don't Measure Educational Quality

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
March 1999 | Volume 56 | Number 6 Using Standards and Assessments Pages 8-15 W. James Popham A standardized test is any examination that's administered and scored in a predetermined, standard manner. There are two major kinds of standardized tests: aptitude tests and achievement tests.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A charter school in a low-income Manhattan neighborhood tries an experiment-with mixed results.

Ted S. Warren/AP

The data was drawn from standardized testing, comparing students who were demographically and academically similar in surrounding neighborhood schools:

TEP Students Additional Years of Learning in Math, English Language Arts, and Science

Mathematica Policy Research

Even though the Equity Project students fared better compared to their peers at surrounding schools, the Wall Street Journal notes that only 43% of the school's eighth-graders passed state math exams in 2013. A pretty low number, though a considerable improvement compared with the 26% city-wide pass rate.

Another big difference with the Equity Project, aside from the outsize salaries, is that the school looks for experienced teachers-the median teaching experience was 6 years-compared with charter schools that tend to recruit young teachers with less experience. But the Equity Project's teachers are still relative newbies compared to surrounding public schools, which have a median teaching experience of 13 years.

The Equity Project's inclusive strategy meant that teachers became a big part of the school and developing curricula-there was no assistant principal for the first two years, and teachers are very much a part of the student disciplinary process. For example, one form of punishment for a student who speaks disrespectfully to a teacher is for that student to spend the whole day with the teacher. It also means, though, that the teachers are working more than they might at another school.

Their work includes administrative duties, classes of about 31 students in fifth through seventh grades, professional development classes, a six-week summer institute, and stringent performance indicators that dictate whether a teacher may return. Those include taking no more than three personal days and five sick days per year, as well as performance on student and peer surveys. The teachers were very well-compensated and received benefits, but they were not union employees, as is typical of charter schools, and they were not tenured ( a topic that's been controversial in general when it comes to teaching).

And that resulted in turnover-a lot of it.

Number of TEP Teachers Who Were Not Rehired or Resigned

Almost half of the teachers in the four years analyzed-20 out of 43-did not return for a second year. Most of them were not rehired, but a small number resigned (the study notes that the school told teachers who wouldn't be rehired, so they had a chance to resign). By comparison, the study notes, there was about a 27% attrition rate for middle school teachers in New York City public schools.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Happens to Test Scores When Teachers Are Paid $125,000 a Year?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A charter school in a low-income Manhattan neighborhood tries an experiment-with mixed results. The data was drawn from standardized testing, comparing students who were demographically and academically similar in surrounding neighborhood schools: TEP Students Additional Years of Learning in Math, English Language Arts, and Science Even though the Equity Project students fared better compared to their peers at surrounding schools, the Wall Street Journal notes that only 43% of the school's eighth-graders passed state math exams in 2013.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Kelly Henderson loves her job, teaching at Newton South High School in a suburb west of Boston. But she's frustrated she can't afford to live in the community where she teaches: It's part of the 10th most expensive housing market in the nation.

"For people in the private sector, they're probably saying 'Oh poor you, you can't live in the community where you work, what's the big deal?' " says Henderson, 35. "And I guess part of the nature of public education and why it's a different kind of job, is that it's all-consuming - as it should be."

Like a lot teachers, she wants to be a vital part of the community where she works. She says people in high-cost communities need to remember that a teacher's job doesn't end at 3:00.

"You want them to coach a team, you want them to teach all day, you want them to be a faculty adviser, you want them to be able to give your kid extra help before school, after school - whenever."

And that leaves teachers with a dilemma: "We're constantly forced to make that choice: Do I stay and watch my students in the school play, or do I go home and remember what my husband looks like once in a while?"

The problem is playing out in high-priced real estate markets across the U.S., from Boston and Seattle to Rocky Mountain resort communities. (We've also reported on a somewhat different housing issue: a shortage of places for teachers to live in rural areas, and how some communities are building housing for them.)

The communities in and around the booming tech economy in northern California's San Francisco Bay area are especially hard hit.

At Walter Hays Elementary School in Palo Alto, in the heart of Silicon Valley, a group of students enjoys end-of-day flag football on an expansive lawn.

Inside, third-grade teacher Tara Hunt, a 16-year veteran, is preparing for the next teaching day. She gets up around 4 a.m. to make it in from the coastal village of Capitola - a commute that can take two hours in traffic.

She desperately wants to move closer to work. But, so far, that's not happening.

"This is where all the tech jobs are. And it's pushing out your community helpers," she says. "The cost of living just keeps going up and up."

Hunt can't help but wonder: "Who do we blame? Do we blame the homeowners who are renting out their property? Do we blame the city?"

I ask Hunt what percentage of her monthly income she's spending on housing: "More than 50 percent for rent, no question. Not including utilities."

The general rule, I remind her, is that you shouldn't spend more than one-third. "Right," she says, laughing "Whoever came up with that rule never lived in California. They're from Missouri or Ohio."

Hunt makes a good salary. Veteran teachers in Palo Alto - a top district in the state - can make more than $100,000 a year. She wants to connect with the community and families she teaches.

But when Hunt looked for a place in the city where she's taught for more than a decade?

"I was looking at a two-bedroom house in Palo Alto for rent for $7,500 a month - 1,200 square feet. I don't even know who that would work for. "

In high cost cities, teachers and their unions are increasingly making cost-of-living adjustments central to contract talks, while conceding that's not enough.

"It's important for teachers to live and make roots in the communities where they teach," Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, tells NPR Ed. "Yet renting or buying a home in expensive cities is financially out of reach for most educators. Salary increases alone won't do the trick."

Cities and communities, meantime, are scrambling to find solutions. Scores of cities have added affordable-housing quotas to rules on new development. Some are debating building subsidized condos or apartments specifically for teachers.

Palo Alto's City Council is exploring several ideas including subsidized housing for teachers and other public servants who can't afford local rents but make too much to qualify for low-income housing.

San Francisco is taking several steps, including forgivable housing loans, mortgage assistance and, eventually, affordable housing specifically for teachers. In May the city will restart its Teacher Next Door program, which offers city teachers up to $20,000 toward the purchase of their first home.

The hope is that the moves will help stem a teacher turnover crisis in the city brought about largely by the tech-driven housing boom. "We have teachers that are paying rents that are 50 or 70 percent of their take home pay," says union official Matthew Hardy with United Educators of San Francisco. "That's just not tenable for keeping folks in the school district. That's creating instability in our schools."

Many of these programs that cities are pressing have yet to significantly move the needle.

"So far, few local initiatives have been able to make a major dent in the problem," says Stockton Williams, a housing expert with the nonprofit Urban Land Institute. The biggest changes cities can make, he says, are "removing or alleviating local obstacles to more development. This means everything from more flexible zoning, more efficient entitlements and more outreach to neighborhoods that resist more development."

In Silicon Valley, Tara Hunt says she knows some parents are sympathetic. But she's not sure they really get it. Many are in a different tax bracket and, at times she says, it feels like they're in a different world.

"Steve Jobs' kids went through this school. We have some pretty high-profile parents. It's really hard to relate with them because they're very wealthy people," she says. And, she adds, its hard for those people to understand what Silicon Valley teachers are facing: "No one's being proactive."

Maybe nothing will be done, Hunt says, until more veteran teachers start to pack up and leave the communities they serve. "I have a lot of teacher friends who tell me, 'One more year, that's it. Then we're moving to Sacramento or up to Oregon.'"
Lydia Emmanouilidou contributed to this report.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
More Teachers Can't Afford To Live Where They Teach

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Kelly Henderson loves her job, teaching at Newton South High School in a suburb west of Boston. But she's frustrated she can't afford to live in the community where she teaches: It's part of the 10th most expensive housing market in the nation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By T.D. Flenaugh
Even good teachers fail sometimes. I have been an educator for sixteen years, and each year, my job has required that I continue learning by teaching new standards, integrating improved technology, or implementing research-proven techniques. I am learning anew, and sometimes failing anew.

Recently, a teacher from another school visited my school to watch how we implement technology. While she was in my classroom, I guided my students in viewing an excerpt of a Presidential debate. Afterwards, they discussed what they saw face-to-face and in an online chat. The goal was to help them articulate their preference of candidates by citing his or her stance on policies. This was not the first time that my students used online chats but, in this case, I badly underestimated their emotional connection to the topic. My students couldn't focus on facts. Instead, they fell into calling candidates "stupid" and repeatedly posting "Feel the Bern" to support Bernie Sanders or "I Luv Tacos" in reaction to Donald Trump's anti-immigration comments. In other words, the lesson failed.

Because of the lack of time and funding, the visiting teacher and I weren't able to debrief on the lesson. The lack of a structured observation conference was a missed opportunity for both of us. She missed a chance to understand my thinking behind the lesson and how I scored learners on their work. I missed a chance to hear her feedback on how this lesson could be better organized and to get ideas on how to follow up with students to increase learning. The observation without a reflective conversation left me struggling alone to remedy my instruction. Teaching in isolation is ultimately harmful to students. Yet, it is the norm.

The new Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) has earmarked about $2 billion dollars in funds for the states to support improving education. The ESSA is a huge step in the right direction, and determining exactly how these monies are spent is a critical decision for California. The focus should be on nurturing the effectiveness of all teachers -- from first-year novices to seasoned veterans like me.

Teaching in my school, as in many schools across the country, is largely a private practice. It is rare for other teachers to instruct in front of one another. Making peer observation and feedback a regular part of every school would go a long way towards creating a collegial learning environment for all teachers -- and improving instruction for learners. The ESSA funds should be used to transform the culture of isolation in teaching into a culture of teamwork towards improving every classroom experience.

At the beginning of my career, it seemed impossible to facilitate small group activities with my whole class. After observing and conferencing with another teacher, I developed lessons that divided my class of thirty-four students into seven pods. Within each group, every student had a role that challenged them. From that one experience I learned that observing my peers and implementing their techniques is the fastest, most efficient way to improve my classroom instruction.

ESSA provides monies that California can use to "create opportunities for effective teachers to lead evidenced-based PD for their peers." Teacher leaders who know what it's like to teach in isolation can ensure that teachers feel safe during their peer observation conferences to stumble and remain focused on solutions. If these teacher leaders have hybrid roles, combining the teaching of students with coaching of other teachers in their classrooms, they will have the time to plan with colleagues and set-up productive teacher-to-teacher observations.

At the beginning of each year, teachers in a school can develop a list of their strengths and weaknesses. Educators can then team up to develop their areas of need and serve as supports for others. A plan for improvement would follow. The plan could include scheduling observation and feedback sessions throughout the year, lesson planning with a partner, analysis of student work with colleagues, attending self-selected professional development workshops, and having partner teachers observe new lessons or techniques.

Education is ever-changing, and it requires that teachers acquire new learning and new skills. Schools need to make each teacher's improvement a focus. Structured peer observations and feedback build an environment conducive for learning for educators and their students. If every Every Student is supposed to Succeed, there needs to be a plan for every teacher to succeed as well. Classroom teachers need to iron out the rough parts, implement new strategies, and continuously grow. Just like my students will need support if they are to succeed academically, I need support getting my students to where they need to be.
T. D. Flenaugh teaches 6th grade English and history at Paul Revere Charter Middle School - Math, Science, & Technology Center in LAUSD. She is a National Board Certified teacher and a Teach Plus Teaching Policy Fellow.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By T.D. Flenaugh Even good teachers fail sometimes. I have been an educator for sixteen years, and each year, my job has required that I continue learning by teaching new standards, integrating improved technology, or implementing research-proven techniques. I am learning anew, and sometimes failing anew.

# data[].attributes.headline
What kinds of attributes do good teachers need?

# data[].attributes.subject
What kinds of attributes do good teachers need?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
25 Things Successful Educators Do Differently

If you ask a student what makes him or her successful in school, you probably won't hear about some fantastic new book or video lecture series. Most likely you will hear something like, "It was all Mr. Jones. He just never gave up on me."

What students take away from a successful education usually centers on a personal connection with a teacher who instilled passion and inspiration for their subject. It's difficult to measure success, and in the world of academia, educators are continually re-evaluating how to quantify learning. But the first and most important question to ask is:

Are teachers reaching their students?

Here are 25 things successful educators do differently.

1. Successful educators have clear objectives

How do you know if you are driving the right way when you are traveling somewhere new? You use the road signs and a map (although nowadays it might be SIRI or a GPS). In the world of education, your objectives for your students act as road signs to your destination. Your plan is the map. Making a plan does not suggest a lack of creativity in your curriculum but rather, gives creativity a framework in which to flourish.

2. Successful educators have a sense of purpose

We can't all be blessed with "epic" workdays all the time. Sometimes, life is just mundane and tedious. Teachers who have a sense of purpose and who are able to see the big picture can ride above the hard and boring days because their eye is on something further down the road.

3. Successful educators are able to live without immediate feedback

There is nothing worse than sweating over a lesson plan only to have your students walk out of class without so much as a smile or a, "Great job teach!" It's hard to give 100% and not see immediate results. Teachers who rely on that instant gratification will get burned out and disillusioned. Learning, relationships, and education are a messy endeavor, much like nurturing a garden. It takes time, and some dirt, to grow.

4. Successful educators know when to listen to students and when to ignore them

Right on the heels of the above tip is the concept of discernment with student feedback. A teacher who never listens to his/her students will ultimately fail. A teacher who always listens to his/her students will ultimately fail. It is no simple endeavor to know when to listen and adapt, and when to say, "No- we're going this way because I am the teacher and I see the long term picture."

5. Successful educators have a positive attitude

Negative energy zaps creativity and it makes a nice breeding ground for fear of failure. Good teachers have an upbeat mood, a sense of vitality and energy, and see past momentary setbacks to the end goal. Positivity breeds creativity.

6. Successful educators expect their students to succeed

This concept is similar for parents as well. Students need someone to believe in them. They need a wiser and older person to put stock in their abilities. Set the bar high and then create an environment where it's okay to fail. This will motivate your students to keep trying until they reach the expectation you've set for them.

7. Successful educators have a sense of humor

Humor and wit make a lasting impression. It reduces stress and frustration, and gives people a chance to look at their circumstances from another point of view. If you interviewed 1000 students about their favorite teacher, I'll bet 95% of them were hysterical.

8. Successful educators use praise smartly

Students need encouragement yes, but real encouragement. It does no good to praise their work when you know it is only 50% of what they are capable of. You don't want to create an environment where there is no praise or recognition; you want to create one where the praise that you offer is valuable BECAUSE you use it judiciously.

9. Successful educators know how to take risks

There is a wise saying that reads, "Those who go just a little bit too far are the ones who know just how far one can go." Risk-taking is a part of the successful formula. Your students need to see you try new things in the classroom and they will watch closely how you handle failure in your risk-taking. This is as important as what you are teaching.

10. Successful educators are consistent

Consistency is not to be confused with "stuck". Consistency means that you do what you say you will do, you don't change your rules based on your mood, and your students can rely on you when they are in need. Teachers who are stuck in their outdated methods may boast consistency, when in fact it is cleverly masked stubbornness.

11. Successful educators are reflective

In order to avoid becoming the stuck and stubborn teacher, successful educators take time to reflect on their methods, their delivery, and the way they connect with their students. Reflection is necessary to uncover those weaknesses that can be strengthened with a bit of resolve and understanding.

12. Successful educators seek out a mentor for themselves

Reflective teachers can easily get disheartened if they don't have someone a bit older and wiser offering support. You are never too old or wise for a mentor. Mentors can be that voice that says, "Yes your reflections are correct," or "No, you are off because...." and provide you with a different perspective.

13. Successful educators communicate with parents

Collaboration between parents and teachers is absolutely crucial to a student's success. Create an open path of communication so parents can come to you with concerns and you can do the same. When a teacher and parents present a united front, there is a lower chance that your student will fall through the cracks.

14. Successful educators enjoy their work

It is easy to spot a teacher who loves their work. They seem to emanate contagious energy. Even if it on a subject like advanced calculus, the subject comes alive. If you don't love your work or your subject, it will come through in your teaching. Try to figure out why you feel so unmotivated and uninspired. It might have nothing to do with the subject, but your expectations. Adjust them a bit and you might find your love of teaching come flooding back.

15. Successful educators adapt to student needs

Classrooms are like an ever-evolving dynamic organism. Depending on the day, the attendance roster, and the phase of the moon, you might have to change up your plans or your schedule to accommodate your students. As they grow and change, your methods might have to as well. If your goal is to promote a curriculum or method, it will feel like a personal insult when you have to modify it. Make connecting with your student your goal and you'll have no trouble changing it up as time moves on.

16. Successful educators welcome change in the classroom

This relates to the above tip, but in a slightly different way. Have you ever been so bored with your house or your bedroom, only to rearrange it and have it feel like a new room? Change ignites the brain with excitement and adventure. Change your classroom to keep your students on their toes. Simple changes like rearranging desks and routines can breathe new life in the middle of a long year.

17. Successful educators take time to explore new tools

With the advance of technology, there are fresh new resources and tools that can add great functionality to your classroom and curriculum. There is no doubt that the students you are teaching (far younger than you) probably already have a pulse on technologies you haven't tapped into yet. Don't be afraid to push for technology in the classroom. It is often an underfunded area but in this current world and climate, your students will be growing up in a world where technology is everywhere. Give them a headstart and use technology in your classroom.

18. Successful educators give their students emotional support

There are days when your students will need your emotional support more than a piece of information. Connecting to your students on an emotional level makes it more likely that they will listen to your counsel and take your advice to heart. Students need mentors as much as they need teachers.

19. Successful educators are comfortable with the unknown

It's difficult to teach in an environment where you don't know the future of your classroom budget, the involvement of your student's parents, or the outcome of all your hard work. On a more philosophical level, educators who teach the higher grades are tasked with teaching students principles that have a lot of unknowns (i.e. physics). How comfortable are you with not having all the answers? Good teachers are able to function without everything tied up neatly in a bow.

20. Successful educators are not threatened by parent advocacy

Unfortunately, parents and teachers are sometimes threatened by one another. A teacher who is insecure will see parent advocacy as a threat. While there are plenty of over-involved helicopter parents waiting to point out a teacher's mistakes, most parents just want what's best for their child. Successful educators are confident in their abilities and not threatened when parents want to get into the classroom and make their opinions known. Good teachers also know they don't have to follow what the parent recommends!

21. Successful educators bring fun into the classroom

Don't be too serious. Some days, "fun" should be the goal. When students feel and see your humanness, it builds a foundation of trust and respect. Fun and educational aren't mutually exclusive either. Using humor can make even the most mundane topic more interesting.

22. Successful educators teach holistically

Learning does not happen in a vacuum. Depression, anxiety, and mental stress have a severe impact on the educational process. It's crucial that educators (and the educational model) take the whole person into account. You can have the funniest and most innovative lesson on algebra, but if your student has just been told his parents are getting a divorce, you will not reach him.

23. Successful educators never stop learning

Good teachers find time in their schedule to learn themselves. Not only does it help bolster your knowledge in a certain subject matter, it also puts you in the position of student. This gives you a perspective about the learning process that you can easily forget when you're always in teaching mode.

24. Successful educators break out of the box

It may be a self-made box. "Oh I could never do that," you say to yourself. Perhaps you promised you'd never become the teacher who would let the students grade each other (maybe you had a bad experience as a kid). Sometimes the biggest obstacle to growth is us. Have you built a box around your teaching methods? Good teachers know when it's time to break out of it.

25. Successful educators are masters of their subject

Good teachers need to know their craft. In addition to the methodology of "teaching", you need to master your subject area. Learn, learn, and never stop learning. Successful educators stay curious.

Julie DeNeen has her bachelor's degree in Clinical Psychology from the University of New Haven. She spent several years working for a local Connecticut school at the district level, implementing new technologies to help students and teachers in the classroom. She also taught workshops to teachers about the importance of digital student management software, designed to keep students, parents, and teachers connected to the learning process.

You can find out more about her @jdeneen4 and Google+.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
25 Things Successful Educators Do Differently - InformED

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
If you ask a student what makes him or her successful in school, you probably won't hear about some fantastic new book or video lecture series. Most likely you will hear something like, "It was all Mr. Jones. He just never gave up on me." What students take away from a successful education usually centers...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Advice

You may never be as funny, approachable, or creative as your favorite teacher - the key is to try

Christophe Vorlet for The Chronicle

Roughly a year ago, I wrote a column on "The 4 Properties of Powerful Teachers," and named "personality" as one of those qualities. While recognizing that everyone is different, and that personality isn't necessarily something we can control, I was attempting to identify key characteristics that most of my best teachers, from kindergarten through graduate school, had in common.

When I say "best teachers," I'm not just talking about the ones I liked best. I mean the teachers who had the greatest influence on me - the ones whose names I still remember to this day, even though in some cases it's been more than 40 years since I sat in their classrooms. They are people I've tried to emulate in my own teaching.

What made them good teachers? I can't offer any empirical answers to that question, but I do know that personality was a key factor in all of them. Perhaps we can measure effectiveness in the classroom, to some extent, but how do we really determine quality? It seems to me that we've been trying for years, through various evaluation metrics, without a whole lot of success. I've known some bad teachers who were able to manipulate the metrics, and some good ones whose excellence wasn't immediately apparent on paper.

We may never be as funny, approachable, or creative as our favorite teachers. But simply by recognizing those traits as desirable, we can become more approachable, creative, and, yes, funnier than we would be otherwise.

In any case, the following observations are based entirely on my own experiences as a student, professor, and former midlevel administrator who has seen many good teachers (and a few bad ones) practice their craft. My hope is that, even if this list is somewhat subjective - not to mention incomplete - it won't seem entirely unfamiliar.

They are good-natured. The best teachers tend to be approachable, as opposed to sour and forbidding. Grouchy, short-tempered, misanthropic curmudgeons can sometimes make effective teachers, too, if for no other reason than that they prepare us for grouchy, short-tempered, misanthropic bosses. I had some grouchy teachers myself, especially in graduate school, and learning to cope with them was a valuable experience I would not wish to deny anyone. But most of my very best teachers were pretty easy to get along with - as long as I paid attention in class and did my work.

They are professional without being aloof. Most academics tend to keep students at arm's length - the obvious message being, "I'm your teacher, not your friend." Clearly, professionalism requires a certain amount of boundary-setting, which can be difficult, especially when dealing with older students, where the age gap is often not all that wide and, under different circumstances, they might actually be your friends. My best teachers always seemed to effortlessly walk that very fine line between being an authority figure and being someone I felt I could talk to. I didn't even understand what they were doing - or how difficult it was - until I had to do it myself years later.

They have a good sense of humor. They may or may not be ready for the Improv, but they don't take themselves or their subject matter too seriously. Few things are more off-putting than faculty members who think they're much smarter than anyone else in the room (or any room) - unless it's those who think their subject is the most important of all and expect students to feel the same way, other classes be damned. My best teachers not only understood that their course was just one of several we were taking, but also had a great, self-deprecating wit, often making jokes at their own expense and even sometimes making light of their subject. Funny how an ounce of humor can sometimes help students grasp the material better than a pound of gravitas.

They seem to enjoy what they do. Some faculty members don't really like students. They are the academics who constantly whine about their workload and complain about how rude or unprepared their students are. I've often wondered: Why are such people even in this profession? What did they expect? The teachers I remember as the very best were those who clearly loved teaching and got a kick out of associating with students every day. After all, no one wants to feel like a nuisance, which is exactly how some teachers make their students feel.

They are demanding without being unkind. Some academics take great pride in being disliked, wearing their unpopularity like a badge of honor. They naturally assume it's because they're so "tough" and "rigorous," reasoning that lazy students dislike rigor and transfer their dislike to the people who demand it. In my experience, however, most students want to be challenged; they don't mind if a lot is expected of them. They just don't want their professors to be jerks or insufferable know-it-alls. My best teachers were demanding without being mean-spirited.

They seem comfortable in their own skin. Perhaps one reason students tend to like these faculty is that they like themselves, without being in love with the sound of their own voices. This is related to not taking themselves too seriously, but it goes beyond that. The root cause of bad teaching is a fundamental lack of self-confidence, leading teachers to overcompensate by being unreasonably demanding, aloof, or condescending to students. Paradoxically, professors who appear arrogant and narcissistic are often trying to cover up what they perceive as profound deficiencies in their own personalities and abilities. The best teachers are confident without being arrogant, authoritative without being condescending.

They are tremendously creative. They are always willing to entertain new ideas or try new things - sometimes even on the fly. "Innovation" is a buzzword nowadays, but the term seems applied almost exclusively to the use of technology. My best teachers, though, were truly innovative, coming up with creative ways - sometimes on the spur of the moment - to help us understand, internalize, and remember what they were trying to teach. What made those teachers innovative was not tools or technology but their minds.

They make teaching look easy. We all know it isn't. Ultimately, great teachers are like great athletes, dancers, or musicians. We may know, cognitively, that what they do isn't easy, but they seem to do it so effortlessly that we're lulled into thinking it's no big deal - until we try it ourselves. Then we learn quickly just how difficult it is to play a sport or an instrument - or teach - at a very high level. I didn't fully appreciate that until I became a teacher myself and discovered how easy it is to fall short in the classroom.

Most of these things I've mentioned here are personality facets. We can't control whether or not we have them or to what degree. No doubt, there is some truth to the idea that certain people are just born teachers because they happen to be blessed with these traits in abundance.

At the same time, even if we are not "born teachers," we can work to develop the qualities of those teachers in ourselves. We may never be as funny, approachable, or creative as our favorite teachers. But simply by recognizing those traits as desirable, by acknowledging that we don't possess them to the degree we would like, and by committing ourselves to working on those areas, we can become more approachable, creative, and, yes, funnier than we would be otherwise. It's the journey of self-improvement that makes the difference.

Rob Jenkins is an associate professor of English at Perimeter College of Georgia State University and author of Building a Career in America's Community Colleges. He writes monthly for our community-college column and blogs for Vitae. The opinions expressed here are his own and not necessarily those of his employer. You can follow Rob on Twitter @HigherEdSpeak.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Advice You may never be as funny, approachable, or creative as your favorite teacher - the key is to try Roughly a year ago, I wrote a column on "The 4 Properties of Powerful Teachers," and named "personality" as one of those qualities.

# data[].attributes.headline
How do educators in other countries innovate?

# data[].attributes.subject
How do educators in other countries innovate?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Brian Bahr/Getty Images
Finland recently dropped the news that it's revamping its already-unorthodox education system to teach students broad, multi-disciplinary topics.

Finland is an innovative country when it comes to education, and its innovation yields results. It's consistently one of the highest performing developed countries on the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), an important tool for measuring education systems worldwide.

While Finland's ranking dropped to 12 in the most recent PISA ranking, it's still a lot higher than the US ranking of 36.

Here are some things Finland does differently - and arguably better - than the US when it comes to education.

1. Better standardized tests

Finnish students only take one standardized test during their entire primary and secondary schooling.

By contrast, the US, driven by No Child Left Behind and Common Core mandates, requires students in third through eighth grade to take annual standardized tests to track their performance. Critics claim constant testing doesn't make students any smarter but instead creates a "teaching to the test" environment in schools.

Karen Magee, the president of the largest teachers union in New York, went so far as to urge parents to boycott standardized tests recently.

The Finnish test, called the National Matriculation Examination, is taken at the end of high school and graded by teachers, not computers, as Pasi Sahlberg a professor and former director general at the Finland Ministry of Education, explained to the Washington Post in 2014. The test also doesn't shy away from controversial or complex topics.

Here are some typical questions, according to Sahlberg:

"In what sense are happiness, good life and well-being ethical concepts?"

"Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels predicted that a socialist revolution would first happen in countries like Great Britain. What made Marx and Engels claim that and why did a socialist revolution happen in Russia?"

Sahlberg added, in the Washington Post, "Students are regularly asked to show their ability to cope with issues related to evolution, losing a job, dieting, political issues, violence, war, ethics in sports, junk food, sex, drugs, and popular music. Such issues span across subject areas and often require multi-disciplinary knowledge and skills."

2. More time for play

Students in Finland spend relatively little time on homework, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). A 2014 study of 15-year-olds around the world by the OECD said that on average, Finnish students spend 2.8 hours a week on homework. This contrasts noticably from the 6.1 hours American students spend per week.

Finns place a lot of value on free time and play. By law, teachers must give students a 15-minute break for every 45 minutes of instruction.

It's a different story in the US where kids typically get less than half an hour of recess every day.

This "deficit of play" for US students may lead to additional anxiety and other mental health issues, the psychologist and research professor Peter Gray has written.

3. College is free

In Finland, not only are bachelor degree programs completely free of tuition fees, so are master and doctoral programs. Students pursue higher education goals without the mountains of student loan debt that many American students face. And the same goes for foreign students. Tuition is free for any student accepted into a college or graduate program in Finland.

This contrasts greatly with the US, where the average student loan debt now approaches $30,000, according to the Institute for College Access and Success's 2014 report.

4. Elevated teaching profession

In Finland, teaching is one of the most revered professions with a relatively high barrier to entry.

Only one in 10 students who apply to teacher education programs are admitted, according to the Center on International Education Benchmarkin g (CIEB).

Teachers in Finland are treated like professors at universities, and they teach fewer hours during the day than US teachers, with more time devoted to lesson planning.

They also get paid slightly more in Finland. The average teacher in the US makes about $41,000 a year, compared to $43,000 in Finland, according to OECD data.

And while teachers in the US make less money than many other countries, the OECD found that they work the longest hours of all.

It's easy to understand why America's teachers - who are overworked and get relatively little respect - might not be as effective as teachers in Finland.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Finland recently dropped the news that it's revamping its already-unorthodox education system to teach students broad, multi-disciplinary topics. Finland is an innovative country when it comes to education, and its innovation yields results. It's consistently one of the highest performing developed countries on the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), an important tool for measuring education systems worldwide.

# data[].attributes.headline
Should teachers always follow the rules?

# data[].attributes.subject
Should teachers always follow the rules?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Spend five minutes in Jussi Hietava's fourth-grade math class in remote, rural Finland, and you may learn all you need to know about education reform - if you want results, try doing the opposite of what American "education reformers" think we should do in classrooms.

Instead of control, competition, stress, standardized testing, screen-based schools and loosened teacher qualifications, try warmth, collaboration, and highly professionalized, teacher-led encouragement and assessment.

At the University of Eastern Finland's Normaalikoulu teacher training school in Joensuu, Finland, you can see Hietava's students enjoying the cutting-edge concept of "personalized learning."
Related: Everyone aspires to be Finland, but this country beats them in two out of three subjects
But this is not a tale of classroom computers. While the school has the latest technology, there isn't a tablet or smartphone in sight, just a smart board and a teacher's desktop.

Screens can only deliver simulations of personalized learning, this is the real thing, pushed to the absolute limit.

This is the story of the quiet, daily, flesh-and-blood miracles that are achieved by Hietava and teachers the world over, in countless face-to-face and over-the-shoulder interactions with schoolchildren.
Related: Ranking countries by worst students
Often, Hietava does two things simultaneously: both mentoring young student teachers and teaching his fourth grade class.

"Finland's historic achievements in delivering educational excellence and equity to its children are the result of a national love of childhood, a profound respect for teachers as trusted professionals, and a deep understanding of how children learn best."

Hieteva sets the classroom atmosphere. Children are allowed to slouch, wiggle and giggle from time to time if they want to, since that's what children are biologically engineered to do, in Finland, America, Asia and everywhere else.

This is a flagship in the "ultimate charter school network" - Finland's public schools.
Related: Why Americans should not be coming up with their own solutions to teacher preparation issues
Here, as in any other Finnish school, teachers are not strait-jacketed by bureaucrats, scripts or excessive regulations, but have the freedom to innovate and experiment as teams of trusted professionals.

Here, in contrast to the atmosphere in American public schools, Hietava and his colleagues are encouraged to constantly experiment with new approaches to improve learning.

Hietava's latest innovations are with pilot-testing "self-assessments," where his students write daily narratives on their learning and progress; and with "peer assessments," a striking concept where children are carefully guided to offer positive feedback and constructive suggestions to each other.
Related: In Singapore, training teachers for the classroom of the future
The 37 year-old Hietava, a school dad and Finnish champion golfer in his spare time, has trained scores of teachers, Unlike in America, where thousands of teacher positions in inner cities are filled by candidates with five or six weeks of summer training, no teacher in Finland is allowed to lead a primary school class without a master's degree in education, with specialization in research and classroom practice, from one of this small nation's eleven elite graduate schools of education.

As a boy, Hietava dreamed of becoming a fighter pilot, but he grew so tall that he couldn't safely eject from an aircraft without injuring his legs. So he entered an even more respected profession, teaching, which is the most admired job in Finland next to medical doctors.

I am "embedded" at this university as a Fulbright Scholar and university lecturer, as a classroom observer, and as the father of a second grader who attends this school.
Related: Schools exacerbate the growing achievement gap between rich and poor, a 33-country study finds
How did I wind up here in Europe's biggest national forest, on the edge of the Western world in Joensuu, Finland, the last, farthest-east sizable town in the EU before you hit the guard towers of the Russian border?

In 2012, while helping civil rights hero James Meredith write his memoir "A Mission From God," we interviewed a panel of America's greatest education experts and asked them for their ideas on improving America's public schools.
Related: While the U.S. struggles, Sweden pushes older students back to college
One of the experts, the famed Professor Howard Gardner of the Harvard University Graduate School of Education, told us, "Learn from Finland, which has the most effective schools and which does just about the opposite of what we are doing in the United States. You can read about what Finland has accomplished in 'Finnish Lessons' by Pasi Sahlberg."

I read the book and met with Sahlberg, a former Finnish math teacher who is now also at Harvard's education school as Visiting Professor.
Related: In Norway, where college is free, children of uneducated parents still don't go
After speaking with him I decided I had to give my own now-eight-year old child a public school experience in what seemed to be the most child-centered, most evidence-based, and most effective primary school system in the world.
Related: Demark pushes to make students graduate on time
Now, after watching Jussi Hietava and other Finnish educators in action for five months, I have come to realize that Finland's historic achievements in delivering educational excellence and equity to its children are the result of a national love of childhood, a profound respect for teachers as trusted professionals, and a deep understanding of how children learn best.

Children at this and other Finnish public schools are given not only basic subject instruction in math, language and science, but learning-through-play-based preschools and kindergartens, training in second languages, arts, crafts, music, physical education, ethics, and, amazingly, as many as four outdoor free-play breaks per day, each lasting 15 minutes between classes, no matter how cold or wet the weather is. Educators and parents here believe that these breaks are a powerful engine of learning that improves almost all the "metrics" that matter most for children in school - executive function, concentration and cognitive focus, behavior, well-being, attendance, physical health, and yes, test scores, too.

The homework load for children in Finland varies by teacher, but is lighter overall than most other developed countries. This insight is supported by research, which has found little academic benefit in childhood for any more than brief sessions of homework until around high school.
Related: China downturn, increased competition could affect supply of foreign students
There are some who argue that since Finland has less socio-economic diversity than, for example, the United States, there's little to learn here. But Finland's success is not a "Nordic thing," since Finland significantly out-achieves its "cultural control group" countries like Norway and Sweden on international benchmarks. And Finland's size, immigration and income levels are roughly similar to those of a number of American states, where the bulk of education policy is implemented.

There are also those who would argue that this kind of approach wouldn't work in America's inner city schools, which instead need "no excuses," boot-camp drilling-and-discipline, relentless standardized test prep, Stakhanovian workloads and stress-and-fear-based "rigor."
Related: In Brazil, fast-growing universities mirror the U.S. wealth divide
But what if the opposite is true?

What if many of Finland's educational practices are not cultural quirks or non-replicable national idiosyncrasies - but are instead bare-minimum global best practices that all our children urgently need, especially those children in high-poverty schools?

Finland has, like any other nation, a unique culture. But it has identified, often by studying historical educational research and practices that originated in the United States, many fundamental childhood education insights that can inspire, and be tested and adapted by, any other nation.
William Doyle is a 2015-2016 Fulbright Scholar and New York Times bestselling author from New York City on the faculty of the University of Eastern Finland, and father of an eight year old who attends a Finnish public school.
As Pasi Sahlberg has pointed out, "If you come to Finland, you'll see how great American schools could be."

Finland's education system is hardly perfect, and its schools and society are entering a period of huge budget and social pressures. Reading levels among children have dropped off. Some advanced learners feel bored in school. Finland has launched an expensive, high-risk national push toward universal digitalization and tabletization of childhood education that has little basis in evidence and flies in the face of a recent major OECD study that found very little academic benefit for school children from most classroom technology.

But as a parent or prospective parent, I have spent time in many of the most prestigious private schools in New York City and toured many of the city's public school classrooms, in the largest public school system in the world. And I am convinced that the primary school education my child is getting in the Normaalikoulu in Joensuu is on a par with, or far surpasses, that available at any other school I've seen.

I have a suggestion for every philanthropist, parent, educator and policymaker in the world who wants to improve children's education.

Start by coming to Finland. Spend some time sitting in the back of Jussi Hietava's classroom, or any other Finnish classroom.

If you look closely and open your mind, you may see the School of Tomorrow.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
OPINION: How Finland broke every rule - and created a top school system

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Spend five minutes in Jussi Hietava's fourth-grade math class in remote, rural Finland, and you may learn all you need to know about education reform - if you want results, try doing the opposite of what American "education reformers" think we should do in classrooms. Instead of control, competition, stress, standardized testing, screen-based schools and loosened teacher qualifications, try warmth, collaboration, and highly professionalized, teacher-led encouragement and assessment.

# data[].attributes.body
Why do we talk more about this than about real teachers and real students? We start from the assumption that they need to be watched carefully

# data[].attributes.body
How can tech help teachers and not frustrate them?

# data[].attributes.body
Teachers, students, parents, everyone wants more time.  Where has it gone? How can we find it again?

# data[].attributes.body
What if Americans really respected teachers?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
People think respect has declined among teachers, administrators, students, and parents since they were in school.

"Anyone? Anyone?" a high-school teacher asks at the front of a classroom in Ferris Bueller's Day Off. His dazed students, popping bubble gum and falling asleep, gaze toward the front of the room, unaware a question has been posed. After a moment's pause, the teacher answers his own question and drones on with his lecture while his students fight to stay awake.

This scene, set in 1986, doesn't show much esteem for the teaching profession. (The movie doesn't have much regard for administrators, either. Ferris continually outsmarts the cartoonishly spiteful Principal Rooney.) And yet, a recent poll found that adults believe that people respect teachers and administrators even less now than then did in the past. While 79 percent of Americans said students respected teachers when they were in school, only 31 percent believe students respect teachers today, according to a Harris Poll of 2,250 American adults.

When they were in school, 91 percent of respondents said that parents and teachers respected each other, but when asked about today, only 49 percent said parents respect teachers and 64 percent said teachers respect parents.

Related Story
Report: Teachers Aren't Trained to Praise Their Students
Respondents continued to report a decline in trust between teachers and students: When they were in school, 86 percent said teachers respected students, but only 61 percent say that is true today. Eighty-eight percent said the administration respected teachers when they were in school, while 58 percent say that continues to be true in today's schools.

Parents of school-aged children, who might be in the best position to judge the environment of today's schools, tended to mirror the opinions of the group as a whole, except when asked about parents and students respecting teachers. While 49 percent of the total group said parents respect teachers in today's schools, 58 percent of parents said that was true. Parents gave their children a similar bump: 40 percent believed that students respect teachers, but only 31 percent of the total group agreed.

There could be a couple of explanations for these results. Asking adults to compare themselves to today's youth is always a dangerous game. That respondents considered themselves more respectful than today's students is perhaps not surprising. Furthermore, asking adults to remember the environment of their childhood schools is not a foolproof method of evaluating respect. Parents, teachers, and administrators might have convinced students they held mutual respect for each other; adults are more likely to see through a charade. But these results could also hint at a real decline in respect that is making teaching and learning even more difficult. Today, controversy, suspicion, and accusations plague education, from the kindergarten classroom to federal level policies. Teachers are fighting against the Common Core State Standards, students are staging walk out protests in New Orleans, and parents are yanking their kids out of standardized testing. Maybe declining respect among teachers, administrators, students, and parents has played a role in bringing so many debates to the forefront of American schools.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
People think respect has declined among teachers, administrators, students, and parents since they were in school. "Anyone? Anyone?" a high-school teacher asks at the front of a classroom in Ferris Bueller's Day Off. His dazed students, popping bubble gum and falling asleep, gaze toward the front of the room, unaware a question has been posed.

# data[].attributes.body
I just love what's happening in Finnish schools:  why do they work so well?

# data[].attributes.body
Teachers want to be able to experiment, to try and fail

# data[].attributes.body
I keep thinking of needs, not solutions, but wanted to share my take aways from your interviews

# data[].attributes.body
teachers want time to connect, share and learn from one another

# data[].attributes.body
from your interviewee's comments, teachers want freedom to design content