Is California's "Firewall" Penetrable?

Wednesday, July 29, 2009
California Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell countered criticism by Education Secretary Arne Duncan about a state law restricting the use of student assessment data in teacher evaluations. As reported in today's Los Angeles Times, O'Connell highlighted Long Beach Unified as a school district that does exactly that.
California's top education official sought Tuesday to counter federal criticism of the state's reluctance to use student test scores to evaluate teachers, paying a visit to Long Beach to highlight one of the few California school districts to make extensive use of such data.

The Long Beach Unified School District's use of student scores to assess the effectiveness of programs, instructional strategies and teachers is a rarity in California, and state Supt. of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell called it a model for other California school districts during a hastily arranged round-table discussion.

At issue is a 2006 California law that prohibits use of student data to evaluate teachers at the state level. O'Connell said Obama and Duncan misunderstand the law, which does not bar local districts from using the information.
O'Connell also released a statement on this issue last week.

Long Beach Unified is a 2009 finalist for the Broad Prize and was recently profiled by TIME magazine as one of the top urban school systems in the nation.

(Re)Focusing on What Matters

Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Last week I spoke at a meeting of the Lumina Foundation’s Achieving the Dream Initiative, a meeting of policymakers from 15 states all working to improve the effectiveness of community colleges. At one point, a data working group shared results of its efforts to create new ways to measure college outputs. This was basically a new kind of report card, one capable of reporting results for different subgroups of students, and enabling comparisons of outcomes across colleges. Something like it might someday replace the data collection currently part of the IPEDS.

While it's always gratifying to see state policymakers engaging with data and thinking about how to use it in meaningful ways, I couldn’t help but feel that even this seemingly forward-thinking group was tending toward the status quo. The way we measure and report college outputs right now consistently reinforces a particular way of thinking-- a framework that focuses squarely on colleges and their successes or failures.

What’s the matter with that, you’re probably wondering? After all, aren’t schools the ones we need to hold accountable for outcomes and improved performance? Well, perhaps. But what we’re purportedly really interested in—or what we should be interested in—is students, and their successes or failures. If that's the case, then students, rather than colleges, need to be at the very center of our thinking and policymaking. Right now this isn't the case.

Let’s play this out a bit more. Current efforts are afoot to find ways to measure college outcomes that make more colleges comfortable with measurement and accountability--and thus help bring them onboard. That typically means using measures that allow even the lowest-achieving colleges at least a viable opportunity for success, and using measures colleges feels are meaningful, related to what they think they’re supposed to be doing. An example: the 3-year associates degree completion rates of full-time community college entrant deemed “college ready” by a standardized test. We can measure this for different schools and report the results. Where does that get us? We can then see which colleges have higher rates, and which have lower ones.

But then what? Can we then conclude some colleges are doing a better job than others? Frankly, no. It’s quite possible that higher rates at some colleges are attributable to student characteristics or contextual characteristics outside an individual college (e.g. proximity to other colleges, local labor market, region, etc) that explain the differences. But that’s hard to get people to focus on when what’s simplest to see are differences between colleges.

It's not clear that this approach actually helps students. What if, instead, states reported outcomes for specified groups of students without disaggregating by college? How might the policy conversation change? Well, for example, a state could see a glaring statewide gap in college completion among majority and minority students. It would then (hopefully) move to the next step of looking for sources of the problem—likely trying to identify the areas with the greatest influence, and the areas with the most policy-amenable areas of influence. This might lead analysts back to the colleges in the state to look for poor or weak performers, but it might instead lead them to aspects of k-12 preparation, state financial aid policy, the organizational structure of the higher education system, etc. The point is that in order to help students, states would need to do more than simply point to colleges and work to inspire them to change. They’d be forced to try and pinpoint the source(s) of the problems and then work on them. I expect the approaches would need to vary by state.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to absolve any college of responsibility for educating its students. What I’m suggesting is that we think hard about why the emphasis right now rests so heavily on relative college performance—an approach that embraces and even creates more insitutional competition—rather than on finding efficient and effective ways to increase the success of our students. Are we over-utilizing approaches, often adopted without much critical thought, that reify and perpetuate our past mistakes? I think so.

Image Credit:

Where's That Dutch Kid?

Gotham Schools reports that some in New York State don't believe that the state's law that restricts student assessment data from being used in teacher tenure decisions will hamper the state from securing Race To The Top funding. Is this just wishful thinking or is this whole issue being oversimplified by proposed federal RTTT regulations?

New York State’s tenure law, passed last year under pressure from teachers unions, says student test score data can’t be the sole determinant of whether a teacher gets tenure. But three top officials — teachers union president Randi Weingarten, Board of Regents Chancellor Merryl Tisch, and incoming State Education Commissioner David Steiner — are arguing that the law will not disqualify New York from the fund.

“It is our firm belief that the language of Race to the Top funding does not preclude New York,” Steiner said today. “New York has a law on the books that relates strictly to tenure.”

Weingarten noted that a second section of the same law explicitly requires teachers’ annual evaluations, which take place even after they receive tenure, to be based in part on how they use test score data to improve their instruction.

“The way in which teachers use data in their classroom instruction is specifically included in the definition of what confers tenure onto a classroom teacher,” she said. ”How teachers use data is one of the criteria for getting tenure. Just not the data in and of itself.”

NY UPDATE: Charlie Barone says BS.

Likewise, in Wisconsin -- another state singled out by Education Secretary Arne Duncan for having a "ridiculous" law that restricts the use of student assessment data in teacher evaluations -- the Governor's office says that the law only applies to data from the state assessment. Assumedly, other assessment data could be used instead, although that creates costs and logistical hurdles for school districts, some very small. From the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel:
According to Chapter 118.30(2)(c) of the Wisconsin State Statutes, "the results of examinations to pupils enrolled in public schools, including charter schools, may not be used to evaluate teacher performance, to discharge, suspend or formally discipline a teacher, or as the reason for the nonrenewal of a teacher's contract."

By Friday afternoon, state Sen. Randy Hopper (R-Fond du Lac) and Rep. Brett Davis (R-Oregon) had announced plans to introduce legislation that would change Chapter 118.30(2)(c) to eliminate the prohibition on using state testing in teacher evaluations.

But according to Gov. Jim Doyle's office, the Wisconsin statute is not at odds with the state's Race to the Top eligibility.

"Our reading of the current law is that it only prohibits the use of the WKCE (Wisconsin Knowledge and Concepts Examination) in evaluating teachers, and that other student assessments may be used to evaluate teachers," said Lee Sensenbrenner, a spokesman for Doyle's office.

Sensenbrenner said the governor will be putting together a comprehensive application for the Race to the Top competition that puts the state in a position to succeed.

As part of that, he said, the state would "review the existing law to see if any changes need to be made to strengthen our competitive position."

UPDATE: On Teacher Beat, Stephen Sawchuk has a pithy update on this issue -- and the pleadings of California, New York and Wisconsin about how this really isn't a problem. Really, it isn't!

New Teacher Center Annual Symposium

If you are an educational practitioner, policymaker, or researcher with an interest in the needs of new teachers, you may want to consider presenting at the New Teacher Center's annual Symposium on Teacher Induction in San Jose, California in February 7-9, 2010.

In addition to new teacher development and support, the NTC also seeks submissions that address school leadership development, teacher compensation, teacher evaluation, working conditions, and related themes. Submissions should exemplify best practices and current research and present new issues or topics, innovative ways of viewing traditional issues, and/or research that substantiates, promotes, and advances the work of teacher development and induction.

The NTC has released an online call for proposals. For your information, here is an overview of the sessions featured at the 2009 meeting.

Obama's Firewall

Friday, July 24, 2009
Michele McNeil at Education Week's Politics K-12 blog reports that President Obama himself approved the Race To The Top provision that restricts these competitive grants for going to states that restrict the use of student achievement data in teacher evaluations. Short of statutory or regulatory changes made by these 3 states, should we be saying au revoir to the Golden, Empire and Badger states?

Only two things can render a state ineligible for Race to the Top grants.

And only one of them is a biggie: the student-teacher data firewall issue.

This effectively means New York, California, and Wisconsin, at the very least, are ineligible for Race to the Top—or will at least have some explaining to do. They have laws on the book that essentially bar the use of student-achievement data in some teacher-evaluation decisions.

Erin Richards at the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel picks up the story, too.

Background here and here.

Student Learning and Teacher Performance


President Obama and Education Secretary Duncan have drawn a clear line in the sand with regard to evaluating teacher performance: States with laws that restrict the use of student achievement data in employment evaluations -- including California, New York and Wisconsin -- may be rendered all-but-ineligible for competitive grants, such as Race To The Top funding, in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Read more in John Dillon's New York Times story ("Administration Takes Aim At State Laws on Teachers").

In a speech last month, Secretary Duncan named Wisconsin as a state with such restrictions in place. Wisconsin law -- 121.02(1)(q) -- requires schools boards to "evaluate, in writing, the performance of all certified school personnel at the end of their first year and at least every 3rd year thereafter." Further, 118.30 2(b)4.(c) restricts the results of student assessments from being "used to evaluate teacher performance, to discharge, suspend or formally discipline a teacher or as the reason for the nonrenewal of a teacher's contract." [Kudos to Chris Thorn at the Wisconsin Center for Education Research for rooting out the offending statute in question! I won't quit my day job.]

Between this restrictive law and the state's distinction as having the largest black-white achievement gap in reading in the nation, it seems that the state's chances in the Race To The Top competition are very poor. In a recent post, I gave Wisconsin 30-1 odds. Let's make it 50-1.

The U.S. Department of Education today has released draft rules that will govern the competition for and allocation of competitive ARRA dollars. This information is available at (For great early analysis, go to Teacher Beat.)

Who's In Charge Here?

Thursday, July 23, 2009
North Carolina's educational governance structure is a bit clearer after a lawsuit and a resulting retirement. The lawsuit determined that the state's elected superintendent of public instruction indeed is in charge of public education in the Tar Heel State.

The News & Observer in Raleigh-Durham reports:
A judge's ruling Friday intended to settle a long-running debate about who is in charge of running North Carolina's public schools may instead set the stage for even more players to enter the fray.

In the meantime, though, the ruling allows June Atkinson to reclaim the authority she thought she had when voters elected her the state's superintendent of public instruction in 2004 and again in 2008.

And Gov. Beverly Perdue, whose attempt to consolidate education authority under her office led to Friday's ruling, will have to share that power for now.


After only six months as state schools CEO, William Harrison said Wednesday afternoon that he will retire from the job of running the education agency on Aug. 31.

Harrison will relinquish his $265,000 salary but will continue to guide policy as the unpaid chairman of the State Board of Education.

His announcement comes days after elected schools Superintendent June Atkinson won a lawsuit giving her authority to run the Department of Public Instruction, the state agency that oversees testing, curriculum and policy for 115 local districts in North Carolina. Atkinson suggested in an interview earlier this week that Harrison should leave his CEO job as she takes charge of the department and its staff of about 780.

Harrison's decision to step aside is a setback for Gov. Beverly Perdue, who had handpicked him to be her point man on education. Perdue, whose key platform has been improving education, lost her gamble to control the agency by creating her own czar in Harrison.

Frank McCourt (1930-2009)

Wednesday, July 22, 2009
We are saddened by the passing of Frank McCourt -- Irishman, educator, and novelist. From humble upbringings in the Irish working-class city of Limerick, McCourt went on to teach thousands of American children and to make a huge splash with his books, including Angela's Ashes, 'Tis, and Teacher Man.

Read this New York Times article about his life and this editorial as memorial in The Irish Times.

Limerick, you're a lady
Your Shannon waters tears of joy that flow
The beauty that surrounds you
I'll take it with me love where e'er I go.

While waking in the arms of distant waters
A new day finds me far away from home
And Limerick you're my lady
The one true love that I have ever known.

As children you and I spent endless days of fun
In winter's snow or summer's golden sun
We fished in silver streams, the fabric of my dreams
Was fashioned by your loveliness and so I have to say.

Limerick you're a lady
Your Shannon waters tears of joy that flow
The beauty that surrounds you
I'll take it with me love where e'er I go.

Image Credit: Simon & Schuster

The Ugliness of For-Profits

Monday, July 20, 2009
Cross-posted from Brainstorm

I admit it. I have a chip on my shoulder when it comes to for-profit providers of higher education. Until now, I wasn’t entirely sure why. After all, I generally like competition and think that more options for students is a good thing.

But I grew nauseous reading this Reuters article, which summarizes President Obama’s American Graduation Initiative and concludes (with a nearly audible sigh of relief) that it doesn’t present a threat to the for-profit sector. Specifically, while “analysts said the program for community colleges could make them more competitive against firms such as Apollo Group Inc, Corinthian Colleges, ITT Educational Services Inc and Lincoln Educational Services Corp….the amount of money earmarked for the program would result in only a marginal increment in budgets for community colleges and have a small impact on these companies in the short term.”

Oh, well thank goodness. Because we wouldn’t want our efforts to increase degree completion rates in this country to hurt your bottom line—god forbid. Lest we forget for one moment that America is in the business of education, an analyst from Wedbush Morgan Securities states “"We would be more cautious on the market-funded sector had President Obama added another zero to the proposed $12 billion targeted for community colleges."

My goodness, yes—good thing the feds didn’t give too much money to the colleges serving the widest swath of Americans. Then you for-profits might really have to compete on a level playing field.

Obama Endorses Community College Reform

Sunday, July 12, 2009
It's a very big day for the nation's community colleges. In today's Washington Post, our president praises them, and calls for additional funding to support their work. In particular, President Obama writes, "We can reallocate funding to help them modernize their facilities, increase the quality of online courses and ultimately meet the goal of graduating 5 million more Americans from community colleges by 2020."

On Friday I spent the morning speaking with staff from the U.S. House of Representatives Community College Caucus, and was impressed by the significant turnout and detailed questions they asked. Then, TIME magazine moved on a substantial piece noting the importance of the 2-year sector as well.

This thing has legs. It's a very exciting time.... Let's hope that the President's ability to connect community colleges not only to job training but to his goals for increasing degree attainment continues. An integrated agenda will pay off.

NOTE: On July 14, 2009 the President will announce a proposal for $12 billion in support for community colleges, to enable them to produce an additional 5 billion graduates over 10 years. This is a remarkable turn of events.


New York Times, "A Boon To Two-Year Colleges, Affirming Their Value", July 14, 2009
NYT, "Obama Attacks On Economy and Seeks Billions For Community Colleges", July 15, 2009
Derrick Jackson, "Community Colleges' New Clout", Boston Globe, July 18, 2009
David Brooks, "No Size Fits All", New York Times, July 19, 2009
Cap Times, "UW-Madison profs help shape bold initiative for community colleges" July 20, 2009

Fight The Power!

Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Dana Goldstein raises some serious questions and concerns in her American Prospect article ("Testing Testing") about the process of developing national academic standards. The process is dominated by three organizations--two (ACT and the College Board) with a proprietary interest in ensuring that assessments are a featured component of any final product.

The problem is that the initiative's co-signers aren't just state governments--they are also testing groups: Achieve, a nonprofit that advocates for more effective standardized tests; the College Board, maker of the SAT; and ACT, which administers a competing college-entrance exam. Right now, the College Board and ACT have little engagement with the K-12 education sector. They do, however, have ample experience creating and administering national exams. And there is little doubt that one goal of this national-standards process is to create standardized tests--not one single national test but perhaps two or three options from which states can choose.

As oligopolists, it makes total sense for the College Board and ACT to be eyeing, together, expansion into the immense K-12 assessment market. But given these testing companies' track records, it is worth asking if this is a wise idea. A number of studies have found SAT scores are far less effective than high school grades in predicting how well students will perform in college, and professors say standardized-test prep does little to teach students the research and critical thinking skills they will need at the college level. Because of these shortcomings, an increasing number of colleges--led by the giant University of California system--have made standardized test scores optional for admission.

It would be a shame if national education reform further cemented a system in which passing standardized tests is the goal of learning.

While others (including Dan Brown) have pointed out that only one classroom teacher has a seat at the table, Goldstein follows the money, so to speak. I am disappointed, although not surprised, that the national organizations leading this effort have basically turned it over to Testing, Inc. The corporate boards of both the Council of Chief State School Officers and the National Governors Association are littered with representatives of the student assessment industry--ETS, McGraw Hill, and Pearson in the case of CCSSO; and ACT, the College Board, ETS, and Pearson in the case of NGA. To their defense, both CCSSO and NGA list these organizations directly on their respective web sites. As a former employee at NGA, I also can honestly say that their funding did in no way impact the substantive advice provided to the nation's Governors when I worked there. But does it provide these companies ready access to Governors and their senior staff at regular meetings? Sure. Does it raise questions about their role in this standards-setting process and create the appearance of bias? Absolutely.

Of the 29 slots on the mathematics and English-language arts Work Groups, 15 are taken by employees or affiliates of ACT and The College Board. Another seven slots are occupied by Achieve, Inc. (Some individuals serve on both Work Groups.) Of the remaining seven slots, two are filled by America's Choice, two by Student Achievement Partners, and single seats by a communications firm, a consultant, and a professor. In addition, 37 individuals serve on twin Feedback Groups for both math and English/LA standards. They are overwhelmingly higher education faculty. Of the 19 members of the math feedback group, 15 represent higher education with a single k-12 teacher in the mix. Of the 18 members on the English/LA feedback group, 14 are professors and there is one "instructional performance coach" from a public charter school as well.

The decision to cut k-12 educators out of the standards development process contrasts sharply with the rhetoric of President Obama and Secretary Duncan about including educators in the development of education reforms. Indeed, it would "be a shame" if Testing Inc. rode this gravy train to the (hopefully not) inevitable conclusion suggested by Goldstein's article. Of course, in the end, it is the product rather than the process that really matters. In this case, one can hope that some of the participants' potentially parochial and proprietary interests don't define the outcome or the intent of the entire effort. The standards should be developed based on what is best for students and how such standards can best be utilized by educators -- not to ensure their ease in being converted into multiple-choice tests.

Hat tip to TWIE.

UPDATE: See Education Week story (7/30/2009).

A Question of Place

Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Cross-posted from Brainstorm

While working on a grant application recently, I had the opportunity to spend some time thinking about settings, the places where students (hopefully) learn. Settings are typically thought of as the environments in which individuals experience life, where developmental processes take place. This led me to wonder, in today's world what constitutes a “setting” in postsecondary education?

While in the past, college attendance was for a select group only—those who could afford to live at school and enroll in classes with little time devoted to work—this is no longer the case. The fastest growing enrollment is at nonresidential 2-year colleges, where students mix class attendance with heavy work schedules and participate in student activities only to a limited extent. Research at the widely attended, less-selective 4-year state colleges reveals that such behaviors are increasingly common there as well (for example, check out ethnographies by Nathan and Clydesdale). In addition, a substantial number of students now enroll at multiple colleges—switching between them, combining attendance, and cycling in and out (for more, see my research on this in the 2006 and 2009 editions of Sociology of Education). In this new postsecondary environment, what constitutes the “setting” in which college takes place? Is “college” anything more than a time period partly characterized by some (intermittent) periods of schooling beyond high school?

I really don't know. But I was intrigued to read on the New York Times website this morning about Student Union 34, a new website that purports to bring together the 34 Philadelphia colleges and their students. The motto: "34 colleges, 1 city: College life in Philadelphia."

Is there such a thing as a "life"? Probably not. But I really like the idea of an attempt to connect students from so many different kinds of colleges and universities-- not to mention Philadelphia Community College. As a Penn alum, I can attest that Philadelphia is an absolutely fantastic place to get an education. Forget the classroom and go wander Baltimore Avenue in West Philly, or spend time volunteering in North Philly (in my case, at a needle-change and condom distribution program). Explore the many locally-owned BYO restaurants, the vibrant concert scene, and the neighborhoods full of folks who've lived there for lifetimes. The sociologist in me was in pig heaven. I miss the place tremendously.

As life goes on outside campus, academic studies tend to continue an emphasis on institutional effects (despite not finding them particularly strong predictors of student outcomes) and interventions to enhance college life continue to proliferate (see, for example, the widespread use of learning communities). This should make us wonder: to what extent can these on-campus efforts be effective for students who experience college in “momentary and marginal ways” because of factors that lie beyond the characteristics or practices of the college itself (the quote is from Nathan, 2005)? Should we instead focus on helping students construct lives in other, meaningful ways?

Duncan Speaks

Thursday, July 2, 2009
U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan today delivered a major speech on the Obama Administration's teacher quality priorities before the National Education Association. He challenged the NEA to think differently about approaches to teacher compensation, while thanking NEA for its support of National Board teacher certification. He also said that the Adminstration was not interested in imposing reforms on teachers, but wanted to work with educators to develop such reforms.

Here are some brief excerpts -- on teacher pay and reform:

I am big believer in this program, but let's also be honest: school systems pay teachers billions of dollars more each year for earning PD credentials that do very little to improve the quality of teaching.

At the same time, many schools give nothing at all to the teachers who go the extra mile and make all the difference in students' lives. Excellence matters and we should honor it—fairly, transparently, and on terms teachers can embrace.

The President and I have both said repeatedly that we are not going to impose reform but rather work with teachers, principals, and unions to find what works. And that is what we did in Chicago. We enlisted the help of 24 of the best teachers in the system to design a pilot performance compensation system. We also sat down with the union and bargained it out.

It was based on classroom observation, whole school performance and individual classroom performance, measured in part by growth in student learning. The rewards and incentives for good performance went to every adult in the school—including custodians and cafeteria workers—not just the individual teachers.

Where you see high-performing schools—it's the culture—every adult taking responsibility and creating a culture of high expectations.

On seniority and tenure--

And I'm telling you as well—that when inflexible seniority and rigid tenure rules that we designed put adults ahead of children—then we are not only putting kids at risk—we're putting the entire education system at risk. We're inviting the attack of parents and the public—and that is not good for any of us.

I believe that teacher unions are at a crossroads. These policies were created over the past century to protect the rights of teachers but they have produced an industrial factory model of education that treats all teachers like interchangeable widgets.

On data, student assessment and teacher evaluation--

Now let's talk about data. I understand that word can make people nervous but I see data first and foremost as a barometer. It tells us what is happening. Used properly, it can help teachers better understand the needs of their students. Too often, teachers don't have good data to inform instruction and help raise student achievement.

Data can also help identify and support teachers who are struggling. And it can help evaluate them. The problem is that some states prohibit linking student achievement and teacher effectiveness.

I understand that tests are far from perfect and that it is unfair to reduce the complex, nuanced work of teaching to a simple multiple choice exam. Test scores alone should never drive evaluation, compensation or tenure decisions. That would never make sense. But to remove student achievement entirely from evaluation is illogical and indefensible.

It's time we all admit that just as our testing system is deeply flawed—so is our teacher evaluation system—and the losers are not just the children. When great teachers are unrecognized and unrewarded—when struggling teachers are unsupported—and when failing teachers are unaddressed—the teaching profession is damaged.

The Power Elite

Cross-posted from Brainstorm

It’s hard to get to know the rich. Gaining insight into how they think, act, behave is much harder to do, since in general they maintain the highest levels of privacy.

This is a well-known fact in social science research, and it leads to a preponderance of studies examining poor folks rather than rich ones. Why do we (think we) know so much more about the “truly disadvantaged,” the "unmarried mothers with children," the "children of the slum"? Quite simply, because they let the public (and researchers) in. Open to questions, sometimes flattered by or at least welcoming the attention, in need of the monetary incentives offered, and often lacking the presumption that inquiry will lead to destruction—for how could things get any worse?

In contrast, it’s rare to find a rich ethnography of the elite. Sure, there are a handful—but they are notable for the researcher’s ability to “study up”—to get those higher in the power structure to consent to questions.

So, why be surprised that Elyse Ashburn reports in today’s Chronicle, the private universities won’t let the sunshine in? Of course they won’t. That’s part of maintaining their elite aura, the mysterious glow that attracts students and families and leads them to believe that for the right sum, magical postsecondary dust will imbue them with super-human earning power.

This is precisely how inequality is maintained, and the elite of any kind will work to make it happen. The only way to change the situation is to begin to dismantle the entire apparatus, one that allows different rules for different schools and different kids, based on their funding mechanisms. Will that ever happen? I doubt it. For the rich, too much is at stake.

New Teacher Center Annual Symposium

Wednesday, July 1, 2009
If you are an educational practitioner, policymaker, or researcher with an interest in the needs of new teachers, you may want to consider presenting at The New Teacher Center's annual Symposium on Teacher Induction in San Jose, California in February 7-9, 2010.

In addition to new teacher development and support, the NTC also seeks submissions that address school leadership development, teacher policy, working conditions, and related themes. Submissions should exemplify best practices and current research and present new issues or topics, innovative ways of viewing traditional issues, and/or research that substantiates, promotes, and advances the work of teacher development and induction.

The NTC has released an online call for proposals. The deadline is August 10.