Expert Teachers

I have written numerous posts about teachers, teacher quality, seniority, tenure, teachers unions and other countries attempts at teacher development. I have consistently maintained that the heart and soul of a school is its faculty. A talented, motivated and passionate faculty make a great school that produces substantially higher student achievement.

In 2001, when Mario Zinga and I were designing City Charter High School, we contemplated how to build a human resource model that would create and sustain the faculty described above. Our experience in our careers in the Pittsburgh Public Schools and in the Pittsburgh Federation of Teachers was positive on the one hand, but limiting on the other. We experienced an amazing decade in the 1980's under the leadership of Superintendent Richard Wallace and union president Al Fondy. Teachers were seen as an invaluable resource to the education effort and were supported in terms of professional development, curriculum development, professional stature and compensation.

Unfortunately, during the decade of the 1990's, the district experienced five different superintendents, many changes in school leadership and a greatly diminished interest in developing its teaching and leadership corp. The emphasis moved to high stakes testing, a more programmed curriculum and far less classroom and school support. The District was looking for a prescriptive model that would raise test scores. That was naive at best, disastrous at worst.

When we left the district to start a charter school, we believed that the school's success was dependent upon an outstanding faculty and empowering leadership. And we did not believe that an outstanding faculty happens simply through the hiring process. Outstanding faculties are developed by supportive and data driven schools with strong leadership.

This is the story of the faculty development model that City High calls "Competency Based Staff Promotion".

---

Background

It would be fair to say that the initial impetus for City High's faculty development model was a reaction to the contract we worked under in the Pittsburgh Public Schools. Pittsburgh's contract is typical of most Teacher Union/District contracts across the nation. Although Pittsburgh salaries are higher and benefits are better than most. That is due to the diligent efforts of Al Fondy and the PFT in creating a professional wage and a well thought out due process agreement.

PFT Current Contract 2015

As you can see in the graphic, union negotiated salaries are straightforward. A first year teacher with a Bachelors degree earns a salary of $37,120 in 2009.  Every year they will move up a step (in the chart - diagonally down and to the right) and get about a $2000 raise. In the tenth year there is a dramatic raise to $83,000. We called this "hitting max". After your tenth year, there are no step increases. Thus this is your final salary for the next 25 years, except for Cost of Living increases (horizontal.) There are also salary differentials for Advanced Study, Longevity, Extended Day and select teacher categories.

By building a model that is based on time served, quality of work is divorced from compensation. This is fair in terms of guaranteeing that all people are treated without discrimination. This is unfair if one believes that compensation should reflect a teacher's worth to the organization in terms of student achievement.    

To their credit, the PFT and PPS have been working since 2010 on a progressive compensation model (funded by the Gates Foundation) called "the Career Ladder".  This model provides increased salary benefits in exchange for tying compensation to the quality of a teacher.

• Recognizes and rewards differences in teacher practice based on multiple measures accumulated across years and grounded in student growth.
• Enables teachers at Professional Growth levels 3 and 4 to assume roles, via Career Ladders, that reward them for working with the highest need students and taking on additional responsibilities.
• Allows the opportunity to recognize tenure as a milestone. 

Currently, 15% of the faculty use this new Career Ladder model and 85% use the traditional model. New hires must use the new model. It will take some time and data analysis before the District gets a handle on the end result of this new compensation model.

Traditional teacher contracts are simply union pay scales. You knew what you were going to earn for your entire career and you move up the salary ladder based on experience and your continued employment. That model exists today in the vast majority of school districts in the United States.

There is no discrimination in traditional salary schedules, for better or worse. Great teachers, good teachers, average teachers, poor teachers and incompetent teachers make the identical salary. There are no financial incentives to get better at your craft. There are no financial incentives to see your students achieve.

Many teachers work hard because inherently, they went into teaching to empower students. And that is what they will always do. But it takes a huge amount of time and effort to become expert at your craft and give your best for 35 years. In some sense, once you "hit max", there is a disincentive to working that hard and putting in all that time. This is an important point. This is not about firing bad teachers. This is about building a system where every teacher is rewarded for constantly working to improve at their craft. It is about a system to create and support "professional educators", not simply to protect "education workers."

Assumptions

When we set out to build our model, we had a number of assumptions.

1. Human Beings in general and employees in particular respond to incentives, particularly financial incentives.
2. It is important to financially incentivize the desired behavior. 
3. Compensation models should push workers to improve at their craft.
4. The model must explicitly define the behaviors that are intended. It is extremely important to take time and effort in defining what the desired behaviors are in great detail. 
5. Scaffold the desired behaviors so growth can occur over time.  
6. Trust in good teachers. If you incentivize becoming expert at teaching, test scores will be excellent without needing a central prescriptive curriculum.  
7. Don't incentivize test scores.  If you financially incentivize test scores, two negative by-products will occur. First, all efforts exclusively will go into increasing those test scores. Second, cheating will occur.  
8. The model should be cognizant of the timeline and growth patterns of a career educator.  
9. The model should promote the concept of becoming a "lifelong learner."
10. The model should be transparent and have safeguards that maintain integrity.  

The first step we took was not to use time served or advanced study as a measure of how salary was determined. The number of years taught or the degrees earned is not a determiner of expertise.

The second step was to identify career plateaus to be achieved over the lifetime of a quality educator. Note that the titles for these plateaus originate in traditional trade unionism and describe the growth of a craftsman over time: Apprentice, Journeyman, Expert and Master (this has subsequently been renamed Education Leader.) The graphic below notes the plateaus and the components that need to be addressed in each. Also note that the Administrative Leadership step is listed for those teachers interested into moving into an administrative role.

How It Works
*The Promotion Rubric that describes the model in detail is available to the public.  

Let's assume that you are a new teacher at City Charter High School. First, order of business is that you are given an employee handbook that describes your responsibilities, salary, benefits, etc.  Here is what you see regarding salary schedule.

Current 2014-15 salaries are Apprentice ($40,000), Journeyman ($53,000), Expert ($66,000) and Master ($80,000).

As an Apprentice Teacher you start at $40,000 with full benefits and are enrolled in the state retirement system (PSERS).  You are given a Promotion Rubric where you can read every detail about what is expected of you and how you will be evaluated. You learn that you will make $40,000 for as long as it takes for you to become proficient at the 15 components listed above. You can get help from a Peer Coach, your colleagues, your teaching/looping team and/or the administrators who are all expert at helping develop teachers. You will be observed 2-3 times a year and can request additional observations if you desire. Each observation is considered an opportunity to learn how you are doing and how you might improve. You are required to visit other teachers classrooms and observe them teaching.

Let me give you an example of how the rubric describes what you should be doing concerning a specific component - lesson planning. Note that teacher behaviors are graded as Advanced, Proficient, Nearly Proficient or Needs Significant Improvement.

As the teacher gets feedback from their observations and evaluations, he/she gets a sense of how they are moving forward. The rubric is long (over 40 pages) and detailed. There is no doubt what you should be doing and or how quality teaching is being measured. Our experience suggests that sometime from the second year to the fifth year of experience most teachers are approaching proficiency in all 15 components. At that point they begin the promotion process as articulated below.

Imagine how reflective a teacher must be to put together the promotion portfolio, and write a personal narrative. Portfolios are in binders and often run hundreds of pages. The Leadership Team that evaluates the portfolio consists of the administrators and the school's Education Leaders (Master Teachers.) Teachers complain vociferously while going through the process, and then, upon completion, often state that it was one of the most valuable educational activities they've done. When the teacher is promoted two things happen. Their promotion is announced at the next faculty meeting and the teacher receives a gift and an ovation from their colleagues. And they get a $13,000 raise as a Journeyman teacher.  Promotion to Expert teacher or Education Leader follows a relatively similar process.

If a teacher works for over 5 years and is not nearing proficiency at the 15 components, he/she often concludes that this is not the school for them or possibly not the career for them. Generally, both the teacher and administration agree that moving on is a wise decision. It is important to note that City Charter High School does not have a union, does not follow tenure laws and has an at-will employment policy. Thus if the school has a mediocre teacher, who does not appear to be able to adapt and grow in expertise, he/she is let go.

Finally, the Education Leader step (Master Teacher), is a very unique concept. In my teaching and supervisory experience in the Pittsburgh Public Schools, there would often be an expert teacher who would retire after 35 years. The teacher was exceptional, had developed an extraordinary curriculum and a multitude of resource materials and changed the lives of thousands of students. Yet when the teacher retired, he/she did not pass any of their expertise onto the next generation of teachers. That is the role of the Education Leader at City High. They work with young teachers and help them to become expert at their craft. They are training the next groups of leaders at the school. And they are compensated for doing so.

Lessons Learned

City High's Compensation-Based Promotion Model has created a culture at the school of support, accountability, growth and teacher professionalism. And it has produced outstanding student achievement.

1. In a model where you are compensated based upon performance, faculty is much more willing to help and support each other.  
2. In a looping model, faculty become extremely close on their teams and intimately aware of each others strengths and weaknesses.  This provides an additional support mechanism.
3. Administrators are perceived as educators who can help you improve your craft, rather than strictly evaluators.
4. A Peer Coach (who is an expert teacher and works well with his/her colleagues) is one of the most cost-effective positions a school can have.  
5. Expert teachers produce outstanding test scores while providing a more balanced and thoughtful curriculum. 
6. The model vests teachers in the school which leads to much less turnover.  
7. Teachers have a clearly defined career path that leads to increased compensation, success and professionalism.
8. With teachers who are struggling, there is a clear understanding and framework for how to get better.  
9. Students benefit.
10. Teachers benefit.  
11. Poor teaching is not tolerated.  
12. The Administration, the Peer Coach and the Master Teachers must be fair, consistent and supportive.  
13. If at any time the decisions made lack integrity or are based on the financial condition of the school rather than the proficiency of the teacher, the model will fail.  

I'll leave you with this story from the Best Practice Brief referenced below:

I came into City High with a few years experience at a more traditional school, so I was hired in at the “journeyman” level, rather than as an “apprentice.” I quickly realized that things work a lot differently around here, but my teaching partner was a great mentor. I learned so much working in the same classroom every day, talking about what went well and what didn’t. I watched a couple of other people go through the promotion process, and towards the end of my second year I started to feel like I was ready to try it. One thing I’ve noticed is the administrators here want you to come to that decision yourself, to be proactive about it.
The first step was to sit down with Richard Wertheimer (CEO and school co-founder) and go through the rubric. We worked through every competency on the rubric, talking about where I thought I was in terms of my performance and where he thought I was. It was a pretty brutally honest conversation. You have to be ready for that. We checked some right off—he told me it was just a matter of gathering the evidence and writing it up. We identified two areas where I really needed to focus and neither of them was a big surprise to me—classroom management and differentiated instruction. I got some very direct feedback and we really looked at the rubric and talked very concretely about what was proficient in those areas and what was not. 

From there I worked with Mario Zinga (school co-founder) on how to put the portfolio together. He was helpful in terms of making suggestions about what kind of evidence would demonstrate something. I also looked at the portfolios of a few people who had already made it through the process. That gave me ideas of the kinds of artifacts that would work for a specific competency, whether that be student work, a lesson plan, or materials from a special student activity I helped run. For a few of the competencies I requested a formal observation and feedback from Wertheimer. He is a busy guy and it wasn't always easy to get on his schedule, but those observations were central. I also continued to get a lot of feedback from my teaching partner. Having those standards on the rubric really allowed me to experiment more deliberately with my practice and then reflect and adjust. Needing to actually collect the evidence and write it up made me see some of the things I was doing differently. Every component of the rubric is just so detailed.

I'm an English teacher so writing the narrative wasn't that bad for me—I found the reflection useful. But I know some people have struggled with the amount of writing involved and the school is looking at alternate ways to present evidence, like recorded interviews. The size of it was daunting at times, but it forces you to really look at the kind of teacher you are. You have something to measure yourself against. I would say it also helped me understand the City High philosophy in depth. You have to think about not just your practice but how that fits within the specific design of this school. It actually made me think about my job more broadly—how the responsibility of a good teacher doesn't end at the classroom door.

If I were designing a school I would definitely use this kind of system. It promotes the idea of constant learning and improvement and it probably attracts people who are willing to go the extra mile. When the leadership team voted to promote me it was so validating. You know that really means something as a professional, that it is not just an automatic step but you have earned it."

---

References

There are two documents that describe the City High model in detail.  One is a best practice brief written by an evaluator of the City High program and the other is the Promotion Rubric used to evaluate teacher competency.  

Competency-Based Staff Promotion
A City Charter High School's Best Practice Brief
Catherine Awsumb Nelson, Ph.D., June 2011
http://cityhigh.org/publications/competency-based-staff-promotion-june-2011/

City Charter High School
2014-15 Promotion Rubric
http://cityhigh.org/flipbooks/promotionsrubric/offline/download.pdf

Finnish Lessons

I recently ran into Gaea Leinhardt, a professor from the University of Pittsburgh. She just completed a book review (Finnish Patience) of the recently published book by Pasi Sahlburg - Finnish Lessons. I mentioned that I've been following the publication of the book and the lessons learned in Finland. She provided me with interesting contextual information as to why this reform occurred and how it relates to our efforts in the United States. I wasn't surprised that we both were immediately drawn to two key aspects of the Finnish model: open, equitable heterogenous schools and expert teachers.

Peruskoulu - A 50 year education reform effort 

Finland's tumultuous history began in 1918 when, as a result of the Russian Revolution and the end of World War I, they were given independence from the Russian Empire. A civil war ensued for control of the country.

The civil war remains the most traumatic, controversial and emotionally charged event in the history of modern Finland, and there have even been disputes about how to designate it. Three-quarters of the war victims were Reds who died mainly in political terror campaigns and in prison camps. The turmoil created severe food shortages, disrupted the Finnish economy and the political apparatus, and divided the Finnish nation for many years. Finnish society was reunited through the social compromises based on long-term culture of moderate politics and religion, the outcome of World War I and the post-war economic recovery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_Civil_War.)

Finland's growth as an independent country was interrupted again during World War II when it had to defend itself against both the Russians and the Germans. After WWII, Finland embarked on its development as an independent, democratic country. At that time, Finland had a traditional compulsory education program beginning at the age of 7 using a three year grammar school model followed by tracking at the early age of 10 into either an academic or vocational track in middle and high school.

Influenced by the technology revolution beginning in the 1960's and the growth of NOKIA, a Finnish multinational communications and information technology company, Finland moved to create a model of education that ensured that all of its children became academically and technologically proficient. The imperative was to move from a selection based tracking model of schooling to an egalitarian, empowering, high quality education delivery system.

In 1968 the country committed itself to a non-traditional educational model called Peruskoulu. This new model provides 9 years of comprehensive schooling (in contrast to three years in the pre-1968 model) that starts at age 7 for all students. At age 16, students attend either an upper vocational school or an upper academic school (equivalent to the last two years of an American High School).This is followed by vocational college, university, or work. Thus, Finland's new model provided all students with the same quality education for 9 years prior to making a vocational decision. The fact that Finland has sustained a 50 year school reform plan that includes all students, all preschools, all grade schools and all universities is exceptional. This is an extraordinary commitment of time and resources on a national level.

"Building on the ideas of upgrading teacher education to the master’s degree level in universities, abolishing streaming and ability grouping, and investing early on in special education and student counseling positively affected the quality of education in peruskoulu and beyond. As a consequence, by the end of the 1990s, Finnish peruskoulu became the world leader in reading, science, and math. This shift from an elitist and socially divided system of education into the most equitable public education system in the world happened in such a short time that it has been frequently cited as an example of dramatic organizational transformation." (Pasi Sahlberg, 2014)

The fact that it is based in egalitarianism and a faith in high performing teachers is almost impossible for an American to comprehend.

A Social Democratic, Egalitarian Approach to Education

When one learns that formal grade school starts at age 7 in Finland, it is hard to imagine how they can lead the world in education.  Most students in the United States (and around the world) enter kindergarten at the age of 5. This "late start" in school is deceiving.

Universal Preschool
Actually, Finnish education begins at the age of 3. The Finnish model offers universal child care and preschool. Every child in Finland under age 7 has the right to child care and preschool by law, regardless of family income. Over 97 percent of 3- to 6-year-olds attend a program of one type or another. Preschool teachers are extremely well prepared - all have bachelor degrees. The preschool program is aligned with the 9 year comprehensive school curriculum in order to prepare students for a successful school experience. Thus, almost all children enter school at the age of 7 with four years of socialization and education experiences.

No Tracking
When students enter grade school, they are not tracked. A key element of the Peruskoulu model was Finland's move away from tracking towards an egalitarian heterogenous model of learning. All students are in the same academic track and in the same classrooms. To assure that all students achieve at a very high level, extensive support mechanisms are in place.

One of the criticisms of a heterogenous model is that students at the extremes - gifted and low functioning - do not have their needs met. It might be assumed that Finland could do this since it has a homogenous population. That assumption about Finland's demographics would be naive.

Finland is seen by many outsiders as monocultural – its foreign-born citizens make up just 5% of its population, compared to about 11.5% in the UK. But, over the last 15 years, Finland has diversified at a faster rate than any other European country. By 2020, a fifth of Helsinki's pupils are expected to have been born elsewhere – the majority in Russia, Estonia, Somalia and the former Yugoslavia.

At Laakavuori primary, in the poorer, eastern part of Helsinki, 45% of pupils have a language other than Finnish as their mother tongue. And yet they achieve as much as others in more affluent areas of the country, where there are few, if any, immigrants. (The Guardian, 2011)

Student Support Systems
The education system in Finland goes to great lengths to provide wrap around support for all of its students. Schools provide students with a daily hot meal, health and dental services and psychological counseling. Academic support for students includes support personnel in classrooms, after school programs and tutoring. Schools have a robust Special Education program that identifies and supports students with special needs including physical, emotional and learning disabilities. Identification of special needs students is done in the home language of the student. Accommodations are made for students whose primary language is not Finnish. Religious education is specific to the individual students preference. Every effort is made to meet the needs of all students.

Free Education
Finnish schools are free and open to the public. Since school's are financed centrally, the quality of education is not determined by a family's income level or the wealth of a local community. University and vocational colleges are free to all students. As a social democracy, Finland believes it is the government's duty to educate all students in an equitable fashion. Education is an imperative and is therefore paid for by taxes collected centrally and distributed equitably across the country.

Exceptional Teachers
Exceptional teachers are at the core of Finland's education success. When the country implemented Peruskoulu in 1968, they overhauled teacher preparation programs at the university level. From an American perspective this aligning of preschool, grade school and university teacher training programs is a radical concept. From a Finnish perspective it is common sense.

The Finnish Approach to Teaching

1. Only the top 10% of all university teacher applicants are accepted. 
2. You must obtain a Masters degree in order to be certified to teach.
3. An integral part of the Master's level teacher training program pertains to prospective teachers conducting educational research as part of their degree. This forces teachers to become reflective, to learn about best practices from the professional literature and to ingrain a sense of constantly improving their practice.  
4. Due to the selectivity of teaching degree programs and the national emphasis on quality education, teachers are well respected and well paid.
5. Not surprisingly, there is very little turnover or dropout among teachers.
6. The work day, work week and work year is shorter than in the US or United Kingdom.  
7. Teachers only teach in areas they are certified in.
8. Many upper grade teachers are certified in two subject areas. 
9. Teachers are trusted by principals and parents.
10. Teachers teach from both a pragmatic and moral imperative. That moral imperative focuses on equal access and success for all students.  

By creating an educational system that is predicated on top notch, expert teachers, many standard "safety systems" can be done away with. In this sense, safety systems are those constructs put into place to manage poor teaching. Thus there is no testing, either internally or by the state to address issues of teacher or school accountability. Curriculum is not prescriptive allowing the teacher latitude to create and implement their own materials. The belief is that quality teachers make quality education. The only testing that occurs is at the end of grade school at the age of 16. These tests are for placement in university or vocational programs. Finland participates in international tests (such as PISA - Program for International Student Assessment) in order to calibrate their success with respect to the rest of the world.  

The 21st Century Education Challenge

2012 PISA Scores - Aggregate

Before we discuss Finland's program in comparison to others around the world, there are two essentials issue that all countries in the world are grappling with. First, for the first time in the history of the world, nations are attempting to teach all of their citizens. Not just the royalty, or the wealthy, or the gifted, or the males or the privileged... Everybody.

Second, prior to the 20th century, literacy for the masses was seen as being able to read and write at a basic level. The concept of "basic literacy" has changed over time due to changes in technology, the economy and the skills needed by a modern workforce. It is no surprise that countries attempt school reform, not solely out of altruistic goals, but to address the need for a quality workforce.

The current global school reform efforts began over 50 years ago. Some would suggest it was World War II that brought on a new economy, a new internationalism, a new desire to build a middle class. Others focus on the 1957 Soviet flight of Sputnik which highlighted the Cold War need to remain competitive with our enemies.

Certainly the need for universal education beyond basic literacy gained momentum in the 1980's with the use of calculators and personal computers. As we transitioned from the industrial age to the information age, there was an increased need for workers to become literate in a modern sense of the word. This meant gaining literacy with technology, Algebra, Statistics, science, problem solving and higher order reasoning. This is the demand created by an information based economy. Read the 1983 Nation At Risk report to gain insight into America's need as a country to address these concerns.

As nations entered the new economy, they were confronted with educating the 21st century worker. For the first time, nations had to consider how to teach all children higher level skills. All children means those from poverty, all races, all genders, all intelligences... all children. This has been the challenge of the last 50 years.  And this is where the lessons learned in Finland have something to offer.

Comparing Finland to the World

Pasi Sahlberg, the author of Finnish Lessons has coined the name GERM (Global Education Reform Movement) to describe post-Sputnik school reform efforts in many countries including the United States, the United Kingdom, most of mainland Europe and many others.  And needless to say, he is critical.  He describes the GERM model's evolution as follows.

Initially the goals were:

• Education For All
• Focus on Learning
• Raising the Bar and Closing the Gap 

However, the reform efforts morphed into these simple minded strategies:

• Focus on Basics
• Focus on Core Subjects - Reading and Math (to the exclusion of other content areas)
• Prescribed Curriculum
• Standardized Testing
• Test-Based Accountability
• Corporate Style Management by Numbers
• School Choice
• Privatization

There is something empowering about the initial goals; and something terribly cynical about the strategies. As someone who worked in education during this time, I can attest to the fact that these strategies were indeed drivers in our nation's school reform. Underlying these strategies is a lack of trust in educators. Compare the Finnish approach to preparing teachers (above) with that of the United States.

The United States Approach to Teaching

1. Almost all applicants to teacher education programs are accepted. 
2. You must obtain a bachelors degree in order to teach. 
3. Any advanced college credits can be random with no relationship to what or how one teaches.  
4. Teacher training is rote, with no research component and little classroom experience.
5. Teachers are not well respected nor paid as well as other professions.
6. There is a large turnover (40-50% quit within five years.)
7. Teachers receive very little support during their early years.
8. Teachers are overwhelmed with pressure to have their students perform on high accountability tests. 
9. Curriculum and pedagogy is prescriptive, with little latitude for the teacher to adapt materials as they see fit.

Whether one blames our inferior quality of teachers (as compared to Finland) on university education programs, or on a less discriminating talent pool, or on protections built in by teachers unions, or by a lack of knowledge on how to teach all students, or on the lack of a supportive school environment, we simply are not preparing, supporting or respecting teachers in a mindful manner. Hence our education outcomes suffer.  

Recent studies by the Rand Corporation suggest that "Teachers matter more to student achievement than any other aspect of schooling." An expert teacher moves students forward 1.5 years academically in 1 years time. Finnish education puts the majority of its resources behind the effort to create great teachers. They work closely with universities to create quality programs of teacher development.

Comparing Finland to Norway

Although Norway did not have a civil war, they had a similar experience to Finland during World War II.  Both countries came away from the war with a desire to build an independent democratic state. Both have the same relative heterogeneity and in fact, Norway is a more prosperous country due to wealth drawn from the North Sea.

After World War II, both began to consider their educational systems. As stated, Finland gravitated to a teacher centered, egalitarian system. Norway chose the GERM model (Global Education Reform Movement) as articulated by Pasi Sahlberg - http://pasisahlberg.com/global-educational-reform-movement-is-here/. Thus we have a clear comparison between two similar countries, with similar social democratic philosophies, and similar economic systems, but contrasting school systems.

A look at the PISA table above shows the results.  Norway is getting the same results as other GERM countries. And Finland is far ahead.  A comparison of Norway and Finland suggest that the experimental intervention - Peruskoulu - works.

A Caveat About Implementation

As Sahlberg shows his contempt for the GERM model and promotes Finland's Peruskoulu, I am bothered by a simple yet most important oversight. At a fundamental level, Finland is neither the United States nor the United Kingdom. Finland is a social democracy built on the concept of central control, egalitarian programs and high taxes that provide a wealth of services. Finland is also quite small, about the same size and population as the state of Arizona. In Finland, the concept of creating a teacher development system that coordinates teacher education with universities and grade schools is manageable. The concept of providing student support services at all schools for all students is embedded in social democracy.

In the US or the UK, education is much different. Close to 1/3 of all students don't even attend public schools. And education in the US is not managed by the federal government, it is a state responsibility. Arizona, is one of 50 states, and has hundreds of local school districts. Each district has different funding, different populations and different leadership. Education is a local activity. And school choice, whether through where you choose to live, or what you are willing to pay, is the reality.

In America, you as a parent or as a student, are on your own to get the best education possible. That is the nature of a meritocracy. Charter Schools are a product of an inflexible American public school education system that refuses to adapt to the new economy and education best practices. Opponents of Charter Schools suggest that they are an attempt to privatize education. Proponents of Charter Schools suggest that they are an attempt to provide education opportunities to those students who are not receiving a quality education and can't purchase an alternative. I would suggest that both sides would agree that the real problem is a lack of social democratic ideals in our country. Education is not a national priority.

It would be disingenuous to assume that large free-market libertarian GERM countries could do what Finland did without a major change in political systems or an upheaval by the population. Thus I am saying it is highly unlikely that we could possibly put in place a system like Finland's in the United States.

But we would be foolish not to learn from Finland's education model.

The Takeaway

As a social democracy, Finland has put in place, over a 50 year period, an educational program that provides: Universal Preschool, Free quality education at the grade school and university level, wrap-around support services for students and expert teachers. They trust their teachers to develop curriculum, make wise choices, use strategies that succeed with all students and create literate, proficient learners. Sahlberg actually uses the word TRUST. Given the right setting, the right culture, the right support, the right reward system and exceedingly high standards, it is easy to trust teachers.

If America had the will, concepts such as Universal Preschool, wrap-around support services for students, an elimination of tracking and demanding a higher level of teacher training are possibilities. But to take an egalitarian approach would mean that we would have to drop our system based meritocracy and truly act in a manner that suggests all people can and should succeed. It would mean that as a society we would choose to be inclusive over our current educational "survival of the fittest" approach.  And it would mean that we have to elevate teaching of our children to the highest status among professions.

Next weeks blog post will describe an American high school where this happens.   

---

References for this post include:

Finnish Patience. By Gaea Leinhardt
http://pasisahlberg.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Finnish-Lessons-review-ER-2012.pdf

Why Finland's schools are top-notch. By Pasi Sahlberg http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/06/opinion/sahlberg-finland-education/

Finnish lessons. By Pasi Sahlberg
(2011). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Regent Square Elementary School

Regent Square is a lovely, tree lined residential neighborhood in the East End of Pittsburgh. It adjoins Frick Park, a magnificent city park with tennis courts, ball fields, playgrounds and hundreds of miles of trails. Regent Square has beautiful homes with a healthy mix of rentals and homeowners. It has a robust business district on South Braddock Avenue. Restaurants, art galleries, small shops and a Pittsburgh Filmmakers movie theater line the busy main street. There is a grocery store, organic food coop and shopping center within walking distance (or a very short drive.) It has easy access to public transportation and the parkway to downtown.

Regent Square's residents include young families, retirees, professionals and students. Residents often are employed in local hospitals, at the universities and in local businesses. House values have gone up significantly in the last decade. And many of the families moving in have school aged children. The Regent Square neighborhood is made up of parts of four different municipalities- Pittsburgh, Edgewood, Swissvale and Wilkinsburg. The population of Regent Square is only 877.

From an education perspective, Regent Square is a conundrum. It has no district public schools within its boundaries. There are three elementary school buildings on South Braddock Avenue, all of which were closed - Wilkins Elementary School (closed in 1978), Park Place Elementary School (closed in 1974) and Regent Square Elementary School (closed once in 1985 and than closed again in 2005). Just outside of Regent Square there is a Catholic school (St. James K-8) in central Wilkinsburg, a private middle school (Shadyside Academy) in Pittsburgh, a public school (Kelly Elementary School) in Wilkinsburg and a public school in Edgewood (Edgewood Elementary School.) The Wilkinsburg schools (both St. James and Kelly) are nearly all black, the Edgewood school is majority black and the private school is nearly all white.

There is a story here... one that includes race, white flight and school district policies that have consistently resulted in poor decisions. Both my daughters attended Regent Square Elementary School after it was reopened in 1988... thus it is near and dear to my heart.

---

Prior to 1960, Pittsburgh's East End was a segregated white community. Squirrel Hill, East Liberty, Highland Park, Point Breeze, Park Place, Regent Square and Homewood (all neighborhoods in Pittsburgh) were white, ethnic and Catholic, Jewish or Protestant. First ring east suburbs including Wilkinsburg and Edgewood were white, exclusive and mainly Protestant. The black population in Pittsburgh lived in a few isolated areas of town, mainly in the Hill District or in lower working class areas.

Park Place Elementary School

In 1960, the Pittsburgh School district had 72,000 students, and its schools were filled to capacity. Park Place Elementary School, situated on the border between Wilkinsburg and Pittsburgh, was thriving. The school is at the far north end of Braddock Avenue in the Park Place neighborhood. It is within walking distance of Pittsburgh's Homewood neighborhood, Wilkinsburg and the center of Regent Square.

Two events in the 1950's had a profound effect on all of these neighborhoods from a demographic perspective. First, in 1954 the US Supreme Court in Brown vs. Board of Education ruled that public schools needed to be integrated because "seperate was not equal." The prospect of integration created fear in both the white and black communities. And second, in 1956 the City of Pittsburgh embarked on an urban renewal project to build the Civic Arena that forced a black migration out of the center city. Neighborhoods in the east went through a significant demographic change that began in the early 1960's. It is hard to believe that an urban renewal project 7 miles away would radically change these East End neighborhoods.

 ...wholesale relocation of residents began. Between April 1956 and the 1961 dedication of the plan's centerpiece, the $22-million Civic Arena, a total of 8,000 residents - one-fifth of the Hill's population at the time - were relocated. Included were 1,551 families, 458 individuals and 416 businesses, according to newspaper reports at the time. In essence, the heart had been torn out of the community. Longtime residents were ripped from the only neighborhood they had known, one they loved, and were relocated, primarily to East Liberty, the North Side and Homewood. (http://old.post-gazette.com/newslinks/19990411hilldistrict1.asp)

The migration east from the Hill District occurred at a rapid pace. To give you a sense of the speed of black migration and the subsequent white flight, let's use Wilkinsburg as a case study. Prior to 1960, Wilkinsburg, the self labeled "Town of Churches" was an all white, middle class, exclusive suburb. From 1960 to 1980 the number of black citizens in Wilkinsburg increased from 2% to 37% of the overall population.  At the current time, Wilkinsburg is 67% black and its population is 50% of what it was in 1960. The people who left were middle class whites who moved further east to Penn Hills, Edgewood, Forest Hills, Churchill, Monroeville and Murrysville.    

June 22, 1974

As black families moved East and many white families fled to the suburbs, the East End student population decreased. Park Place Elementary School lost a substantial number of students. This put Park Place in a precarious position in terms of staying open.

But not all white families left.  A significant number of white families stayed, loved their neighborhood and wanted to make integration work.  This 1974 letter to the editor in the Post Gazette describes the frustration of parents (white) who were fighting (to no avail) to save their school.

This is a key point. Not all white families leave when blacks enter their community and the local school. Many actually welcome diversity and want to see integration succeed. This creates an ideal place for integration to be nurtured. It gave the school district the opportunity to create a "proof of concept" that integration can be successful from both a sociological and academic perspective.    

Unfortunately, the letter fell on deaf ears and Park Place Elementary School was closed in 1974. In 1975 it was sold (for less than $40,000) to a real estate developer who converted the school into apartments. This was one of the first neighborhood schools sold by the district. This decision to close the school never took into account the issue of racial balance and trying to keep white families in the district. It was based strictly on buildings, short term budget concerns and placement of students. By selling the school the District made its intentions clear; not only did the Park Place feeder not have enough students to maintain the school, but they would never again have a district school in their neighborhood.  

---

At the same time that Pittsburgh was closing schools in the 1970's, three families in General Braddock filed a federal lawsuit charging that the state intentionally segregated black students when creating the General Braddock school district.

Braddock, PA

The General Braddock School District was a merger of three municipalities near the Edgar Thompson Steel Mill: North Braddock, Braddock and Rankin. As the demise of the steel industry began, and the flight to the suburbs occurred, these three towns became segregated, poor and destitute. In 1973, a US District judge ruled the founding of the district to be unconstitutional. This was a civil rights issue. The children from these communities deserved a shot at a quality education.  But resolving the issue was not going to be easy.

After a decade of arguing how to provide a school district that was integrated and equitable, and getting no where, the judge ordered Churchill Area, Edgewood, Swissvale Area, Turtle Creek and General Braddock school districts to merge (1983). The judge created an integrated school district from five existing neighboring school districts. These five districts were quite different demographically. Churchill and Edgewood were exclusive white middle class communities, Swissvale and Turtle Creek were working class blue collar, integrated municipalities and General Braddock was a poor black community. Two of these municipalities, Edgewood and Swissvale, are part of the Regent Square area. As one can imagine, the merger of these districts was extremely controversial. This was a difficult mixing of populations that was forced by the courts, not voluntary or through migration of families as they moved east out of Pittsburgh.

Wilkins Elementary School

As one might guess, the first thing that happened was a large number of white (and some black) middle class families moved farther east to new, expanding suburbs. Second, the consolidation closed a number of neighborhood schools to save money and use buildings in a more efficient manner. Wilkins Elementary School was an example of that. In preparation for the merger, Wilkins Elementary School was closed in 1978 and was handed over to the municipality of Swissvale. They then gave it to a community group that converted it into  a community center. So by the late 1970's the Regent Square neighborhood lost an elementary school at both its north and south boundaries. And once again, a school district, this time Woodland Hills, signaled a neighborhood (the Swissvale part of Regent Square) that they would never again have a school in their neighborhood.

---

Regent Square Elementary School

Regent Square Elementary School is located midway between Park Place and Wilkins Elementary Schools just off of Braddock Avenue. It is tucked away on a small community street adjacent to Frick Park. It really is the perfect location for an elementary school. Great building, located next to a park for science, recreation and exercise and within walking distance for most of its students.

As discussed above, white flight starting in 1960 affected the overall membership of Regent Square Elementary School. As the population went down, the Pittsburgh school district decided to close it in 1985. Upon closing, the Board of Education received numerous complaints from parents living in East End neighborhoods where schools were closed. Their children were being  bussed to schools out of their neighborhoods and they felt this was a bad idea for elementary school children. By applying a great deal of political pressure to the school board, Regent Square was reopened in 1988. The students attending the school were drawn from four neighborhoods: Park Place, Swisshelm Park, Regent Square and East Hills. The first three neighborhoods were all white communities that had their neighborhood schools closed and the fourth, was an all black community, living in a public housing project.

Thus the reopening of Regent Square Elementary School was an attempt to address the needs of these white communities while providing school integration with the East Hills students. In order to make the school a success, the district assigned a very well thought of veteran educator to be the principal. The fact that she was black and extremely competent helped the opening of the school immensely. She was able to hand pick her faculty from over 70 experienced applicants from within the school district. Regent Square Elementary School reopened with great excitement and high expectations. And fully integrated classes.

As it would happen, my eldest daughter began kindergarten at Regent Square Elementary School in 1989. And my youngest daughter attended the school from 1994 to 2000. Thus I was in touch with how the school was doing from its reopening until 2000.

The principal was highly attuned to the needs of both the black and white communities that attended the school. She welcomed the parents, reached out to the distant communities and ran parent meetings in the East Hills community for parents who couldn't get transportation to the school. She held the faculty to extremely high standards and the quality of work was evident. When my eldest daughter entered the school, the racial mix was 60/40 white/black. The faculty was outstanding. It was a dream come true.

Then for some reason, the principal was transferred in 1990 after only two years at the school. Rumors abounded. Was she forced out by disgruntled white parents? Was she needed elsewhere to manage a school needing improvement?  I don't know the answer to that question. I do know that Pittsburgh had a history of constantly moving principals around and keeping schools in a constant state of transition. This is bad practice since we know that consistent school leadership is a key to success. The first principal was replaced by a relatively young, white educator whose experience was as Vice-Principal at East Hills Elementary School and a brief stint as Principal at Greenfield Elementary School.  At no fault of her own, she was on the merry go round of principal transfers.

The second Principal did not have the experience of the opening Principal. She was less welcoming, seemingly concerned about parent backlash. She struggled at times with faculty. And unfortunately, she had a series of medical issues that led to her take a medical leave in 1997. Sadly, she passed away the following year. White parents struggled with this principal. And as you might guess, this led to white families leaving the school. By 1998, the racial mix was 93/7 black/white. The whites (other than my daughter and a few other students) left the school.

What was interesting to note was that the white families who left the school did not move to the suburbs. Because they loved their homes and their neighborhood, they chose to look for school alternatives. Catholic families attended Catholic schools. Jewish families attended the newly opened Jewish Community Day School in Squirrel Hill. Wealthy families attended private schools such as Ellis, Winchester, Falk or Shady Side Academy.  Many families found a way to get their children into public magnet schools (which had racial quotas). By 2005 there was no need to keep a school open in a neighborhood that didn't use it, so Regent Square was closed for good.

In 2006 the district put 27 schools up for sale. Regent Square Elementary School had an appraised value of $875,000.  It sold for $3 million to Imagine Schools, a national network of charter schools.  All three Regent Square Elementary Schools were closed and sold.

---

This brings us to today.  Regent Square remains a thriving community. Businesses, housing, commerce, amenities are better than ever.  It remains a predominantly white, professional, educated and middle class community.

Unfortunately, the four municipalities that make up Regent Square have some of the worst public schools in the state.

• The closest Wilkinsburg elementary school (Kelly School ES) to Regent Square is among the lowest achieving in the state, has a 99% poverty index (free/reduced lunch) and is 98% black. 
• The closest Homewood elementary school (Pittsburgh Faison K-8) to Regent Square is among the lowest achieving in the state, has a 94% poverty index and is 100% black. 
• The closest Woodland Hills elementary school (Edgewood ES) to Regent Square is low achieving, has a 69% poverty index and is 69% black.  

Environmental Charter School

Families with children in Regent Square use school choice to find alternatives for their children. Parochial, Private, University, Magnet or Charter Schools, or Homeschooling are their choices.

So what became of the Regent Square Elementary School building. Imagine Schools opened a charter school there in 2008 for grades K-5. This morphed into the Environmental Charter School which is now independent of Imagine Schools. It's theme is a perfect match for both their location (Frick Park) and the population (young, progressive, educated families). It's current demographic is 67/33 white/black. The irony is the demographic is quite close to that of Park Place Elementary School when it closed and Regent Square Elementary School when it reopened.

The minute the Environmental Charter School opened it was overwhelmed with applicants. This year the Environmental Charter School had 500 applications for 28 kindergarten openings. The Environmental Charter School was so successful at attracting students that they leased Park Place Elementary School and have expanded their program to eighth grade. They are now pursuing plans to open a high school and another K-8. They are currently applying for charters for these schools with the Pittsburgh Public Schools. Their student achievement is quite good. However, their poverty index (free-reduced lunch) of 27% suggests that they are attracting mainly middle class students. They are really addressing the pent up demand for quality public schools in middle class East End neighborhoods.

Clearly, there is a need for more quality public schools in general in Pittsburgh and in this case, in the East End. And we know these schools can be integrated as long as there is a relative balance between the races.  

---

Forbes and Braddock - The Entrance to Regent Square

So what's the takeaway of the Regent Square story?

Look at the picture on the right. This is the corner of Forbes and Braddock Ave. circa 1955.  It doesn't look much different today except there are no trolley lines or tracks, the Junction Pharmacy is now a restaurant and the Gulf Station is an auto mechanics shop.

In 1960 there were many, many children who walked daily through this intersection or waited for a trolley on the corner. They walked down the street to Park Place ES, or up the street to Regent Square ES, or took the trolley to Wilkinsburg to Kelly or St. James school. They attended segregated neighborhood schools. And they received a good education. And they didn't even know that poor black students were getting educated in segregated schools across town.

In 2015 there are many, many children who walk through this intersection or wait for a bus. They either walk up the street to the Environmental Charter Upper School or down the street to the Environmental Lower School. They get on a bus or are driven to Falk, Community Day, St. James or one of the many private schools or to a Propel Charter School. Most of the private schools are segregated. Many of the charter schools are substantially integrated, while some are lopsided in one direction or another. But the children who do not go through this corner attend segregated, poverty stricken, low achieving schools.

Here's what I think the takeaway is.

1. Pittsburgh is still one of the most segregated cities in America.
2. Pittsburgh leads the country in highest level of poverty among working age African-Americans.  
3. Anyone who says that race is no longer an issue in our society is either a liar or a fool. 
4. Since everyone gets really upset when we talk about race, at a minimum we should admit to the segregation by socio-economic class that exists in our city.  
5. Families (black or white) with financial means always use school choice whether by moving to a new neighborhood or enrolling their children into schools of choice (private, public magnet or charter.) 
6. Some white families are racist and will flee the city for no good reason other than ignorance.  
7. Some white families will attend integrated schools if the balance is near 50-50 and they believe the academic rigor of the program is high.  
8. Managing an integrated school takes finesse, consistent leadership and a lot of hand holding with parents.  
9. Urban public schools in America have not figured out the strategic nuances of how to educate all children in integrated settings. 
10. Nor have they figured out how to market their integrated schools to white, middle class parents.  
11. Thus they lose middle class families and work almost exclusively with poor, at risk students.  
12. And since they don't know how to achieve with such a disenfranchised and damaged group of students, they are destined to fail. 
13. Then they sell the building. 

I miss Regent Square Elementary School...