Do I Stay or Do I Go?: The Role of Retention Strategies in STEM Education Reform

Overview

"When I was teaching, I found myself in love with teaching, but completely disgusted by the education system that we were working in," remarked Meghan Groome, Director of the K-12 Education Initiative at the New York Academy of Sciences. Fortunately, Groome had the resolve and the resources "to use her skills in education to make a difference" outside of the classroom. Unfortunately, not everyone has this persistence, and many highly qualified and motivated new teachers burn out from exhaustion, frustration, or dissatisfaction with their profession and ultimately leave teaching or education altogether. On March 7, 2012, the Academy and Demos brought together experts and professionals from all aspects of education at Do I Stay or Do I Go? The Role of Retention Strategies in STEM Education Reform, a panel discussion focusing on the reasons STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) teachers in particular leave the profession and on generating possible ways to prevent a loss of valuable educators in STEM disciplines.

Julia Rankin of The Science Collaborative, Inc., panel moderator and former K-12 Director of Science for the New York City Department of Education, opened the forum by referencing the annual MetLife Survey of the American Teacher, which found that only 44% of teachers are very satisfied with their job, the lowest percentage since 1989. The survey also revealed that 29% plan to leave in 5 years, whereas 17% expressed that desire in 2009. Rankin believes the scientific community should think about how we "can work together to really support such teachers, to make them feel valued and [to] make them want to stay in the system." She cited Sheila Tobias, author of the book Science Teaching as a Profession, who identifies loss of autonomy, control, and stature, not money, as the key factors in low retention. According to the research conducted by the Center for Teaching Quality, a teacher's confidence and perceived effectiveness, the degree of a teacher's identification with a professional learning community (PLC), and the relevance of professional development to that teacher all play into the teacher's decision to stay in the field. The panel's contributions supported these findings as they began to pool anecdotes and statistics to generate solutions for increasing STEM teacher retention.

Many novice STEM teachers lack confidence or feel ineffective or underappreciated. As David M. Steiner, Dean of the Hunter College School of Education and former president of the University of the State of New York and Commissioner of Education testified, the quality of education students in universities goes up, but it takes time for that quality to manifest in the K-12 classroom. Steiner suggested that policy makers do not consider this delay, and therefore impose initiatives such as Race to the Top or No Child Left Behind (NCLB) which are based on faulty assumptions about the pace of change. According to Steiner, the latest teacher evaluation system, for instance, was "built for a labor pool that is considered weak...[and built]...out of fear of low performance," contributing to job anxiety in teachers and to micromanaging by policy makers, education reformers, and administrators. Michael Holmes, a teacher at the High School for American Studies at Lehman College and winner of the Alfred P. Sloan Award for Excellence in Teaching Science, conveyed his frustration with the lack of trust demonstrated by such policies: "...When you're in your classroom, and you're in the mode of thinking, 'What's best for the students?', your mind might wander back [to these evaluation systems] and you may stifle those things that are best for your students in hopes of achieving what Race to the Top [or] NCLB...want you to be." According to Holmes, the lack of trust "takes away a lot of what keeps teachers there, the idea of autonomy, the idea of being self-directed."

Several members of the panel and audience believe that treating teachers as true professionals would help the system retain more science teachers. Hines confirmed the need for trust by citing the research of Richard Ingersoll, whose findings suggested that "the majority of science teachers stayed where they had a voice in the community and left where their voice was neglected." More specifically, Steiner suggested that policy makers, administrators, and members of education reform groups need to "break the cycle of distrust," which inspires "deep neuroses of poor performance and not a celebration of excellence." An audience member, the principal at a Long Island City high school, recognized this phenomenon and queried the panel on what he should do to keep the teachers that he considers talented. Panelist Preeti Gupta, Director of Youth Learning and Research at the American Museum of Natural History, challenged him to extend the trust even further and to include these teachers in the conversation about what would make them more likely to stay. To help teachers and administrators alike trust teachers' abilities, education schools have the responsibility to improve their own methods, to demand high quality education students, and to push them to even higher standards. Embedding quality and trust within the system will "revolutionize" the field, according to Steiner, establishing teaching as an attractive and respected profession, a niche in which they feel safe and valued.

A collaborative effort, such as the one suggested by Gupta, seems to be another link needed in the chain that keeps individuals in STEM education. She and most of her fellow panelists maintained that professional learning communities (PLCs), a collaboration of teachers and administrators who share, reflect on, and apply practices in order to increase student learning and achievement, are crucial to retaining high quality STEM teachers. Often, teachers feel unprepared before they are thrown into their own classrooms. Once in their own classrooms, they can lack the confidence or the complete grasp of content needed to be model scientists, either because they have long since left the lab or because they had limited scientific training. STEM teachers must be supported to develop as teachers and as scientists, both before and during their teaching experience (pre- and in-service).

To help future teachers become masters of both education and science, panel members advocated deploying a variety of PLCs, where "theory and practice are linked together" as powerful tools for teacher preparation and retention. Pre-service, Steiner suggested, America should follow the model set by schools of education in Finland by making the process of admitting education majors more selective, in student number and quality, so as to provide financially sustainable and outstanding in-class training programs, called "residency programs." Active classroom training and participation in PLCs pre-service can provide a controlled environment in which to make reparable mistakes. For teachers new to the classroom, school-based PLCs are still crucial, according to Gupta, in order to provide content-specific support and to position teachers in a community of like-minded people. An audience member mentioned a successful weekend program in which physics teachers, who are usually the only physics teacher in their own schools, pay to meet and collaborate with physics teachers from other schools. Being involved with a PLC also enhances the sense of professionalism and, therefore, teachers' confidence and effectiveness.

PLCs should not just be school-based, however. Gupta suggested that partnerships with cultural institutions pre-service and in-service can be similarly effective, both financially and professionally. She has had 15 years of direct involvement with professional development of teachers via museums and science centers and bears witness to the advantages of "teaching at the elbow of another." Many scientists and educators are already involved as paid members or volunteers with cultural institutions such as museums, and, Hines affirmed, if science teachers can partner with these non-K-12 educators, the resulting mentor-candidate relationships can decrease new teacher anxiety while simultaneously helping the veteran science educator still feel relevant. A scientist-teacher duo helps the teacher become more knowledgeable about science content and its application. In addition, scientists-turned-teachers can solidify their sense of self during such pre-service training as they find that aspects of teaching are a lot like research, Hines remarked. Gupta also reiterated the value of having candidates teach science to children pre-service, but outside the traditional classroom environment, an experience that facilitates the future teachers' professional growth as they repeatedly communicate and apply science to the diverse group of learners who visit these cultural institutions.

The final focal point of the discussion on teacher retention was the allocation of resources for relevant and effective professional development (PD). Even in the midst of budget cuts, many teachers, including Hines, have experienced listening to a well-paid individual speak on a subject of little relevance to the development of their teaching skills, under the auspices of professional development. On the other end of the spectrum, audience member Sam Silverstein of Columbia University runs a PD program that brings science teachers to the scientist and into research, which, he explained, is based on the premise that "you can't teaching something you've never done." He testified that, "Scientists understand completely the problem of science education" and that effective PD can change what goes on in science classrooms. Regarding the annual NY State budget allocation for professional development, he claimed, "There isn't a shortage of money...there is $550 million that is spent for PD. If that PD were any good, the system wouldn't look the way it looks now." In agreement, Steiner drew attention to the money spent on education majors who never enter teaching and asserted, "There is a massive use of funds, both pre-service and in-service. No other industrialized country has done as badly [with that investment]."

Steiner attributed this profligate spending to the lack of standards for PD programs and suggested measuring outcomes of existing PD in order to set appropriate criteria. Silverstein suggested partnering teachers with any of the 224 higher education institutions in New York to create summer research programs for science teachers. Another audience member, a teacher of 15 years, advocated providing quality PD for literacy as well as for science, as navigating texts is crucial to science as well. Steiner responded that the newly introduced Common Core State Standards are aligned with these aims. The hope is that better equipping teachers will encourage them to stay in the profession. Such actions, coupled with better budgeting and raising public awareness of misuse of public funds, should incite the necessary political will to effect lasting change.

The circumstances that are causing low STEM teacher retention should not imply teachers' desperation or incompetence. Rather, the situation seems to have resulted from a misuse, repression, or underdevelopment of highly qualified and talented individuals, both scientists and educators. The impact of this profession seems to be undervalued and its members mistrusted by policy makers. If basic steps are taken to improve the standards and quality of content development, both for science and education, educators can trust their teaching expertise and their knowledge of science content as they master their profession.

Use the tab above to find multimedia from this event.

Media available from panel discussion featuring:
Moderator: Julia Rankin, PhD (The Science Collaborative, Inc.)
Panelists: Michael Holmes (High School for American Studies at Lehman College)
David M. Steiner, PhD (Hunter College School of Education)
Preeti Gupta, PhD (American Museum of Natural History)

Presented by