Career pathways in education: How do we make them work?

When people enter the education workforce, what options do they have for advancing in their careers? Which types of career pathways help retain talented teachers and principals?

Hough, Loeb, and Plank’s first year report on the Quality Teacher and Education Act (QTEA) explores some answers to these questions.[i] Among other things, the report describes the implementation of a new pathway for San Francisco teachers in 2009 – the Master Teacher Program.  This program was funded by the QTEA, a parcel tax passed by San Francisco voters in 2008, which amounted to about $30 million a year over 20 years. The findings from the study provide insight into what elements are needed to make differentiated career pathways successful for teachers in San Francisco and potentially other districts.

The Master Teacher program in San Francisco was originally designed to pay 50 teachers a stipend of $2500 for a 0.2 release time from the class to support other teachers. When implemented, the program paid for a mix of release time for teachers including full time Master Teachers that traveled to different sites as well as some demonstration teachers and 0.2 release teachers. According to Hough, et al., the implementation of the Master teacher program got a late start, so not many teachers applied.  In general, criteria for hiring and the goals of the program were not clearly defined, which meant the role of a Master Teacher varied from school-to-school.

With a challenging beginning, the impact of the Master Teacher program in its first year also seemed unclear. Teachers and principals both reported that the Master Teacher program was aligned with their school goals. Yet, while principals reported that the program was useful for meeting instructional goals, teachers’ reported mixed sentiments about the usefulness of the program.

San Francisco’s Master Teacher program potentially had one thing most career pathways for teachers don’t have – a consistent funding source from the QTEA.  So, why did that funding change after the first year of implementation? And, more importantly, why did the program last the enthusiasm needed to make it work?

Part of the issue might have been the variable implementation, but the other issue most likely stemmed from the lack of specific criteria for hiring and selecting the Master Teachers. According to Moore Johnson and Donaldson, “If teachers, administrators, and the public are to invest in career ladders, they must be confident that the criteria for selecting lead or master teachers are appropriate and that the process for choosing them is even-handed.”[ii]

It seems like any career pathway in education needs:

· Consistent sources of funding;

· Careful implementation;

· Specific criteria and processes for selection in and out of the program.

The other important aspect of San Francisco’s Master Teacher program is the joint efforts of the teachers union and district that went into passing the QTEA and supporting the Master Teacher Program. As noted by Hough, negotiating the parts of the QTEA, including the Master Teacher program, took about 10 years. [iii] Therefore, career pathway in education also need:

· Trust and support for the career pathway from both teachers and central office leadership.

---

[i] Hough, H.J., Loeb, S., & Plank, D. (2011). The Quality Teacher and Education Act: First Year Report.

[ii] Moore Johnson, S. and Donaldson, M.L. “Chapter 10 – Sustaining New Teachers Through Professional Growth.” From Finders and Keepers: Helping New Teachers Survive and Thrive in Our Schools. The Project on the Next Generation of Teachers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. p. 244.

[iii] Hough, H.J. and Loeb, S. (May 2009). The Development of a Teacher Salary Parcel Tax: The Quality Teacher and Education Act in San Francisco. Policy Analysis for California Education.