Thank you, Emily.

You know, on top of having a ridiculous title, I have one of those jobs where it's hard to describe to people what I do for a living. In fact, if you asked my wife Meghan what I do all day she'd have a hard time giving you an answer. But at the Department of Education, what we do more than anything else is make grants. And when you make a grant, you have certain hopes and dreams for it, but you never really know what it's going to grow up to do. What Emily has achieved in two short years with her grant from the Department is nothing short of amazing. Thank you, Emily, for all you are doing for this movement.

I have a feeling that a lot of you are probably thinking: "Oh no, not this guy again!" I know many of you have heard me speak before, so along with my new beard, I'm going to give you a new speech.

What I want to do today is present a vision, my vision, for teacher preparation in the age of No Child Left Behind. I have two New Year's resolutions this year: be hairier, and, when talking about NCLB, be more explicit about the kind of education system or, in this case, teacher preparation system, The Department of Education has in mind.

I have to admit that I do so with some reservation. I've always resisted describing anything that might sound like "one best system," like a one-size-fits-all solution. I absolutely reject the idea that there is one model of education that is the best, that would be most effective everywhere. At the same time, it's become clear to me that in the absence of communicating a vision, the opponents of NCLB, and of school reform more broadly, have sketched a vision for us. And it is not attractive.

This has been hitting home recently as I read newspaper articles from around the country, and learn that, supposedly because of NCLB, schools are cutting art, cutting music, cutting physical education, even cutting recess. It really came to a head a few weeks ago, when I read about a school board that decided to cancel the spelling bee because, they felt, it was antithetical to the spirit of No Child Left Behind, for, in the end, there was only one winner. Thankfully I'm happy to report that we worked with the officials in the state and clarified that, in fact, there is no "anti-spelling-bee" clause in NCLB, and the spelling bee is back on.

But when those of us in favor of standards-based reform and NCLB do not sketch a vision for what we're trying to achieve, our opponents do it for us. And it's not an attractive vision. They say that we want schools to be "testing factories." Nothing but three hours of reading in the morning and three hours of math in the afternoon. Maybe a short break for lunch. No art, no music, no P.E., no joy, no laughter, just drill and kill. Get 'em in and get 'em out. You know, if that's what NCLB was really all about, I certainly wouldn't be in favor of it.

So I've come to believe that it's important to communicate a positive vision of the kind of school we're hoping to create as a result of NCLB. And it's a school that's full of joy and art and music and activity, where teachers love to be and love the kids, where students are achieving academically but are also thriving physically, socially and emotionally. It's not a rigid, soul-less testing factory, but the kind of wonderful, well-rounded school once reserved only for the children of our society's elite.

Last year, our office, the Office of Innovation and Improvement, produced a publication highlighting eight of the most successful charter schools in the nation. Now you may or may not like the charter school idea—personally I think there are many parallels with the alternate route movement—but no matter, you would love the schools in this book. All of them have demonstrated strong improvements in student achievement over time, and all made Adequate Yearly Progress under NCLB. But otherwise these schools are all over the map educationally. Sure, some are fairly traditional, like KIPP and Roxbury Prep in Boston. But others are quite progressive, like the School of Arts and Sciences up the road here in Tallahassee. And not one is what anyone could call a testing factory. Every one is filled with art, music, love, joy, and a sense of humor. They are simply wonderful schools.

And yet so many superintendents and school board members seem to think that we want all schools turned into testing factories. I've never actually seen a "testing factory school" that is successful at raising student achievement. As KIPP says, "There are no shortcuts." We want our schools to be joyful temples of learning—and we need to do a much better job sharing that message.

In much the same way, I've come to believe that we have to do a better job explaining the kind of education system that we want to create as a result of NCLB. This became clear when a friend sent me a cartoon. It depicted the "theory of action" for standards-based reform in ten or twelve panes, complete with all sorts of arrows and flow charts. It started with, "States set standards for what all children should know and be able to do." Then, "States test students to assess whether they have met those standards." Then, "Schools are held accountable for the results of those assessments-given rewards for good performance and sanctions for bad." Then, in the next-to-last pane, it said, "And then a miracle happens," and then, "student achievement goes up."

And then a miracle happens? Is that how it feels to lots of administrators and school board members? They really don't know what we want them to do? Boy, we have not done a good job explaining how this whole thing is supposed to work. Let me try to be explicit. What are some of the specific changes we're hoping districts will make as a result of the pressure placed upon them by NCLB and other accountability systems?

First, let's talk about holding people accountable. Let me give you an example. I was speaking in a northeastern city a few months ago at an event sponsored by the local school district. I said a few nice things about the district, and went on to explain NCLB to a group of parents and teachers. Afterwards a few teachers approached me, and they were furious. "How dare you say positive things about this school system," they complained. They went on to describe numerous problems over the course of the next hour, but their major complaint boiled down to this: they worked in a high school headed by a principal that everyone knew was awful. He never left his office. He never gave support to his teachers. He didn't even try to get to know his kids. His school's test scores were in the toilet. And yet he had held his position for ten years. Ten years! A succession of superintendents came and went and no one was willing to fire the man. The teachers desperately wanted leadership, a principal who would help their school improve and who would support their efforts to teach.

I mentioned this conversation to my contact in the district headquarters who had invited me to speak. He knew exactly which principal I was talking about. "You know," he said, "if you wanted to grab a beer with someone down at the pub and shoot the bull, he's your guy. But yeah, he's not a very strong principal."

Because he was well liked, year after year went by without anyone removing a terribly ineffective principal. So now what happens? NCLB comes along, and puts serious pressure on the school district to raise student achievement and close achievement gaps. The school is placed on the list of schools "in need of improvement." Scary things, like reconstitution, might happen in the near future. Now will the superintendent or school board have the guts to take action and remove this man? Can the external pressure from an accountability system overcome the inertia of bureaucracy and personal relationships? That's the idea.

Let me give you another example: reading. We have thirty years of rigorous research about how most kids learn to read. We know that reading must be taught explicitly and directly. We know kids need to be taught phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. Sure, there's plenty we still don't know, especially about how to help older kids who haven't learned to read, but there's a lot we do know. And yet in thousands of communities across this country, school systems continue to resist putting in place scientifically-based reading programs.

The reasons usually boil down to two factors: ideology, and resistance from teachers. As for ideology, the idea that children can learn to read "naturally," like they learn to speak, is a deeply ingrained religion for many educators. Yet it is founded in absolutely no science whatsoever—it simply isn't true. As for resistance from teachers, that's tougher. Many of the scientifically-based programs are fairly structured, even scripted. Great teachers, drawn to the profession in part because they want to express their creativity in the classroom, resist being turned into "reading robots," and rightfully so. But once teachers give these programs a try, and see how well they work, and see their own kids doing great, the resistance melts away. Every teacher wants success for his or her students above all else. But because of initial resistance to these programs, many schools never even reach that point.

So now what happens? NCLB comes along, and puts serious pressure on the school district to raise student achievement and close achievement gaps. A school is deemed to be "in need of improvement." Scary things, like reconstitution, might happen in the near future. Now, will the external pressure from the accountability system overcome the initial resistance to structured reading programs? Will superintendents and school boards now have the wherewithal to put the needs of the kids above the concerns of the adults? That's the idea.

Let me give you a final example: teacher quality. We all know how important teacher quality is—more important than anything else that our schools control. Yet we also know that in community after community in this country, you are much less likely to have a fully qualified, in-field, experienced teacher if you are poor or if you are from a minority group. Even within the same school district, pernicious "teacher quality gaps" exist, whereby the high poverty schools—the Title I schools—are much more likely to have the "newbie" teachers, who are right out of ed school, or the teachers on emergency waivers. Why is this? Did school boards pass resolutions saying, "We are going to systematically assign all of our least experienced, least qualified teachers to the students who need great teachers the most?" Of course not—yet they have adopted policies that have had the same result.

Let's look at how this works. First of all, teachers are paid the same whether they work in a tough, high-poverty school or in a cushier affluent school. Next, teachers with seniority are given first dibs on open teaching positions in the district. Finally, school budgets are based on "FTEs" and average teacher salaries, rather than the actual salaries of the teachers at that school. So here's what happens: a brand-new teacher comes in and is sent to a high-poverty Title I school, which desperately needs teachers. She spends five years at the school—the first few going through all the trials and tribulations virtually all new teachers experience. After five years of tough working conditions and little support, she either leaves the profession like half of her colleagues, or she notices an opening across town at the more affluent school. She gets first dibs on that position and takes it. You can't really blame her, since she's not getting paid any more to stay at the tougher school. Now the high-poverty school has to start all over and get another new teacher to replace her, and the cycle starts all over again.

And look at the school budgets. One school, the high-poverty school, has all rookie teachers, and is paying them at the bottom of the pay scale—let's say $30,000. Another school, the affluent school, has all 20-year veterans, and is paying them at the top of the pay scale—let's say $60,000. Each school has the same number of teachers, but you are actually spending twice as much to educate the affluent kids as you are the poor kids. We wonder why there's an achievement gap?

So now what happens? NCLB comes along, and puts serious pressure on the school district to close achievement gaps. They look at the data and realize that the kids who need help the most—poor kids and minority kids—are the ones getting the least qualified teachers, for all the reasons explained above. Now will the superintendent or school board consider ending the seniority hiring policy? Now will they consider "combat pay" for teaching in high-poverty schools? Now will they start to allocate budgets based on real dollars, and real salaries, to equalize resources across the district, including the quality and experience of the teaching staff? Now will they stop using the poor and minority kids as the guinea pigs upon which new teachers practice, and instead share the pain? To date, all of these changes have been considered impossible politically. But now, under the threat of school reconstitutions and the like, will these issues finally be put on the table? That's the idea.

A Vision for Teacher Preparation

Just as we need to communicate a positive vision for schools and for systemic change under NCLB, so too do we need to communicate a positive vision for teacher preparation. Our critics are communicating a distorted vision—saying that those of us in favor of alternate routes to certification just want "warm bodies" in the classroom.

So I want to share with you my vision of teacher preparation in the age of NCLB. This is not the only vision, or even the best vision, but it's what makes sense to me. I encourage you to communicate your vision, certainly over the course of the next few days at this conference, but especially when you go back home. In the absence of these compelling visions, our critics will win the fight.

Much of my vision is informed by the work that our Office of Innovation and Improvement has been doing over the past year. As you know, a few months ago we released a publication, Innovations in Education: Alternate Routes to Teacher Certification. We asked WestEd and Edvance to scour the nation looking for the very best alternate route programs. We wanted to understand how those programs worked, what tools and processes they used, and we wanted to communicate their "promising practices" to others, like you, who are starting alternate route programs. And they found some wonderful programs, programs that are bringing in thousands of talented teachers into our profession every year. I hope you find this booklet useful, and that it helps you avoid some of the early mistakes that the featured programs no doubt made. They certainly didn't get it right their first year out, but now, after years of refinement, they have learned some important lessons that can benefit us all.

When thinking about a vision for teacher preparation, especially the kind that would prepare teachers for the realities of the schools No Child Left Behind is trying to improve, I also thought it was important to look at schools that are getting the job done under NCLB, and to examine the kind of teachers they hire. One such school is KIPP—the Knowledge is Power Program. I love KIPP—there are now almost 30 KIPPs around the nation, and all of them are getting incredible results with a very challenging population, taking kids that are three or four years behind in the 5th grade and, by the end of 8th grade, preparing them for success in some of the most elite high schools in America. They do this by working harder—extending the school day till 5:00 p.m., teaching on Saturdays, teaching during the summer—and by working smarter—developing a culture of achievement and support, always looking for better ways to do things, and using a rigorous, rich curriculum.

So what kinds of teachers do they hire? First, their teachers are very smart. They are well-educated, and know their content cold. KIPP does not subscribe to the philosophy of middle-school-as-extension-of-elementary-school. Its teachers are teaching core content in English, math, science, history, the arts and foreign languages. They have a command of their subject matter.

Second, their teachers have experience. KIPP rarely hires anyone straight out of ed school or an alternate route program. Many of their teachers are hired after a tour of Teach for America; others have more traditional backgrounds. But virtually all have cut their teeth in another school for at least a few years. As KIPP sees it, their kids need so much help that they can't afford to be practiced on.

Third, KIPP looks for teachers who are likely to fit into the KIPP culture of high standards, hard work, long hours, playfulness, and flexibility. They look for personal attributes like leadership, the ability to get along in a group, a love of children, creativity, and a sense of humor—attributes that are hard to measure but that probably make or break a person's success as a teacher more than anything else.

So as I learn from the programs featured in our Innovations in Education booklet, and as I see the kinds of teachers hired by schools like KIPP, what does my vision for teacher preparation look like? What would the ideal teacher prep. program in the age of NCLB do?

First, it strikes me that 80 percent of what makes a teacher preparation program ideal comes down to recruitment and selection. Attributes of great teachers, like being smart, well-educated, in command of the subject matter, flexible, thoughtful, and committed to kids—none of these attributes can be "taught," per se, in a year- or two-year program. These are attributes that one develops over the course of his or her whole lifetime. The key, then, is to cast a net far and wide, recruit extremely talented people to consider teaching, and then use a rigorous process to select only the very best—those most likely to succeed in a challenging school environment. This sorting can rely on traditional measures of verbal intelligence and subject matter knowledge, but surely needs to include a look at the "soft skills" as well, by actually getting to know the candidate as a person.

What else? My ideal program would also immerse its candidates in the actual setting in which they will teach as soon as possible. If the candidates are being prepared to teach in a KIPP school, they would be immersed in KIPP. If they were to be prepared to teach in a Core Knowledge school, then they would be immersed in Core Knowledge. And so on. (Obviously, teachers should only be prepared to teach in successful schools and successful models—otherwise what's the point? And since I'm worried about teaching kids who have been left behind, they should be high-poverty, high-performing schools.) Now this is hard to do if you are a statewide teacher preparation program, but I'm discussing ideals. With the range of educational approaches out there, it makes the best sense to prepare teachers for the environment they will be joining—and the first step is for them to spend time in such an environment, soaking up the culture and the school's particular ways of doing things.

What next? Certainly new teachers will have to be taught some hard skills, like how to manage a classroom, how to communicate effectively with parents from another culture, how to instruct kids with special needs, and so forth. Again, in the ideal, the candidates would learn the approaches used by the schools they will actually be teaching in—not the approaches preferred by the preparation program's staff.

Finally, ideally, the new teachers would receive lots of support and mentoring over the first few years of their careers. Much of this would be provided peer-to-peer, from other teachers in their cohort. But they would also get to see lots of great teaching, either from their school principal, or master teacher, or someone with experience connected to the teacher preparation program itself. The message would be clear to the newbies: you are not on your own.

So that's it—recruit incredibly talented people, immerse them in the high-performing school in which they will teach, instruct them in the successful practices of that school, and give them lots of support once they are teaching.

Of course, there are consequences to this approach—it would create a cadre of teachers unwilling to put up with much of the ridiculousness of today's education system—the bureaucracy, the maddening lack of authority at the school level, the absence of accountability. These types of teachers won't stand for the status quo of the system—they will demand excellence and thus fundamental change. Unless these teachers are able to teach in high-performing schools like KIPP they might grow frustrated and leave the profession. But the alternative—creating teachers satisfied to work within today's broken system—seems to me, at least, to be much, much worse.

That's my vision. Please take the opportunity to tell me yours. But then let's come to some agreement and start doing the real work of making the vision become a reality. Our kids' lives are literally depending on it. Thank you.