The idea of having their evaluations based on growth in student test scores makes a lot of teachers nervous. That's not surprising. Hospitals get nervous about having surgical success rates published, because some patients are sicker than others when they enter the hospital. I suspect dentists would be worried if they were rated based on how many new cavities their patients developed under their care. There are so many variables, and our systems for measuring cavity development or student growth are clumsy, opaque, and subject to error.
Still, it would be a mistake to think of all teachers as opposed to having their performance measured. A great organization called Teach Plus has pulled together small cohorts of excellent, dedicated, mostly young, mostly urban teachers to learn about education policy and make their collective voices heard. The teaching policy fellows choose issues that matter and formulate thoughtful, practical solutions to thorny issues.
The Boston teaching policy fellows have written ten recommendations to state policy makers suggesting how assessment systems need to be adjusted to make evaluations based partly on student growth both fair and helpful. For example, the policy fellows suggest testing students at the beginning and end of each year. They point out that systems of linking teachers to their students need to be more accurate and reliable. And they point out that unless the tests are much better at measuring growth among very low and very high performers, teachers will be strongly motivated to expend less effort with these two groups than with the students in the middle.
I urge my readers to take a look at the ten suggestions. They're couched in a positive tone, idealistic but also practical. And they're the work of a set of savvy teachers who want to see improvements in teacher evaluation come without a lot of ugly unintended consequences. These fine teachers expect to be evaluated as well and rigorously in teaching as they would be in another field. They know they're doing a good job, and they will welcome signposts to help them continue to improve.
Showing posts with label teachers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label teachers. Show all posts
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
More on Raising Teacher Status
Last week I wrote about how we can raise the prestige of the teaching profession. This week, the New York Times, having examined still another PISA report, has published a debate among nine educators about how to raise teacher status without spending more.
Here are some of the suggestions and viewpoints expressed:
1. Reform teacher compensation. Raise starting salaries; eliminate lock step raises based only on seniority and accumulation of post-graduate credits; reward effective teachers with rapid raises. Two areas that are likely to be contentious are to pay for these changes by increasing class size (for an argument in favor of this move, look here), and to measure teacher effectiveness "objectively," which means based on student test scores.
2. Improve teacher training. I have mixed feelings about this one. Kati Haycock of the Education Trust points out that bright students find education programs stultifying and that graduates from teacher training programs do not garner better results in the classroom than bright college graduates with only a few weeks of summer training. Her suggestion is to make teacher training programs better (and raise admissions requirements).
My concern with this approach is that working to improve traditional teacher ed programs may imply fiddling around the edges of an essentially misguided approach. Increasing the number of units, credits, classes, hours, and hoops an aspiring teacher has to go through may drive away strongly motivated, self starting teacher candidates. Some years ago, the state of Massachusetts created a $10,000 signing bonus program to attract people into a fast track toward math and science teaching. In subsequent surveys, these teachers identified the quick start in the classroom as more important than the money in convincing them to sign on.
That's why I'm in favor of programs like the Boston Teacher Residency, which screens for well-educated, smart, dedicated teacher candidates and puts them in the classroom fast--but with strong support systems. Attract the best, don't waste their time, and help them learn and reflect on the job.
3. Get out of our way. Two of the commenters basically said, "Stop messing with teachers. Give us autonomy in our classrooms." And it's true that teachers in high-performing countries tend to have more classroom autonomy. Fifteen or twenty years ago, our teachers had more autonomy, too... and student performance was lower and even less equitable than it is now. Uneven opportunity and expectations were prime motivators for our search for common standards and accountability. Andreas Schleicher of OECD notes that neither autonomy alone nor accountability alone leads to the best results. The best performing systems seem to require school autonomy coupled with strong accountability.
Still, teachers are right to decry a closely scripted curriculum that allows no adjustment for particular student needs. The best teachers are constantly monitoring student learning and adjusting their lesson plans in response. To do so, teachers need to be quick thinkers and very knowledgeable about their subject; they also need the support, feedback, and teamwork of their peers.
4. It's all about culture. One commenter pointed out that although the US ranks 17th among 65 PISA countries in reading, our Asian students rank 2nd and our Caucasian students 6th. Those Asian students have a great work ethic! Families in Asian countries respect teachers!
This analysis gets an enthusiastic response from readers, some of whom have taught Asian students in America or Korea. Teacher status is not about teaching quality, they say: it's about parents who make the kids buckle down and work.
To me, this argument implies that we have to change our whole culture or import a new population of parents before we can make teaching a more attractive profession. That strikes me as either an excuse or an invitation to hopelessness.
5. Other responders made arguments about parental choice and reforming teacher tenure. To me, the most balanced approach came from Cynthia Brown of the Center for American Progress. Take a look and decide for yourself.
Here are some of the suggestions and viewpoints expressed:
1. Reform teacher compensation. Raise starting salaries; eliminate lock step raises based only on seniority and accumulation of post-graduate credits; reward effective teachers with rapid raises. Two areas that are likely to be contentious are to pay for these changes by increasing class size (for an argument in favor of this move, look here), and to measure teacher effectiveness "objectively," which means based on student test scores.
2. Improve teacher training. I have mixed feelings about this one. Kati Haycock of the Education Trust points out that bright students find education programs stultifying and that graduates from teacher training programs do not garner better results in the classroom than bright college graduates with only a few weeks of summer training. Her suggestion is to make teacher training programs better (and raise admissions requirements).
My concern with this approach is that working to improve traditional teacher ed programs may imply fiddling around the edges of an essentially misguided approach. Increasing the number of units, credits, classes, hours, and hoops an aspiring teacher has to go through may drive away strongly motivated, self starting teacher candidates. Some years ago, the state of Massachusetts created a $10,000 signing bonus program to attract people into a fast track toward math and science teaching. In subsequent surveys, these teachers identified the quick start in the classroom as more important than the money in convincing them to sign on.
That's why I'm in favor of programs like the Boston Teacher Residency, which screens for well-educated, smart, dedicated teacher candidates and puts them in the classroom fast--but with strong support systems. Attract the best, don't waste their time, and help them learn and reflect on the job.
3. Get out of our way. Two of the commenters basically said, "Stop messing with teachers. Give us autonomy in our classrooms." And it's true that teachers in high-performing countries tend to have more classroom autonomy. Fifteen or twenty years ago, our teachers had more autonomy, too... and student performance was lower and even less equitable than it is now. Uneven opportunity and expectations were prime motivators for our search for common standards and accountability. Andreas Schleicher of OECD notes that neither autonomy alone nor accountability alone leads to the best results. The best performing systems seem to require school autonomy coupled with strong accountability.
Still, teachers are right to decry a closely scripted curriculum that allows no adjustment for particular student needs. The best teachers are constantly monitoring student learning and adjusting their lesson plans in response. To do so, teachers need to be quick thinkers and very knowledgeable about their subject; they also need the support, feedback, and teamwork of their peers.
4. It's all about culture. One commenter pointed out that although the US ranks 17th among 65 PISA countries in reading, our Asian students rank 2nd and our Caucasian students 6th. Those Asian students have a great work ethic! Families in Asian countries respect teachers!
This analysis gets an enthusiastic response from readers, some of whom have taught Asian students in America or Korea. Teacher status is not about teaching quality, they say: it's about parents who make the kids buckle down and work.
To me, this argument implies that we have to change our whole culture or import a new population of parents before we can make teaching a more attractive profession. That strikes me as either an excuse or an invitation to hopelessness.
5. Other responders made arguments about parental choice and reforming teacher tenure. To me, the most balanced approach came from Cynthia Brown of the Center for American Progress. Take a look and decide for yourself.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
The class size tradeoff
Lowering class size is an education intervention popular among both parents and teachers. When given the chance, voters have eagerly endorsed low class sizes in states from Florida to California.
Still, like other interventions, lowering class sizes carries a cost. Resources allocated to readying more classrooms or hiring more teachers cannot simultaneously be spent on new technology, professional development, or raising teacher salaries. What do we know about the tradeoffs?
Research done by Andreas Schleicher of OECD using PISA scores is suggestive. Schleicher looks at K-12 school spending in OECD countries in terms of salary cost per student. For primary school students, the US spends several hundred dollars more per student than our international peers. For "lower secondary" students--approximately middle school--we spend essentially the average amount; and for high school students we actually spend less than average. (We do spend more on non-salary costs such as capital expenditures.)
But what's interesting is what contributes to that salary cost. Relative to GDP and to other college graduates, US teachers' earnings are only about average. We spend relatively less than other nations on professional development and time for teachers to collaborate. We save money by asking teachers to spend much more of their school day teaching than in other, higher-performing countries.
So if our higher per-pupil costs aren't going to high salaries, great professional development, or allowing teachers non-instructional time to work together perfecting their lessons, where do they go? To lower class sizes.
High-performing countries like Korea and Japan tend to tilt their spending toward teacher salaries that are high relative to other professions requiring similar education; toward supporting teachers with time and coaching; and toward lengthening the school year. They "pay" for these luxuries with large class sizes. We have chosen the opposite tack, squeezing everywhere else in service of keeping class sizes small. Schleicher's research suggests that for us, the tradeoff has not paid off in terms of student performance.
How have we become so convinced that lower class size means quality? Everybody "knows" it; average class size even figures into college rankings. The most convincing evidence came from the STAR study in Tennessee, which showed that in the earliest grades, particularly among poor students, lowering class sizes below 17 in a class led to lasting benefits in student learning.
The results did not extend to later grades, class sizes in the twenties, or middle class students. Moreover, California's huge experiment in lowering class size in the early grades could not be shown to provide any benefit, perhaps because meeting it required hiring just about anybody with a pulse to teach in hastily constructed portable classrooms.
Perhaps, then, quality of teaching, supported by competitive salaries, high quality ongoing training, and time for teachers to work together as a team is more important for most students' progress than class size. As we try to do better with less in K-12 education, will teachers, administrators, and parents be willing to consider letting class sizes rise closer to the international average? Or will we stick with our gut feeling that smaller is better without regard to the opportunity costs involved?
Still, like other interventions, lowering class sizes carries a cost. Resources allocated to readying more classrooms or hiring more teachers cannot simultaneously be spent on new technology, professional development, or raising teacher salaries. What do we know about the tradeoffs?
Research done by Andreas Schleicher of OECD using PISA scores is suggestive. Schleicher looks at K-12 school spending in OECD countries in terms of salary cost per student. For primary school students, the US spends several hundred dollars more per student than our international peers. For "lower secondary" students--approximately middle school--we spend essentially the average amount; and for high school students we actually spend less than average. (We do spend more on non-salary costs such as capital expenditures.)
But what's interesting is what contributes to that salary cost. Relative to GDP and to other college graduates, US teachers' earnings are only about average. We spend relatively less than other nations on professional development and time for teachers to collaborate. We save money by asking teachers to spend much more of their school day teaching than in other, higher-performing countries.
So if our higher per-pupil costs aren't going to high salaries, great professional development, or allowing teachers non-instructional time to work together perfecting their lessons, where do they go? To lower class sizes.
High-performing countries like Korea and Japan tend to tilt their spending toward teacher salaries that are high relative to other professions requiring similar education; toward supporting teachers with time and coaching; and toward lengthening the school year. They "pay" for these luxuries with large class sizes. We have chosen the opposite tack, squeezing everywhere else in service of keeping class sizes small. Schleicher's research suggests that for us, the tradeoff has not paid off in terms of student performance.
How have we become so convinced that lower class size means quality? Everybody "knows" it; average class size even figures into college rankings. The most convincing evidence came from the STAR study in Tennessee, which showed that in the earliest grades, particularly among poor students, lowering class sizes below 17 in a class led to lasting benefits in student learning.
The results did not extend to later grades, class sizes in the twenties, or middle class students. Moreover, California's huge experiment in lowering class size in the early grades could not be shown to provide any benefit, perhaps because meeting it required hiring just about anybody with a pulse to teach in hastily constructed portable classrooms.
Perhaps, then, quality of teaching, supported by competitive salaries, high quality ongoing training, and time for teachers to work together as a team is more important for most students' progress than class size. As we try to do better with less in K-12 education, will teachers, administrators, and parents be willing to consider letting class sizes rise closer to the international average? Or will we stick with our gut feeling that smaller is better without regard to the opportunity costs involved?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
