An article in Education Week reports on studies by economists claiming hat when teachers take early retirement, student test scores go up. Behind this is the assumption that new teachers are more successful than experienced teachers.
This sounds counter-intuitive to me, but I would like to know what teachers think.
A quote: “Boosting early retirement in cash-strapped districts doesn’t hurt students’ math and reading scores, according to new studies released at the American Economic Association meeting here, but pension-incentive programs may cost schools some of their most effective teachers.
Separate studies of teachers in California, Illinois, and North Carolina paint a complex picture of the choice increasingly faced by education leaders: Keep your most experienced—and expensive—teachers, or encourage them to retire to ease budget woes.”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Behind this is the assumption that test scores are the purpose of education.
Ay, there’s the rub …
Bingo. New teachers are more willing to teach to the test, which does indeed raise test scores if that’s all that matters.
Correct! I taught Geometry last year for the first time in 7 years (previously taught it for 18 yrs). The new teacher had dropped out all constructions, no patty-paper hands on because “those things aren’t on the test.” Very frustrating!
100 % disagree but I guess being a teacher of 26 years, they might say I am biased. My team’s scores are highest in our building and across the district. There are three of us with 25, 26 and 24 years. With these years ,I would say we were not the younger teachers but our experience and fortitude in tough situations has been our backbone. We rock. That’s my belief.
I mean, don’t we actually know how this works? Isn’t it something like teachers who’ve been there more than 5 years are more effective but teachers who’ve been there more than 20 years are less effective (at raising test scores)?
“‘Hey, any increase in test scores is good if you can do it for low cost,’ Mr. Lovenheim said….” What a terrible statement. Just so long as the test scores rise…. The assumption is that there is a causal relationship between early retirement and the rising of the scores. This relationship is too simplistic. What mediating/moderating variables? What else is altered at the time of these early retirements? Are the new teachers feeling pressure to prove themselves by teaching to the test? Teaching to the test may raise scores, but it provides a dimensionless educational experience. Have the replacement/new teachers been alerted as to the purpose of the study? Are they trying to perform an expected outcome in order to please researchers? Have the researchers or the districts offered some (possibly cash) incentives for the raising of test scores? And, here’s a biggie: Are there documented and sustained learning gains associated with these “higher” scores? Do the score differences have practical significance? Statistical significance? I could go on and on about the numerous red flags waving in the wind of sense.
Isn’t it possible that there are good young and old teachers, as well as bad young and old teachers? I know many in all four categories. I don’t think one of the criterion of good teaching is age. I think Diane might argue that it takes several years of experience to learn the craft. I agree, but it doesn’t take until you are at retirement age. Following my logic, if you retired a random sample of older teachers, some will be good and some will be bad, but the basic quality of the staff would remain about the same.
Agreed! As a fourth-year teacher, I know I am still developing my skills, and am far from a perfect teacher (if there is such a thing). But I also know from parent, colleague, and administrative feedback that I am a “good” teacher. Not “good for a new teacher,” just a good teacher overall. I look at some of my more experienced colleagues and aspire to be as good as they are. I look at others and see examples of ineffective teaching that is now solidly entrenched into the system because they have been here for 10 or 20 years. Not all young teachers are bad, and not all 20 year vets are good. So it also makes sense to me that this study finds no net negative impact on students.
How do you even do a study like that? Do all the teachers take early retirement the same year? Tests are for the school. How could they tell which student had which teacher? I would like to actually see this study. But, no reference is given and thus the birth of another suburban legend. My former school has 250 faculty. If I went back today, I could probably only recognize 5 teachers. I’ve watched the test scores online and nothing has changed over 10 years.
So experienced teachers don’t teach to the test, but newer teachers will, hence the increase in test scores?
Then there is the false assumption that increased test scores = increased learning….
Well said, K Quinn
My parents both took the 5+5 in 1993. What really surprises me is the discussion on “middle schools” In 1993 we didn’t have middle schools. We still have very few, so are they looking at specific grades? And if they offered 5+5 right now, there would be a massive exodus. But now, they would rather fire and humiliate teachers.
I was too young for 5+5. Our school had so many teachers retire that the 2 year window was extended to 3 years because we could not get enough to replace them. I did not notice any great improvement in learning. I did notice a great increase in lip service saying how much they were learning by the new teachers. Also a huge increase in buzz words.
When 1 teacher is replaced with 2, then class sizes are reduced. Individual attention is likely the most effective strategy ever devised for transfering knowledge. On the other hand, it will be very difficult to recruit quality teachers to the profession when you explain to them that they will never make more then a lower-class wage, while working a very difficult job.
In my experience, one teacher isn’t replaced with two when someone retires. One teacher is replaced with one new teacher. Class sizes stay the same, but the money that can be used for standardized testing or consultants or whatever goes up.
Education Week shills for the privatization and financialization of public schools. Like the Washington Post, there’s some good info once in awhile but, in the end, follow the money. Kaplan owns The Washington Post. Look who owns Education Week.
The only reason scores would go up on THE TEST is because the newbies are simply teaching THE TEST…. experienced teachers know that THE TEST doesn’t measure learning… just the students’ ability to take THE freakin’ TEST!!!
From the WALL STREET JOURNAL, Saturday:
Teachers at three Seattle schools are refusing to give students district-mandated standardized exams, one of the most dramatic moves in an escalating fight nationwide over using test scores to evaluate teachers and schools.
The Seattle boycott, which began in one of the schools and spread in recent weeks, comes after the district decided to make the tests part of Seattle teachers’ evaluations this year. But it follows long-standing complaints by the teachers that the computerized exams take up too much instructional time and force schools to close off computer labs for long stretches to administer the exams.
“We’ve been raising our voices about this deeply flawed test for a long time,” said Jesse Hagopian, who teaches history at Garfield High School, where teachers initiated the boycott by voting this month not to give the exam. But now that the district is using the test for evaluations, he said, “we’ve drawn our line in the sand.”
The spat in Seattle comes as districts nationwide wrestle with how best to use student test scores to rate teachers. In the past three years, more than 25 states have passed laws to link scores to teacher evaluations, because officials think it is a more effective way to gauge performance than traditional reliance on observations by school principals.
But as local districts are trying to implement those policies, they are running into some resistance. New York City has forfeited hundreds of millions of state and federal dollars because union and city officials haven’t agreed on a new evaluation system that would judge teachers, in part, on student test scores. The Los Angeles teachers union agreed earlier this month to use test scores in evaluations after a protracted fight with the district, and Chicago teachers staged a seven-day strike this past fall, in part, over efforts to judge them on students’ test results.
Jose Banda, superintendent of Seattle Public Schools, defended the use of testing to rate teachers. He said that student-achievement data is only one component of the district’s teacher-evaluation system, which relies heavily on principal observations. “For us, it’s just an added piece of the puzzle,” he said.
Tests have taken on increasing importance in U.S. education since the federal No Child Left Behind became law in 2002. Proponents, including the Obama administration, say assessments are necessary to ensure students are learning and that teachers’ effectiveness is properly measured.
Some parents and local officials also have resisted the spread of testing. In Texas and Florida, hundreds of school boards adopted resolutions last year asking state officials to reassess state-testing programs. Parents in Washington state and New York City have kept kids home from school on test day in protest. And school-district officials in Oklahoma complained recently about how test scores are factored into controversial new letter grades assigned to schools.
Mr. Banda emphasized that the Seattle protests have happened at only a handful of the city’s 95 schools. Some of the teachers boycotting the test there say they aren’t opposed to using student-achievement data in evaluations but are unhappy with the current exam.
The Seattle district requires teachers to give the math and reading Measures of Academic Progress exam, or MAP, to students in first through ninth grade two or three times a year. The exams are “computer adaptive,” meaning questions begin at grade level but get tougher or easier based on how well the student does.
District officials say the exam allows teachers to pinpoint each student’s knowledge and adjust instruction. Seattle teachers complain the exam isn’t linked to district or state learning standards.
The district’s new teacher evaluation system uses results from the MAP and state achievement exams to assign teacher ratings. A low rating triggers additional observations from the principal, who could eventually suggest termination.
District officials said teachers can’t be fired simply because of a low rating based on student test scores.
Matt Carter, a teacher at Orca K-8 School in Seattle, has joined in the boycott because he thinks the MAP exam wastes his student’s time and does not help guide his teaching. “If we are using a valid test and it is measuring what I am teaching, than I’d have no problem with it,” he said.
The district has warned teachers they could face 10 days suspension without pay if they don’t administer the test.
Pat Hunter, a principal at Maple Elementary in Seattle, said she supports using student-achievement results to guide instruction and as a “small piece” of the overall evaluation.
“It’s important to use test results, but it’s also important that they not become your oxygen.”
Since when are less experienced people worth more than experienced people? Are the capitalists really trying to bring this to the table? If so, they certainly do not use it in their personal or business decisions or they are finished personally. There is a reason that for any trade there is a four year apprenticeship. It takes that long to become competent just as it take four years to finish college. Now, how do you compress this into 5 weeks. Do you want to fly on a plane made by people only in aircraft manufacturing for 5 weeks? Do you really think that they would be prepared to know what they are doing without ever having done it before? Having worked in that world the answer is no way. And believe me you would not fly on that plane if you knew that those were the people who put it together who had 5 weeks training and then let on their own. Foolishness and that is why it is not done that way and why there are so many inspections in that business. You even have to check the old time pros to make sure people do not die.
Why not give the same care to your children is my question of the day.
“Since when are less experienced people worth more than experienced people?”
Pretty much every industry starts firing, laying off and down-sizing people when they’re around 50ish. Their healthcare gets too expensive, they’re usually not up on the latest technology, they usually no longer have the stamina to put in 70 hours weeks, and so, hell with loyalty or experience, time to get rid of the “deadwood”.
No matter what they are talking about, they are talking about money.
The article did a poor job of explaining a valid correlation between retirement and test scores. One would think that scholars would have accounted for all the variables, but the report did not reflect this. What was the breakdown of the variability? Perhaps this was explained in the actual research paper.
Should anyone be suspicious of this concept? I’m not “saying” that professors can be influenced or that these particular researchers were, but universities can be. For instance, Rutgers, a state school, is hardly subsidized by the public–70% of its funding comes fom private interests. You see the corporate influence cropping up with innovative programs sponsored by corporations all the time. So I did a little research on Cornell’s corporate affiliations. For what it’s worth, take a gander at the end of this list. Interesting “correlation.” Does this mean anything? Who knows.
Million Dollar Donors
Cumulative giving $1,000,000 and up
Advantage Data, Incorporated
Agilent Technologies
Barra, Incorporated
Citi Foundation
Corning Incorporated
Dyson Foundation
Emerson
FactSet Research Systems
Hewlett-Packard Co.
Park Foundation
S.C. Johnson
Triad Foundation
Principal Partners
$100,000 and up annually
Advantage Data, Incorporated
Bissell Corporation
Citi Foundation
S.C. Johnson
Triad Foundation
Managing Partners
$50,000 and up annually
Air Products and Chemicals
Fidelity Investments
Senior Partners
$25,000 to $49,999 annually
Johnson & Johnson
Executive Partners
$10,000 to $24,999 annually
Accenture
A.M. Best
American Century Investments
American Express
Capital Group
Chevron Corporation
Corning Incorporated
Deloitte Consulting
Hess Corporation
Hewlett Packard
J.P. Morgan
MFS Investment Management
Procter & Gamble
Putnam Investments
State Street Global Advisors
Wellington Management
Business Partners
$5,000 to $9,999 annually
BNY Mellon Asset Management
CFA Institute
Colgate-Palmolive
Corning, Inc.
Deutsche Bank
Ernst & Young, LLP
Little Family Foundation
M&T Bank
Merck
PricewaterhouseCoopers
PIMCO
Reckitt Benckiser
S.C. Johnson
Tyco Safety Products
Unilever
Other Corporate Donors
Acme United Corporation
Aetna Inc.
Antoinette’s Sweets
Bain
Bloomberg
CCAW Automotive Group
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Citi
General Electric Company
General Mills
Goldman Sachs Group Inc.
IBM
Mars Chocolate North America
McKesson
Microsoft
Source: http://www.johnson.cornell.edu/For-Corporations/Corporate-Partners.aspx
I read the article and all the comments.
HUH? Who funded it?” The study assumes that test scores are a valid way to measure student learning and they are not.
Was poverty factored into any analysis? What about access to books?
Caution: There is always MOTIVE to consider. Know that policy folks are about installing the business model in education…A BAD IDEA and pure nonsense.
Follow the money.
What would the parents do if they knew that their children are just another commodity traded on Wall Street for the huge profits of a few?
Retirement incentives & increased student performance: These are ridiculous correlates. I think it’s pretty clear that most of what we correlate w/ measured student achievement is a) not a cause & b) mostly related to the student’s situation. (The relative wealth or poverty of your school, your home, your neighborhood, et cetera…) If a district is willing to pony up for early retirement incentives, then what else do they fund that favors student achievement? (Comparatively higher salaries, for example.)
I’m mindful of Steven Levitt’s work, which produced ‘Freakonomics.’ What is intuitive is frequently wrong. Does reading to a child correlate with measured academic success? Not as strongly as how many books are in your house. My hunch is that early retirement incentives are a marker of something else.
But in this case, I think intuition is probably correct: to think that experience is a detriment is silly. Just ask Ray Lewis.
Regards,
Nigel Waterton
Montana State University
Dept. of Education
Secondary English Instruction GTA
Since there are two rather lengthy PDF files linked in the article, I hope our more research savvy blog posters are dissecting them for us.
Even if this study was exhaustive and their constructed model approached being fully specified the interpretation of the conditional results presented by Education Week are wrong. The study would not suggest that student achievement, as measured by test scores, increases in younger teachers classrooms in comparison to older teachers. Rather it would suggest that student achievement increases in younger teachers classrooms in comparison to those older teachers who are willing to take an early retirement. It is probably more likely that early retirement programs attract a very bias sample of older teachers. Does this sample of experienced teachers who took a retirement buyout fairly represent the population of experienced teachers? Probably not. As a result education week should be a little more careful with the inferences they are trying to guide the reader towards. The study would not infer that experience does not matter but rather that for those more willing to retire experience does not matter. Once again, this is all assuming that the research had a model that approached full specificity and had variables that proxy well for their intended purpose.
There are at least three underlying assumptions being made here:
First, “Behind this is the assumption that test scores are the purpose of education” as noted by Jon Awbrey in an earlier post.
Second: all teachers at a given point in their tenure, are equally effective. Teachers vary in their effectiveness as they progress through their careers. It isn’t a steady slope either upward or downward. I’ve had colleagues whose career burned brightly until the day they retired. Some get steadily better. Some stay about the same. Some go downhill. Most fluctuate over time. We would all like to think that with professional development, we all steadily improve over the course of our 30-year career. My mom taught English for 22 years, and was an excellent teacher. In 1984, both her parents died within five days of each other at the beginning of the school year. It had a devastating effect on her teaching that year.
The third assumption is that students themselves are not variable. My career has been in rural schools with very small cohorts of students. Cohorts of 10 students (or less) simply have a high degree of variability, and this is not the fault of the teacher (nor of the students themselves). Kids are unequal. We teach all of them, regardless of their abilities.
Dissed again. Two years ago a VP shared an article which referred to teacher’s experience as “craft” , a valuable commodity acquired only through experience. Reading the article was a pleasant shock!! Have not had a similar experience since.
As Diane mentioned, all three of these studies were conducted by economists. Rather than citing the research of educators, corporate sponsored “reformers” regularly refer to the research of economists, including economists cited in two of the three studies, such as Hanushek, Rivkin and Goldhaber. (Hanushek developed the first version of VAM in the 70s.)
Analyzing the research of economists is not my forte, but whenever I see so many incidents where studies use complex formulas to report “estimates” and “predictions” (such as with these studies and VAM), instead of using hard data to describe what actually occurred, I get concerned and suspect confirmation bias might be at play.
When NCLB became law, that opened up a whole new industry of supplemental education services providing tutoring on the public dollar. Similarly, it seems that since corporate education “reform” & RTTT have become so influential under Obama/Duncan, that opened up a whole new industry of economists focused on education. Since I’ve yet to see any of them speak out against the corporate “reform” agenda to privatize education, I doubt that most are inclined to bite the hand that feeds them…
More connections to this research might be made at the end of the article:
“Coverage of policy efforts to improve the teaching profession is supported by a grant from the Joyce Foundation, at http://www.joycefdn.org/Programs/Education.”
The mission of the Joyce Foundation:
“EDUCATION: The Joyce Foundation is committed to improving education in Midwest cities, especially by eliminating the barriers that prevent low-income students and children of color from reaching their full educational potential. Because research shows that having a first-rate teacher has an enormous impact on student achievement, the Foundation concentrates the bulk of its grant making on improving teacher quality. It also supports other strategies for addressing the achievement gap, including making sure children learn to read by third grade and supporting high quality charter schools and other educational innovations. The Foundation has been a long-time supporter of Chicago school reform, and has also worked in Milwaukee, Detroit, Cleveland, and currently in Indianapolis and Minneapolis. Over the years, Joyce has explored a variety of strategies, including school finance, parent organizing, educational technology, charter schools, and early childhood education. The Foundation has also consistently supported research identifying and evaluating promising new strategies.”
Source: http://www.joycefdn.org/about/our-mission
I suppose if your foundation supported “innovation” and charter schools, you might also be touting the same drivel making ridiculous correlations to support your reform agenda.
It would be easy to create a directory of foundations and locate them on a political spectrum in terms of those who support teachers and public education and those who are seeking “innovative” ways to undermine teacher professionalism and public education.
Yes, Diane, a laundry list of corporations is suspicious whether there is something fishy going on or not. I think it’s important to research the influences behind the study.
Researchers at the university level work to find or at least work to add to a body of evidence that someday may lead to conclusions on matters of their area of study. However, it is next to impossible to know the impact their influences may have on the research they do, whether these influences be higher-ups or funding benefactors. I suppose I want to know that I can trust researchers of this caliber to be performing studies for academic and not political reasons.
We can talk about philosophy and personal observations all we want, but who can corroborate this study and who is funding those parties? Without validity in research, this conversation is moot. Philosophy and science can only meet when research is valid, and even then, the reality of a true meeting between the two is a matter of opinion.
Obama was on the board of the Joyce Foundation in Chicago and was Chairman from 95 – 99.
“Obama was on the board of the Joyce Foundation in Chicago and was Chairman from 95 – 99.”
I’m not surprised at all, given his current position on the topic.
Yes.
Maybe experienced teachers realize that not only do test scores not really mater, but focusing on rsising thr scores is not what teaching and learning are about. Alfie Kohn wrote in one of his pieces “when test scores go up, we should be asking what we had to sacrifice to make that happen.” In this case, experienced teachers.
Sorry for all the typos. Yikes
After reading the many letters you’ve posted from disgruntled veterans and the data you’ve shared relative to TFA the answer is clear: teachers want to teach-to-children they don’t want to teach-to-tests. TFA-ers are eager to come in and prove they are good and they are told that the way to do that is to teach-to-the-test…. they comply for two years and then say to themselves “if this is what teaching is about I’ll spend fewer hours working someplace else for more money”… This testing mania will ultimately drain the talent pool of teachers… it’s the anti-Finland…
No matter what they are talking about, it is the money. They have found numerous ways to burn out teachers and change it from a career to a job with a high turn over. That way it saves on pensions, salaries and health care.
Thank you Jim. Why do we give a rats ass about test scores. Teaching and learning are the main goals of education! That is why I cannot stay in the classroom. All I see is teachers pouting when a new student arrives that is a “two”, may ruin their score. Administrators buying into this poop. I just can’t stomach it anymore. What ever happened to just being human. Teaching is selfless not selfish! 25 years RIP
This is what they are teaching to???Sick
The opening statement is certainly a flawed premise. just a couple of possible explanations.Tests change routinely and teachers have no control over how good or bad they are from year to year. This is always my first consideration whenever this comes up.
There are a lot of simply awful tests being hawked and endorsed by decision makers. Secondly and way more snarky, teachers have no control over the cohort of students coming through their classroom in a given year. Did these economic wonks consider that maybe the cohort of students was so weak and required so much effort to teach that they essentially drove the teacher into early retirement!
Correlation or not? Wait, that would be blaming the students though, and good teachers are the most important factors in a child’s education. just ask the edreformers, but don’t ask those teachers because they don’t really know anything.
Yet, what I find most strange of all is the statement, “Keep your most experienced—and expensive—teachers, or encourage them to retire to ease budget woes.” Exactly what is new or interesting about that statement. That has been the case for as long as anyone can remember. However, it is so oversimplified it fails to even be informative. It is practically a cliche at this point, no?
You can’t broad brush a statement about teacher worth and value based on age or years of experience–there are too many other factors involved.
I do think the profession would profit from a broader array of educator descriptions and roles as the one-size-fits-all expectations and responsibilities of the job could become tiresome, particularly in school structures that hinder growth, development and innovation.
Personally, I’d like to see the structure of the school house change so that teacher roles are more targeted, reasonable and invigorating. For example, in my school, we’re entertaining and trying out many new structures to invigorate student engagement and success. We are also using PLCs (professional learning communities) with strength. The combination of greater, meaningful collaboration and innovation is serving to inspire and challenge educators in my system, both new and veteran educators.
It’s not all easy or successful, but in general the approach is moving us forward with students as our focus.
There is not a one-size-fits-all structure or response with respect to teacher strength and value, it’s a complex arena that includes many criteria, and as a public school teacher of 27 years I can say that no teacher has it all, but every teacher who is invested in his/her work, performance and growth brings value to the table of education–the vast majority of teachers choose the profession to make a difference, and it’s typically outdated structures and supports that prevent that goal.
I live in a district where some teachers bank$100k while new teachers start at less than half that. The veterans tend to pass on extra duties and activities. when they finally do retire and allow the district to hire new teachers (who, given the job market for teachers, may actually have a bunch of years of experience), we’ll get to pay them a Huge incentive for the privilege.
We need a better system. Young cheaper teachers are not the solution but they represent our districts future.
At some point these veterans were new teachers and did all the extra duties too.
An issue not discussed is the tremendous burn out felt by those teachers in the veteran years. Every year we get something new that is going to save education, and make our day longer and more difficult. So perhaps by 15, 20, 25 years we are sick and tired of being told again we are teaching all wrong and here is a test to prove it.
This person remained a mediocre student. He shone neither in the classroom nor on the playing field. One of the terminal reports rated him as “good at English, fair in Arithmetic and weak in Geography; conduct very good, bad handwriting.” He passed
the matriculation exam at Samaldas College in Bhavnagar Gujarat, with some difficulty. His family wanted him to be a barrister, as it would increase the prospects of succeeding to his father’s post. He studied law at University College London.
Who is this person??
Gandhi If you were the establishment, look at what trouble he caused them. Something government wants to crush before it starts, again.
Nice job:):) What are we telling children when their life is boiled down to a test score??
Just another chess piece in the War on Education, another move in the Wal-Mart-ization of the teaching profession.
Instead of chess piece, how about “turd bomb”?
Well, I was using the chess analogy because we’re seeing a deliberate set of moves calculated to do damage. And we’ll never win, because money always wins. Do you know any teacher billionaires who would speak up for us? I don’t, and I’m too busy correcting literary criticism papers and the moment to even attempt to do the research. I’m pretty sure you’re swamped, too. And I’m pretty sure your contract is up, as ours is, and they’re asking you to do more and take a $10,000 pay cut. Not for any good reason- just because. Oh, and btw, congratulations on being ranked 3rd of 27 high schools in your state- here’s a pay cut.
We will win despite their money because they are doing damage and they will be exposed. When the public gets it, the house of cards, built on the riches of billionaires, comes crashing down.
They don’t have to worry about getting people to retire. With the horrible working conditions, the pressure to teach to tests, to graduate students who know little, a lot of us will leave before we had planned.
I agree. I believe the pension crisis for teachers in IL is basically solved for that very reason. I believe one has to work 10 years to get any kind of pension. The burn out rate is 3-5 years.
Michelle Rhee spoke in Harrisburg last year . I was in attendance. She suggested that getting rid of one highly paid ‘older’ teacher made more sense than dismissing 2 or 3 ‘new’, young ones.
A not too subtle TFA reference?
From an economic point of view, that is the way to go. From an educational point of view no. Somebody said, “No matter what they are talking about, they are talking about the money.” Every reform gives lip service to improve education, but in reality, it is to drive down costs or to open a business opportunity. The people of England are more taxed than we are, for the moment. However, England has no charter schools.
The sad thing about the corporatist effort to depreciate experience is that it is creating an situation such that the only way to advance in the teaching field will be to leave the classroom and go into administration or work in the private sector creating and shilling standardized tests.
I can only offer anecdotal observation, but these days, the ones who last 30, 35 and 40 years are the ones who know what they’re doing and love doing it. With rare and notorious exceptions, the retirees that preceded me had their best, most effective year as a teacher in their last year of teaching – informed by each day of their previous experience.
And, if there is ANY teacher – from beginner to veteran – who is incompetent and is allowed to remain teaching, then there is an administrator not doing its job. Tenure only protects due process; it does not protect an incompetent teacher if administrators do their job. Unions get flack for protecting their members, but unions do not hire teachers and unions do not grant tenure; those are administrative responsibilities as well!
I agree with what you’ve said here, Bill. With very few exceptions, teachers improve over the years, based on the experiences they’ve had.
Ask any good administrator (of any program, actually) what his or her most valuable asset is in running an organization or program or school and s/he will tell you: expert, experienced staff. Why?
They not only excel with their students on all fronts, but they train new staff well, they have developed resources that can be used for training and individualized help of other staff (and so save you money, by the way), they will lead staff development in an expert and professional way, they never stop caring about developing themselves and improving educational programs for students, they know where the weaknesses in the system are and so provide excellent feedback for improving the school and students’ learning (as administrators come and go), they provide continuity, follow up and focus on the problems of that particular school, they know how to prepare and plan for events to go well because they have done them so many times, in short, they can do everything that needs to be done and it will be done well. A good administrator will tell you that such teachers are worth their weight in gold, but I don’t think good administrators were consulted for this article. Why?
Of course, as some others have pointed out, there are always some dynamic, effective new teachers and also biding-their-time veterans. Any group has these, too.
I was disappointed to see Ed Week publish such “information.”
I also think there are several things to consider when you use student performance to measure teacher quality (see http://robinwilsonjohnston.edublogs.org/2012/11/26/data-central/ ), but, in short, since we don’t use tests that measure what was taught, and we don’t pre- and post-test for each teacher’s students and take into account their learning profiles, talking about such strategies is wasting our time in my view. I am really sorry that the political side of education has us so distracted. I am glad to hear teachers are protesting in some states and refusing to even give the tests.
Let’s apply this “toss the seniors” philosophy to elected officials and CEOs– then we’ll see the idea die a quick death.
Interesting how it only applies to teachers and not to other professions.
But it does, as anyone over 50 will attest.
concerned educator: you gotta love the rheephormistas because they have an answer for everything…
even for how to counter their own arguments.
So let’s get to the heart of the matter: the Impatient Optimistic Economists who would convince us that when it comes to Education everyone fresh/inexperienced and new/untested is Embodied Excellence are themselves older/too old, experienced/hopelessly hidebound, time-tested/worn out, and appropriately compensated/vastly overpaid. Time for a New Age of Embodied Excellence among economists too.
Out with the old! In with the new! Perhaps we will someday riff off the old lawyer joke [BTW, told to me by a lawyer]: “What do you call 1,000 rheephormy economists at the bottom of the ocean?” Answer: “A good start.”
🙂
Did you read the same papers that I did?
In an ideal world, pay is based on average effectiveness. So if you could measure that curve from age 25 to 65, what would it look like?
In the current pay system, does a 65 year old receive more pay and benefits that a 40 year old, assuming they both start at 25? IMHO, that is wrong, since the 40 year old is probably producing more. But why split hairs. Have pay increases for the first 10 years to account for gains in experience in the classroom. After that just have the same base scale. Having a tail end weighted compensation system is just as horribly wrong as getting rid of older teachers. In a fairly weighted compensation model, people would have the flexibility to leave at 45, 55, or 65 with the money that they had rightly accrued.
Why do you assume the 40 year old is producing more?
My own observation is that I still get better and better each year as I continue to learn more as a teacher, administrator, and tutor; and I am way over 40.
So you are saying that the curve goes up until age 65, and teachers reach their zenith of effectiveness at 65? It could be, I’m not a teacher.
But look at football, the curve doesn’t look like that. I’m just saying, take an honest look at what the fairest compensation profile looks like.
Would you say the average 65 year old teacher is more effective and should be paid more than the aveage 55 year old teacher? My gut still tells me that there is a flat line or negative slope at some age.
You’ve just indicated why you have to go with your gut: you’re not a teacher.
Move along. There’s nothing to see here.
henrychale, fair enough, later.
Not an “assumption” that new teachers are better, but a suspicion. From the Illinois study:
“Since we find little support for the notion that schools are shifting resources in order to counteract the potential negative impact of teacher retirements (see Section 5.5), we suspect that the teachers who took up the ERI were less productive teachers than the ones that replaced them or than the ones remaining in the school.”
The NC and LA studied used “value added” as a measure of teacher effectiveness. Please.
Another study by the author of the LA study finds “that the retirement of an additional teacher in the previous year at the same school increases a teacher’s own likelihood of retirement by 1.5-2 percentage points.” Sinking ship anyone?
I “suspect” that the message is “teach to the test or get out.” Or, you make too much money so just get out anyway.
There it is. These researchers should be more prudent than to attempt to isolate two factors at the exclusion of all others as if they could maintain validity in doing so.
If you read about the statistical method they authors used, differences-in-differences, you’ll see that the method claims to sweep all of those confounding factors under the rug. You’ll also note that the method is considered to be highly questionable. (Duh!)
(Reposting here since comment is awaiting moderation because of too many web addresses.)
More connections to this research might be made at the end of the article:
“Coverage of policy efforts to improve the teaching profession is supported by a grant from the Joyce Foundation, at [see website below].
The mission of the Joyce Foundation:
“EDUCATION: The Joyce Foundation is committed to improving education in Midwest cities, especially by eliminating the barriers that prevent low-income students and children of color from reaching their full educational potential. Because research shows that having a first-rate teacher has an enormous impact on student achievement, the Foundation concentrates the bulk of its grant making on improving teacher quality. It also supports other strategies for addressing the achievement gap, including making sure children learn to read by third grade and supporting high quality charter schools and other educational innovations. The Foundation has been a long-time supporter of Chicago school reform, and has also worked in Milwaukee, Detroit, Cleveland, and currently in Indianapolis and Minneapolis. Over the years, Joyce has explored a variety of strategies, including school finance, parent organizing, educational technology, charter schools, and early childhood education. The Foundation has also consistently supported research identifying and evaluating promising new strategies.”
Source: http://www.joycefdn.org/about/our-mission
I suppose if your foundation supported “innovation” and charter schools, you might also be touting the same drivel making ridiculous correlations to support your reform agenda.
I read through the two articles. The Ed Week story is yet another example of why I never trust anything an economists says and trust even less what the press writes about what economists say.
Both papers are classic examples of economists applying statistical analyses to complex subjects outside of the area of the authors’ expertise. To use the statistical modes, the authors must of course begin with simplifying assumptions, abstractions, and idealizations to create mathematical expressions that they hope will model reality. If their model demonstrates a correlation, then the claim to have created a valuable predictive model. Of course, as any real scientist (i.e., not an economist) would point out, correlation is not causation; these models may allow predictions or they will at least track the data, but they cannot provide any understanding of the underlying causes, because they provide no justification for the underlying assumptions. Thus, econometric models are subject to rude surprises. You can read more about this charaltanism in books such as Steve Keen’s Debunking Economics and Yves Smith’s Econned, which point out the fundamental intellectual dishonesty of economics and econometric models.
In the Fitzpatrick-Lovenheim (“F-L”) paper, the authors use a modeling technique called “,a href = “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Difference_in_differences”>differences-in-differences (“DID”), which is controversial; as the Wikipedia article notes:
In 2004, the question How Much Should We Trust Differences-in-Differences Estimates? was asked in an article with the same name,[3] and apparently the answer is “not all that much.”
So, apparently the entire F-L artifice is built on quicksand. When you read about DID and then think about the basic assumptions in the article, you wonder why anyone would believe this tripe. Apparently, Ed Week loves tripe. To be fair, the authors point out that their results regarding performance and experience are at odds with much of the literature. But their perseverance in the face of evidence that their model cannot account for other observations demonstrates a basic intellectual dishonesty.
The second article, by Mahler, appears to be more tightly focused on modeling which teachers will be most likely to accept an early retirement plan. Mahler does include a “teacher quality” factor on page 16. I think it’s more tripe, but I’ll let the readers weigh in. She concludes that both high- and low-quality teachers are more amendable to taking early retirement. But remember that her “teachers” are those described by the simplifications of her model.
And so we have two excellent examples of why economics is nonsense: Both papers describe mathematical models of complex subjects based on highly simplified assumptions of complex human behavior, created by people who have no direct experience of what their trying to understand. When the models show a mathematical correlation, the authors then draw conclusions as if their assumptions describe reality (reification). Friends don’t let friends become economists.
I’m no statistician but even I was able to parse out some very important variables that don’t appear to have been accounted for in this study.
For example,
1. Veteran teachers are often assigned the most difficult to manage and the most academically challenged students because principals know they can “handle” them better and their time will not be used putting out behavioral fires as frequently. What impact would this fact have on the data?
2. This study says that test scores rose after the retirements. Are they talking about the test scores of the same students that were taught by the retiring students or general, over all test scores in schools and/or districts? If students graduated or otherwise left the system at the same time or shortly after the teachers retired then that is an apples to oranges comparison.
3. As others have pointed out, who decided that test scores are the arbiter of successful teaching? The authors of the study even caution that the statistical difference in the test scores was not significant enough for district’s to base their decisions upon them.
4. Cause does not equal correlation, as stated above. What other factors were involved, such as population shift, enrollment in the schools, curricular shifts, changes in testing instruments, etc.?
5. Why does the study ignore the other impacts of veteran teachers, such as institutional memory, advisory status, mentoring of new and inexperienced teachers, community involvement, etc.?
Education Week has lost much credibility in the last few years and this is another example of how their reporting has fallen way down the rabbit hole. Shouldn’t an educational journal include basic analysis of statistical methodology when it is reporting research?
And how do you account for teachers that start their teaching careers at 40 + as I did? Are we doomed before we start!! LOL. For the first three years I taught I felt like I was sinking. Took a good 5 years to feel comfortable and competent (by my standards). And great teachers never stop honing skills and striving to do better.
Brilliant, David.
Did you trust the economists when they said “Given the evidence of the strong relationship between experience and effectiveness in the classroom (Wiswall, 2011; Rivkin, Hanushek and Kain, 2005; Rockoff, 2004), teacher retirements could reduce student achievement due to a reduction in the experience of the workforce.”?
See the paper for the full citations.
No, I do not trust the economists, because the studies of Rivkin & Hanushek are frequently cited by corporate “reformers” as the basis for seeing little value in the experience of veteran teachers AND because that’s not what Rivkin, Hanushek & Kain actually claimed in their 2005 paper, where they stated,
“There appear to be important gains in teaching quality in the first year of experience and smaller gains over the next few career years. However, there is little evidence that improvements continue after the first three years.” (p. 449)
Cosmic,
Perhaps you can point me to something that shows a steady increase in effectiveness of teaching over multiple decades.
How would you do that? Cohorts of students change. Over time, if all other variables remain constant, you should see a slow, steady rise. With all other variables held constant, the rate of improvement will slow since there will be less to improve. Change/novelty may cause a bump, but then we are introducing other variables. Get the picture? We can’t mathematically model effective teaching.
Perhaps you are correct and it is not possible to distinguish between good and bad teaching.
No, no, no. You just cannot easily package “teaching” into a single quantifiable metric. To try to judge teaching by crude statistical models is unethical, but do you really need to quantify it to recognize good teaching?
Posters here often quantify teaching. It is axiomatic for most posters that the training offered to TFA teachers is “too short” to possibly result in good teaching. Years of teaching, years of training, number of degrees are all thought by most here to be significant quantities.
They are variables that probably have some influence on teaching. They do not represent good teaching.
The studies of economists are typically quantitative and based on students’ test scores –most often in just reading and math. This is a very simplistic, reductionist approach to studying the complexities of teaching and learning. The assertion that, “There appear to be important gains in teaching quality in the first year of experience and smaller gains over the next few career years” is contrary to research on the development of expertise. There are always outliers but, generally, people do not become experts in 3 years (and intimating this sounds like an ad for TFA).
Educators do not usually see standardized test scores nor reading and math alone as the be-all and end-all of education. They matter, but educational researchers look at a wide variety of variables. They conduct qualitative studies as well, and they have examined studies on teaching and learning in a number of disciplines, including the “10 Year Rule” identified in the development of chess expertise. Subsequent studies have confirmed the ubiquity of the need for extended, deliberate practice to gain expertise in different fields. This is not to say that experience alone results in the development of expertise. Experience is necessary but not sufficient. A concerted effort towards improvement that occurs over an extended period of time are critical for developing expertise. There is also a range of prowess: novice, advanced beginner, competent, proficient, expert.
See Lee Shulman’s model of teacher expertise in regard to content knowledge, pedagogy and pedagogical content knowledge. Look at expert-novice comparison studies in education, such as those of David Berliner. Sorry, I only had time to locate this one: http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_198610_brandt2.pdf
See Lee Shulman here: http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_199204_brandt2.pdf
See also Berliner here: http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/may01/vol58/num08/Improving-the-Quality-of-the-Teaching-Force@-A-Conversation-with-David-C.-Berliner.aspx
“…we’ve verified that it takes between five to eight years to master the craft of teaching. Only through experiencing the complexity of the classroom does a teacher learn. We now know that we cannot completely pre–train teachers. A college degree in education only takes you so far. It prepares you to be a beginner in a complex world.”
I am not sure posters here will be much happier to be told that they reach a plateau in five to eight years of teaching instead of the three years suggested by the earlier paper.
Are you of the belief that there is only one level of mastery?
I am just commenting on the quote provided by Cosmic Tinkerer. I have little idea what David Berliner meant by “…we’ve verified that it takes between five to eight years to master the craft of teaching”. Perhaps you have more insight.
You are assuming that’s a “plateau”. It’s a level of competence, but it’s not expertise. Look up the “10 Year Rule” that I previously mentioned. 10 years is the minimum time of deliberate practice necessary for becoming an expert, according to expert-novice comparison studies across disciplines.
Teachers tend to be intrinsically motivated to develop expertise and becoming a National Board Certified Teacher encourages that. See also, “Supervision that Develops Expertise”: http://www.ascd.org/publications/books/110019/chapters/Supervision-That-Develops-Expertise.aspx
There is a reason for four year apprenticeships and college. It takes that long to learn the subject and some more time to become real competent in that field. When you get ot something as complicated and with as many different sides as humans this is not an easy subject especially if you are dealing with behavioral problems, ESL, Special ed and/or those not at grade level. Do not forget this is not just times one but by as many as a teacher teaches in a day. Complicated formula in anyones book. This cannot be solved by 5 weeks in wonderworld as Gates, Broad, Walton, TFA and Students Last state.
That is a very good point. I do not know how the young teachers can emotionally handle the way they are treated for not handling everything perfectly and the constant evaluations and walk throughs.
I forgot to add that none of those people or organizations would allow their personal or organizations to be run this way when their stuff is on the line for their personal profit or notoriety.
Cosmic,
It seems to me that you are having an argument with your own post. You provided the quote that it takes 5 to 8 years for a teacher to master the craft of teaching. If you really think it is 10 years or more, perhaps it was unwise to provide evidence for the shorter period.
No, as I said previously, there is a range of prowess: novice, advanced beginner, competent, proficient, expert –which Berliner identified in his studies– as well as the 10 year rule.
Teachers who are competent or proficient have attained certain levels of mastery of the craft. However, that is not the same as being an expert, which expert-novice comparison studies demonstrate requires a minimum of 10 years of deliberate experience, i.e., at least a decade of experience with a concerted effort towards improvement. As I also said previously, there are always outliers.
I certainly don’t want to quibble over a couple of years. To be safe, lets agree that many, if not most, teachers become experts after 12 years experience.
After 12 years of experience spent expanding their knowledge and honing their skills each day.
If experience alone was enough to become an expert, all of us who’ve been cooking for ourselves and/or our families every day for over a decade would be eligible to compete on Top Chef Masters. Most of us are not in that league, because we didn’t spend every day expanding our culinary knowledge and improving our cooking skills.
Cosmic,
If you mean to say many or even most teachers never reach the expert or even master level, I certainly will not disagree.
Yes, I knew your last comment was tongue-in-cheek.
I don’t know what percentage of teachers there are at each level of prowess and I would not want to guess, but those who are committed to being lifelong learners are most likely to develop expertise. P-12 teacher education emphasizes the importance of lifelong learning for educators, and most states require continuing education to maintain certification.
One of the interesting questions the paper sought to answer is whether those committed to lifelong learning are the most likely to retire early if give the opportunity.
I would think that there would need to be a longitudinal study following teachers for at least 10 years to really have data that’s reliable & valid. Is this a replicable report across the board! Or is this an attempt to replace “veteran” teachers with “more responsive, pliable, younger” teaching staff? I consider data from these organizations as suspect!
I notice the California study cited here occurred just as the state’s new standards were coming online. In that instance, of course the newbies would be better versed in the new curricula. That transition probably accounts for the relatively unchanged test scores.
After 40 years in public education in central office educational administration and school-level leadership, I am confused by the results and have no rational explanation for this counter-intuitive article. As a high school principal for 28 years in some leading high schools like Worthington, Ohio, New Trier High School, Winnetka, Illinois and Ridgefield, CT, the results defy the realities of the serious losses. When highly supported and staff development-rich, well educated faculty retire, as a leader I struggled to find replacements with a minimum of 10-15 years of experience to complete the gaps left by their contributions. These faculty members have a value added in wisdom, kindness, experience, volunteerism, and empathy for the professional needs they uniquely serve for our learners.
Regardless of the content from Advanced Placement to remedial courses, experienced, competent teachers are difficult if not impossible to replace. They have the classroom savvy, interpersonal relationships, understanding of partnerships between administrators and faculty, and the insight to assess what is missing in an initiative and comprehend the realities of mandates.
I am currently retired from leadership; I am now serving as a teacher in an independent school where I teach 8th grade Civics, 9th grade Pre-AP Literature, 9th grade Honors World History, and Honors/AP Government. I have learners identified as special needs and gifted in the same classroom; I have testing for which I am accountable; I have technology I need to master; I have differentiate instruction expectations; I communicate weekly with student parents; I Tweet, Blog, create QR codes, and Skype, I write teacher created technology lessons infused Prezi lessons, and I conduct Socratic Seminars and Harkness discussions. Would you give this list of expectations to a novice?
While I do not participate in after hours programs with students (an experience best served with younger faculty–know thy self!), I can add value to technology committees, strategic planning initiatives, curriculum writing, and service programs, tours, assemblies and initiatives directed by the Head of School. I know that my new colleagues come to me for task analysis of AP lessons, suggestions on motivational techniques of disconnected students, and to ask, “Does it ever get any easier?” I remain miffed how experienced teachers are a deficiency!
Our children need and seek a diversified faculty to attend to their interests and needs: no age-ism, sex-ism, racism, or gender-ism. At lunch in my classroom, you can find any number of students discussing many topics as part of my “lunch bunch” group. Follow us on Twitter @dmrmlindsay and see what experienced faculty do for the value-added in any school. Another assault that disheartens, discourages, and dismisses distinguished educators! Why?
Dianna, your comments are proof that exceptional administrators exist. I do believe they are going the way of the dinosaurs, however.
In a conversation with a colleague who was fortunate enough to do a supervisory intern with him, I found out that my beloved principal is actually the “black sheep” among the rest of our district admins because he fights for his staff instead of pandering to the ideology that teachers are to be constantly swamped with more and more responsibilities. A leader who supports us as a fine example of an educational professional, he presents every new initiative as a partnership with an understanding of what we need from him every step of the way. He values our time and masterfully plans timelines for the completion of each part of our initiatives thus making them manageable. I hope that he is never “encouraged” out of his position because of his humanity and his respect for the staff. While other principals are constantly looking to play “gotcha,” this man is working with us. It seems that you are and he are cut from the same cloth.
LG:
I am sorry to say that I too felt like the “odd girl out” in several situations but my vision was never blinded by those who could never see or understand the meaning and legacy of being a real teacher!
Teaching is lonely and lively, unlimited and unselfish, and always joyful and joyous! I love our students, grow in their shadows, and find complete satisfaction when I can stand beside a teacher and watch each one fly when coached, comforted, and connected to the REAL work of teaching-transforming children’s lives! Keep the faith!
Support good teachers and leaders! Use ear plugs to silence the distracting fools! And, “forgive them, they know not what they do,” who they are or why we exist.
We are called to live, laugh, learn, and lead in love! As a former Ohio teacher if the year, former Ohio principal of the year, former Milken winner and former National PTA Educator of the year, I know that hearts, hands, and heads change the world not politics, pundits, or policies of elitist separatist!
This write wants to purge professionals, kill spirits, and destroy optimism! Not me!!!
Dr. Lindsay, you were my principal at New Trier (class of ’96)!! I am so excited that you are participating in this discussion and the powerful expertise you bring. Any time a reformer makes the claim that public education is failing, I point them to New Trier. I simply cannot imagine that school without the many older, experienced teachers who inspired me! Thank you so much for your comment and your lifetime of service! This former student thanks you!
I started teaching at 43, bringing life experience and maturity with me. My first boss said that I was a “bargain.” No maternity leave, no young children to worry about and up-to-date training. Funny how quickly I am being dismissed as an “old-timer.” Since beginning my teaching career, I have earned 2 master’s degrees and 4 certifications. I am a life- long learner. After teaching 14 years, it may be cheaper to get rid of me, but what I bring to the classroom cannot be measured in dollars.
Joyce,
Your care giving naivety is the Achilles heel found in all teachers. Don’t you see? Decision-makers simply do not care.
The only two important words you’ve just mentioned having any significance in today’s US education system: bargain and dollars. Everything else is just noise.
And yet we all seem placated by the fact we have earned multi-postgraduate degrees in our dozens of years of experience.
They. Do. Not. Care. The disrespect you are receiving is free.
The sooner we all accept this as the endgame, the sooner we flip the table on this facade, make them uncomfortable, and do something about it. The fool is only the fool if everyone knows it.
Ultimately Together | Start a Movement
I was like you- started teaching in my 40s. When I left, took three teachers to cover my classes/extracurricular load.
Other studies purported to show that when a high achieving teacher left a school. scores went down, and when a high achieving teacher was added to a school’s roster scores went up.. The results are inconsistent from study to study.. something is wrong or the theory of high achieving teachers needs qualification.
As we all know the evolution of attitude is such that young folks who went through a program are more likely to understand and appreciate that program while being ignorant of alternatives. Old guys such as I are more likely to resist changes that we know to be irrelevent or damaging while young impressionable teachers are already programmed for the latest educational “fart in the wind.” As usual the article mentions math and language, which are important, but ignored all the other curriculums that reflect our genuine society. If all I knew was math and English then I would assume that is all we need. Also young folks are always more amenable to dictates from above because of their limited experiences while we old guys are thorns in the sides of mindless reformers and I am proud or it. That is also why young guys go to war and old guys stay home. Young folks jump into “new and innovative” but most of us have seen it all before. Remember whole language vs phonics?
When I first started teaching in my current district, whole language was all the rage, and teaching phonics was considered an act of insubordination. I remember that the 5th grade teachers used to hide old phonics books in the closet, and during language lessons, they instructed the students to quickly put them away if an administrator should walk into the room. Amazing that in America, teachers have to fear their superiors for going off-curriculum despite knowing what works better.
I never did understand why there was a war. I didn’t think of the approaches as either or but as useful tools to inform my teaching. Not everyone needs Orton-Gillingham; some kids will drown without that direct instruction. Turning many kids loose in a rich literacy environment will light the fire. This post is a little off topic, but not really when you realize the intent of the researchers is to quantify teaching. Hah!
Ageism?
Are we supposed to believe that ALL experienced teachers are bad and ALL new teachers are good?
There is research to support this?
I guess I can respond on a personal level. When I was brand new 24 years ago – I thought I knew it all and was so fabulous! I was energetic, willing to work incessantly, and – frankly experimenting on students. Now – two decades later – Im worth the money. Im better, calm, methodical, and my wealth of experience helps me waste no time or energy on things I know are fluff or less effective. Unfortunately the chirping high energy new teachers around me – have no respect for my experienced voice, until they REALLY need me. And I am needed.
I take the student no teacher can handle. I take the student with parents that scare everyone else. I take the grade level that is too difficult to fill. I go talk to the administration about whole staff issues. I speak at school boards from two decades of experience. And I know the importance of reaching out to those high energy, chirping, biting, disrespectful newbies. Because that is what makes public schools great – helping each other and a variety of voices and people moving in the right direction.
There will come a time where it will make sense financially to “buy me out”. That doesn’t mean it’s what is best for students. It will be purely an accounting decision.
I took all those students nobody else wanted, too. And then my contract was not renewed. Some of the excuses I heard? Their scores didn’t go up enough! I was teaching off model. Are you kidding me? I didn’t know there was “a model” for teaching illiterate and barely literate special ed, high school students.
Most rookie teachers struggle to develop routines. This assumption makes no sense to me. I am a 16 year teacher.
American Economic Association is interesting site to navigate. Lots of connections to education ‘interests’. SouthWestern Cengage Learning . Follow the money.
I really can’t say how credible the study is from a research design and execution point of view, but let’s say for the sake of argument that its findings have validity. It seems to me that teachers who are intrinsically motivated and passionate about their profession, who view it as a vocation and calling, and who enjoy its challenges and find meaning and purpose in their work will not retire early simply based on a bit more money. Or perhaps even a lot of money. Conversely, a teacher who has lost that intrinsic drive and commitment (and is thus likely to be performing at a less than stellar level), is going to take the money and run. So the effective, self-actualizing teachers stay, and their years of experience only enhances their practice as teachers, and their students learn. And if there is good leadership at the school, these master teachers will also mentor the younger teachers. Clayton Christensen touches on this dynamic in his new book “How Will You Measure Your Life?” The idea that people are primarily motivated by money in their work is wrong. Salary and other forms of compensation and mansgement schemes are “hygiene” factors that can keep you from hating your job, but only intrinsic motivators (meaning, purpose, challenge, value, worth) can keep you happily commited to what you do. There is much I disagree with Dr. Ravitch on, but I share her commitment to the restoration of teaching as an iconic profession in our society.
Stephen,
Trying to tease out these issues is a good reason to do these types of studies. Just to confound things further, energetic highly experienced teachers might also have many interests outside teaching, which might make it more likely that they would want to retire early. I think that is often the case in higher education.
So I was better teacher 17 years ago than I am now? All new teachers, if they make it, become senior teachers. What happens that makes teachers, unlike all others, less effective after gaining experience?
Remember, you hit 50 and your brains rot out.
This is utterly bull. All it proves is there is more teaching to the test than ever before. And each year the tests change–they are either too easy or have a different raw score. But on the bright side, I know many experienced teachers who would jump at a chance to get an early retirement deal. And I don’t blame them one bit. Bloomberg refuses to do this, so maybe this so-called “study” will change his mind. But I doubt it. He is looking for ways to rid teachers before they are eligible for pensions.
I was a public school student. I don’t recall my teachers teaching to the test. I do recall some very good moments in school. That was my motivation for becoming an educator. Whatever the “failings” were I didn’t pick up on those! That said, I entered the teaching profession at 41 & my best years are yet to come, in my opinion. To imply from that study that veteran, more experienced teachers peak at a certain age sets up a scenario for age discrimination. Not to mention that students who are great at passing tests ARE NOT necessarily receiving an education. Something to ponder!
I don’t think “peak” is the best way to characterize the conclusion in the study, rather I think the found it plateaued after about three years.
Correlation does not imply causation.
Don’t know if this is true for others but for me each school year was dynamic. Meaning that with different students, different personalities & teaching same materials/content, I made the school year to fit my class. Tried to keep things interesting, while still trying to stay on pace. Tried to take the “boring” out of the equation. Studies are only as reliable as who is commissioned to conduct them & finance them.
You’d be very surprised how that approach can enliven the profession/discipline of education.
Roberta,
I note you are careful to use the past tense when talking about teaching. Are you retired? If so, did you retire early?
How astute of you! Not retired but don’t have a regular assigned class. Due to a set of circumstance [I won’t elaborate], find myself in a status of rotation from one school to another each week.
Aside from missing out on valuable PD [when it occurs], don’t have the privilege & honor of “belonging” anywhere. Don’t Cry For Me Argentina!!! It is less than desirable, no doubt, but in essence, those circumstance were a blow to my honor, self-esteem, & demoralization of the profession I hold dear. Statistics of any kind MUST be worth more than the information. The data MUST be relevant, valid, & reliable. Many educators have outside interests because their work didn’t bring in enough financial support. To presume & assume that teachers should not be concerned about their well-being or their own welfare, is ludicrous at best. The only persons who can truly empathize with another educator, Is An Educator! Basically, this legitimizes forced retirement. Not saying the younger, neophytes don’t have joie de vivre BUT who says the veterans don’t possess that same spirit!!!
I am a little confused about your response. I did not see any comment that presumed “…teachers should not be concerned about their well-being or their own welfare…”.
The study talks about Chicago. You can blame the people who are running things now, but the fact that the pension fund was not funded from 1995 for ten years… That is a lot of missing money. What will make up that deficit, the people who stole it fair and square, out of the retirees current pension, out of the taxpayers of 2013 forward, or out of the education budget for the kids today? Multiple choice, process of elimination.
Utter nonsense. This rhetoric about our Public Education continues to mislead. It is disheartening. It is also the wrong argument. I am a veteran teacher of 16 years. Veteran and novice continually teach and learn from one another. This should not be a competition. If we, as a Nation, placed more value upon this civil right, this argument and the continual budget lamenting would be muted.
Diane Ravitch, thank you. I invite you to follow me at 70jamsession.wordpress.com, please.
@teachingeconomist meaning w/the attempt at union busting & the teacher bashing and claims we are making TOO much; this has nothing to do with abilities or capabilities but more to do to convince parents & the public that teachers don’t deserve what they receive in wages! This is basically my premise and underlying reasons for releasing studies that inference a certain purpose/reason for an educator to retire! If it stops being enjoyable showing up to work each day, then it should be a wrap!!! Just my opinion.
Even the pedagogue who has attained “Mastery” continues to strive even better. Therein, lies the danger & misuse/abuse of statistics. In too many instances, there are documented cases of an educator’s attainment of mastery, then starts receiving “needs improvement” or “unsatisfacory/inefficient” in rating. What accounts for this phenomena? This appears to be a subjective criteria and not based in true objectivity. As if a self-fulfilling prophecy were in place. If the data says it is so, then it must be so. On what premise/basis is the data correlated?
Completely contrary to my experience as an administrator and evaluator.
I am retiring after 27 yrs. My last day is Jan 31st, next week. I am leaving earlier than planned because of the stress and pressure put on us to “Make the scores happen” on the standarized tests.
They can get young, inexperienced teachers and bully and intimidate them into making the scores happen easier than older teachers who know better and refuse to give in to it.
I feel sorry for the young teachers. They are made to feel that they are inadequate and not cutting it if they do not have the scores so after several six weeks of this treatment they learn to play the game and “make the scores happen”. They are threatened with losing their job and there is a lot of shame and intimidation for them because they are just starting out.
Our district uses this acronym TINA for Teacher in Need of Assistance which is projected on an overhead screen and there for the whole faculty to see and the administration are the names of teachers who have any failing students after the six weeks tests. “What are you doing wrong? We need to monitor you more closely etc.” So they learn to make the scores happen so they are not humiliated and then by the time the state mandated test comes along they are trained to “do whatever is needed to make the students successful”.
I am getting out before another round of state testing starts (Texas). It makes me sick to my stomach.
Direct quote from my superintendent is “Don’t let little Johnny keep you from your money.” (the incentive check you get if the scores are good). He of course also gets his contract renewed and a large raise.
I feel for you. I could see this coming for many years in IL. I got out in 2006 and I could not believe how bad it got so fast. You made the right move.
I am 48 years old. I have been teaching for 27 years. I have at least 20 years more teaching time ahead of me. I am better than I was at 21 and am continuously striving to be better. How does it make sense to tell people my age that they are no longer worthy to be employed?
No matter what they are talking about, they are talking about the money.
without seeing several things, including whether teachers who did not retire showed similar improvements across the board, it is impossible to tell whether the supposed gain by less experienced teachers is real or simply represents making the test easier. Remember Klein bragging on improvements in NYC when in fact those improvements were less than those across the state on tests clearly made easier? Also not possible to know if all one is seeing is scaled scores because the raw scores could actually have dropped. I taught in Virginia for one year. The year before I was in the building 58% of our students passed the test in my subject. The year I was there the pass rate was 81%. Sounds spectacular, doesn’t it? Especially when I tell you the other teachers of the subject were brand new to the classroom, while I had 6 years prior experience as a teacher, but was new to the subject. Oh, and my pass rate was 89%.
But the conversion between raw scores and scaled scores had been changed. The same raw score resulted in a higher scaled score. Had the previous year’s scores been scaled at the same rate, our previous year would have been about 71%. So we show an increase, but most of that was me, and oh by the way I did all the planning for how we were going to prepare the students for the test.
As far as institutional memory, I have been through it. I retired from a school in which I had taught for 13 years last June in part because of a buyout. The year before there had been an even larger buyout. The first year we lost 7 senior teachers, my year we lost 6. None of us probably would have retired without the buyout, the oldest any of us were was a woman who was 68. I have been back in the school for several occasions and regularly hear from former students (most of mine were 10th graders so there are two cohorts of my students still in the building) and they describe how different the school has become over the past two years. I saw some of it from last year.
At one point the school had four teachers considered legendary in a piece the Washington Post did (although that did not include three other outstanding teachers). Three of us have now gone. The person who physically replaced me was forced upon the school by the school system instead of our getting a more competent replacement. Those replacing us for the courses we taught are no where near as effective as we were. And of course the school culture is now greatly different.
I might note that it is not just a question of money, although school systems can sometimes hire at least 3 teachers for every two who retire, and sometimes two. Removing the senior teachers makes it far easier to change the culture of the school, which some of the so-called reformers want to do. From the standpoint of those of us retiring, we were also tired of fighting wrong-headed approaches to education being imposed upon our schools. It was not the school leadership, it was that of the district, the state and the nation. We were eligible for retirement, a few of us were already drawing social security and all of us had other options to make up the loss of income – two continued to substitute at the school one-two days a week. I think one went to work in a private school. Several of us did freelance work or consulted, although I am now back in the classroom for the rest of the year in another jurisdiction. Some are working in fields outside of education, with far less stress and far fewer hours.
Are buyouts a productive approach? It depends on many things. For those of us in my school who took them, it was the right choice for us as individuals. For the students the quality of the replacements is important. But the loss of a school culture that had maintained high standards to the point of national recognition is not a positive.
When any system goes from experienced pros to amateurs everyone loses. Why does anyone think education is any different? This is the highest form of sociopathy and/or delusion.
As a new teacher, I would have bristled at the implication that I couldn’t be as effective as a more experienced one. Hubris? Most assuredly, but idealism comes with that territory. New teachers come to the classroom with that by the bucketfuls (bucketsful?). Having seen my own knowledge deepen and my approaches more reflective each year though, I now liken new teachers to most college freshman – they don’t know how to “study,” so they “cram” for everything. They can make good grades on the test, but as far as long-tern retention of information goes, uh uh. IF tests scores go up after older, more experienced teachers leave the classroom, ok, maybe. But how educated will students really be for the business of life?
We (older teachers) have been inexperienced and experienced and i can say without a doubt we are doing a better job now as experienced teachers. Not to say the new inexperienced teachers are not doing a good job, just not as effective as teacher with experienced. Also I have known many young teacher who quit teaching within the first 3-4 years. I am 55 and plan on teaching for 5 more years.
I firmly believe that a school requires a diverse faculty,
and that diversity should include diversity of age and experience
(both teaching and non-teaching). I am in my fourth year as a
teacher, but I’m a bit of an unusual case as I came to the
profession almost straight out of school but also with a lot of
supposed “real-world” working experience both inside and outside of
education. I came to teaching with experiences that included going
above and beyond standard internship work at a financial
institution (and I’m not a business teacher) and teaching (really,
actually teaching) seminars in university. This means I may not
represent the typical “young teacher,” but my perspective is simply
as follows: the type of professional you are has a much stronger
bearing on your effectiveness than your age or years of experience
ever will. The reason I believe this is because I have worked with
highly effective, very experienced staff members who have credited
working closely with newer teachers as a source for their continued
effectiveness, and because I myself would not feel nearly as
effective as I do today (or will tomorrow) without the guidance,
mentoring, and intervention of those experienced teachers. At the
same time, I feel that my practice benefits greatly from working
with other new teachers, who are able to commiserate with me
without always turning my plight into a [valuable but exhausting]
teachable moment. Diversity, collaboration, and humility among a
faculty go a lot farther than years of experience or innovative
ideas can on their own. As a community of educators, I believe that
we are much more than the sum of our parts. This is the key point
that reformers are missing, and I fear many teachers’ responses
might be missing this point, as well. We should be defending the
unique value that each diverse individual brings to our teaching
community, rather that defending the value of one age cohort over
another. Then again, I might be wrong; after all, I’m only 27 and
still very naive 😉
“There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.”
– Mark Twain
“Honesty is the best policy – when there is money in it” -Mark Twain
Conversely, when there is no real money to be made by doing what is in the best inters of those you are allegedly serving, we will tout false statistics.
I refer to Twain because it is very clear that there is money to be made in education; not by being educated and not by actually educating students, but by pretending to do so. Education reform is arena for the new snake oil salesmen. These people are the ones who are making a name for themselves and a handsome profit by dumbing down the American public. Profits are made, not by creating value but by reducing costs. Most new teachers last about three years before they leave the profession. Where are the statics that show the deleterious effects of teacher turnover and lack of experience on student achievement? We will not see these because they do not support the position of the snake oil salesmen!
Statics are easily, readily and often manipulated to prove one point o view over another. There are many variables. For instance, new teachers are more likely to teach to the test; tests that are not about actual learning, but merely achieving the results that the corporate masters proclaim must be achieved- or else. Will they, like seasoned educators, who have devoted their careers to actually teaching students to LEARN, be willing to stand up and fight for students? Will they question their bosses and challenge the new status quo or will they go along to protect their jobs- which they invested heavily in- hoping for a later return? I think it is doubtful. The funny think is that teacher salaries are dropping, thus maximizing profits, and yet the extra money is not being spent on classroom needs such as technology, extend learning times, tutoring and the like. This is still often on the backs of teachers. How many of the low paid new teachers can and will dig into their shallow pockets to provide for children the things that the school districts do not? Where is this money going? I believe it is going to the for profit school corporations and testing companies, which of course have a vested interest in the “success” of such policies. Experienced educators are challenging these policies, and thus their profits. Therefore rather than answer the accusations that these policies are flawed, money is better spent attacking the challengers of said policies- teachers who are experienced and dedicated to actually teaching the whole child. They must go! So, out come the statistics.
The business of education is no longer in the hands of educators. It is in the hands of business people who regard students as products, rather than human beings who are being short changed and will live with the consequences of a poor education for the rest of their lives. Perhaps if future generations are ignorant, they will be more willing the accept the lack of opportunities that a poor education affords them. It is so much easier, and more profitable than actually improving the economy and opportunity for American citizens, and if you can be a “hero” AND make a large profit, so much the better, right?
The answer to your question, which is really a logic question (anyone here old enough to remember when those were taught in schools?). Answer: follow the money. That is always the answer in business and politics, as well a crime. Education is big business. You figure it out.
That’s the problem with data. Manipulate it to suit your
purpose.
All excellent points made—about experience, diversity and
money. Education remains a political football. Every other election
cycle politicians revamp and repackage the product superficially
without ever addressing its core. Public policies are like new
icing on a longstanding cake. I would ask what are you measuring?
Newer teachers are more versed in the latest buzzwords, acronyms
and fads, although many of us older teachers have already seen them
come and go. If that is what you measure—the newest, latest
thing—then newer teachers will get you more correctly colored
circles. Older teachers know methods are cyclic, and they’ve found
what works for them. I myself often find my district’s latest trick
ponies only serve to make more work for me and to detract from my
actual instruction time, in favor spending hours on long reports
(and I have written accreditation reports), taking more classes on
line at night when I could be grading and planning, punching holes
in handouts for data binders and slowly dying through endless
meetings, meetings on AYP and API, endless meetings. What I need is
time to grade essays. Give me more time, don’t take more of it.
Strategies of teaching writing reach back to Cicero, Quintillian,
Montaigne and Ramus, Father Ong and E.D. Hirsch. Everyone ought to
be more aware of pedagogical history. I teach To Kill A Mockingbird
annually. Harper Lee pokes fun at Scout’s teacher Miss Caroline for
being angry that Scout learned to read without the newest “dewey
decimal system” method Caroline learned in her college. This
discussion is as old as Plato. In short. experienced teachers have
come to understand the culture of their schools and communities; if
they are to succeed in any way, they have found what works best.
Maybe we ought to try trusting them and letting them do their work.
In his history of American higher education, CURRICULUM, Frederick
Rudolph ends by observing the impact of individual personalities on
instruction. I think it’s important not to discount that. I like
the expression above, “legendary teachers.” I’ve taught for three
decades on both coasts in private and public high school and at the
university level, and I saw my own child through the maze of Los
Angeles private schools, so I’ve seen a lot. Every school has its
few teachers who are legendary and whose tenure amounts to a life
milestone, a ritual, as formative as a Quinceañera or a Bat
Mitzvah. Education is more than coloring in bubbles that run
through machines owned by Neal Bush. I’m thinking of the genre of
bildungsroman which relates the major events in its character’s
life. Education is certainly one. We don’t address the profound
complexities of the developmental, emotional, ritualistic, social,
class, creative and physical components. The politicians focus only
on bits of discrete cognitive data. The Texas Republican Party has
virtually outlawed critical thinking. They have said such
instruction undermines parental and church authority. An enormously
complex question not to be answered here today. But—I can say a
mixture of new and experienced most likely benefits most. I know I
was a different teacher before and after I was a parent. I know I
was awful when I began in New Haven in 1977. I know there are good
and bad aspects to both sides of the age divide as well. We live in
a youth culture where ages are segregated. Students need exposure
to all age groups. That kind of exposure in itself is an education.
The answer is there is no one answer. There is only that
“continuing conversation” the philosopher Richard Rorty named to
define what culture in fact, is. Fund us and let us do our
jobs.
Sensei, your arguments are full of merit. The one that
struck me is that the youth need exposure to multiple generations,
absolutely! If we discard all the experienced teachers, we are left
with those who never had exposure to the depth of study only gained
with age. Yes, some of us should retire. I’ll gladly go quietly
when it’s my time, but to push out many deprives our youth of many
quality leaders/teachers.
If I understand the article correctly, it’s saying that when teachers whose students post the highest scores leave, scores go up. Isn’t this like saying that researchers found that people who eat more weigh less? It’s illogical, which makes me think there’s some serious problems with the research.
I don’t believe that is the conclusion of the papers, at least the one on early retirement. The policy concern is that offering early retirement would result in losing the best teachers in the school system, but it is also possible that teachers who are still in the classroom burned out and waiting to reach retirement age might be the first to jump at the chance to leave the system. Using 20 year old data, the authors try to get part of an answer.
I cannot speak to the validity of the study. However, as a
teacher educator, and having observed extensively in schools in the
region into which my graduates will be going, I firmly believe that
most of my students are better teachers already than many if not
most of those I have observed.
Bogus. I don’t believe a word of it. I will be a new teacher and I am not better than someone who has been in the classroom for a long time (like 10+ years). No really, I look to them for advice, I know they know how things should work, they have seen it all.
Interesting you should say that. In my case, the new ones avoided me. They never had questions. I was in a big district with hundreds of teachers.
1. With eight years teaching and a M.Ed., I am paid $1.5K/year less than what they are offering new teachers with only a B.A.
2. Our district is closing ten schools. We will be facing a surplus of teachers. If I retire this year, I will only receive ~$5/month less than teaching for another six to make the “magic 80 points”.
A buyout offer would be nice, but it is a gamble, since we are required to apply for retirement no later than Feb. 1.
Follow the money and see who has sponsored and provided funds to these two individuals.
http://www.human.cornell.edu/PAM/People/michael_lovenheim.cfm
http://www.human.cornell.edu/bio.cfm?netid=mfl55
http://www.human.cornell.edu/pam/people/maria_fitzpatrick.cfm
http://www.human.cornell.edu/bio.cfm?netid=mdf98
I am at a loss to see where you think “the money” leads.
To the results of the “study” and who has paid for these “results”.
As these authors are faculty members at Cornell, I imagine their salary comes from a mix of student tuition and funds provided by the State of New York.
Don’t assume. Look at their CV and their publications list that I included.
Are you talking about things like the two grants Dr. Lovenheim lists? Very little if any of that money would end up in his pocket. Around 40% will be taken of the top by Cornell for institutional support. The remaining funds will likely go to support a research assistant ( ie grad student) or perhaps buy out a course to free up time to work on the project.
The impact on his salary will be indirect and depend on how much weight Cornell puts on grant supported research of this kind.