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.”
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.