Samuel Abrams, who directs the National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education at Teachers College, recently published a study comparing the conditions of teaching in the United States and other OECD nations. Abrams here summarizes the study and corrects an article that appeared in Slate about it.
He writes:
All studies are necessarily open to interpretation. What I concluded in a recently published study of teaching time, entitled The Mismeasure of Teaching Time and posted on the Web site of the Center for Benefit-Cost Studies of Education at Teachers College, Columbia University, should have been straightforward but clearly was not. Slate came away with a surprising take, from its provocative headline claiming “American Teachers Might Not Work Such Long Hours After All” to its conclusion regarding the effectiveness of U.S. teachers.
The study may be summarized as follows:
- Because of an error in data collection, the U.S. Department of Education has significantly overstated teaching time in its annual reports to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), which has, in turn, published this erroneous information every year since 2000 in its frequently cited digest of educational statistics and analysis, Education at a Glance (EAG).
- According to the latest data in EAG, U.S. teachers spend 49 to 73 percent more time leading classes than their OECD counterparts. In reality, the difference is about 15 percent, which is still substantial but far less significant than the differences in teacher pay and the structure of the school day.
- A central problem with this overstatement of U.S. teaching time is that it has distracted scholars and journalists from the more pressing differences in teacher pay and the structure of the school day.
- The differences in teacher pay are indeed dramatic and telling. U.S. upper-secondary teachers, for example, earn 70 percent as much as their college classmates while their OECD counterparts make 92 percent. In absolute terms, U.S. teachers earn about the same as their OECD counterparts, but it is relative pay that truly matters. Because of less income polarization in other OECD nations, teachers abroad typically have far more purchasing power than here. And inadequate purchasing power makes any profession more stressful.
- The differences in the structure of the school day are likewise dramatic and telling. In the United States, in contrast to many other OECD nations, the school day has been driven by the demands of high-stakes testing. These demands have boxed out time for music, art, drama, and recess, exacerbated the assembly-line pace of the school day in the United States long ago documented by Raymond Callahan in Education and the Cult of Efficiency (1962), and moreover placed tremendous and unnecessary pressure on students, teachers, and administrators alike.
In today’s contentious climate of education policy, where teachers are readily blamed for everything from subpar student achievement to disappointing national economic productivity, it is imperative that technical distinctions in academic studies are properly understood.
U.S. teachers indeed work long hours. I know this too well as someone who was a high school teacher for 18 years. Prepping for class and grading papers can be consuming activities, taking up time in the evening and over the weekend. This is true for teachers in other OECD countries, as well, even in the pedagogical heaven that is Finland. What is not true, however, is that U.S. teachers spend as much time leading classes as reported by the OECD and repeated by scholars and journalists.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
I was concerned about the agenda for this report coming from Researcher Samuel E. Abrams, director of the National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education at Teachers College, Columbia University. However, there was interesting data on this report that considered the time American educators spend assessing students at every grade level and how that testing time contributed to the false perception of teaching time. More importantly, the study highlighted the disparity in pedagogical practice between the education systems in United States compared to other countries. Like so many other researchers, Abrams contrasted American schools with Finland’s school system. He noted that the difference in teaching time between the two countries was not as great as originally publicized, but that the difference of practice is the “polar opposite.” In Finland, the structure of the school day has 15 minute breaks between classes or 15 minutes of play for every 45 minutes of instruction, for a total of 75 minutes per day, with no standardized tests. The result is that Finland’s teachers demonstrate little confusion on defining teaching time.
The data provided by Abrams suggests that American teachers do work more than other teachers worldwide. Using Paris-based OECD figures to convert the percentage of time into regular 40 hour weeks means that American elementary teachers work 2.4 weeks (12%); middle/intermediate teachers work 2.75 weeks (14%) and high school teachers work 2.2 weeks (11%) more than other teachers worldwide.
If the demand for assessment is the reason for the difference, I am confident that most American teachers could think of other things to do during those weeks other than testing.
My full post at:http://usedbooksinclass.com/2015/02/02/american-teachers-work-11-14-more-testing-not-included/
Reblogged this on David R. Taylor-Thoughts on Texas Education.
I know American teachers have longest teaching hours(22-24hrs/week-ish) among OECD nations, according to OECD Education At Glance 2013. Their plight will bring even more dismal consequence, should they have more school hours than Japanese teachers who have least teaching hours(16-17hrs/week) but longest school hours(53.8hrs/week) among all.
I teach 30 hours a week in high school.
I teach between 28-30 hours a week in a middle school. I have 270 students. The “teacher load” of the number of students that a teacher sees is ridiculous and contributes to burn out.
Hi, texastitleoneteacher and Threatened out West,
Thank you for your posts.
As Ken Watanabe noted, the hours in this study are national averages extrapolated from a sample of school districts. I would nevertheless be quite interested in learning about your course loads.
Please write me directly at sa307@tc.columbia.edu. Also, please read pages 11-12 of the study for a detailed analysis of teaching hours in one school district as well as Table 4 for a breakdown of teaching hours by level of schooling for 10 school districts.
Sincerely,
Sam
Texastitleoneteacher&Threatened out West
Thanks. As you know, the numbers shown in the OECD report are on average. Most teachers who read this blog probably teach as much as you do. How much OECD’s data reflects on American education reality today is anybody’s guess.
When I taught junior high school and middle school in Washington, DC, I had five 55-minute classes per day, and there were about 180 school days per year. In addition, I was expected to be on “hall duty” for about another 45 minutes per day as students entered the building, passed between classes, went to lunch, returned from lunch, and exited the building.. Plus a club or tutoring after school, which I won’t add in but probably should.
Five x 55 + 45 is about 320 minutes per day, or about 5 and one-third hours. (Plus my time at lunch was also often spent in tutoring students, holding detention, and so on!)
If you multiply that by 180 school days per year, that gives about 960 contact hours per year, which is a lot more than this study claims and only a bit less than previous figures. It’s still a lot more time than almost any other nation’s teachers have contact with students. But keep in mind that this does not include any of the mandatory-voluntary time tutoring or disciplining kids at lunch or after school or leading extracurricular activities, all of which definitely add up. I might add another 2-3 hours per week for that, per teacher, for about 36 weeks, or another 72 – 108 hours, bringing the total to just about what the original studies claimed!
Hi, gfbrandenburg,
Thank you for your response.
As I explain in the study, the OECD does not count such time as monitoring study hall or tutoring students during lunch breaks or proctoring exams as contact time.
As someone who also tutored students during lunch and had non-teaching duties in my 18 years as a high school teacher, I hear your concern. But technically speaking, such time is not counted as instructional time. Please see page 7 of the study. Also, please see endnote 45, on page 22, regarding non-instructional duties in Finland that do not get counted as instructional time.
Your schedule of five 55-minute classes accordingly amounted to 825 hours per year of what the OECD terms “net statutory contact time.” Once half-days are subtracted for professional development and parent-teacher conferences, that total might come down by 15 hours or so. Yet, according to the OECD, U.S. lower-secondary teachers spend 1,085 hours leading classes. That number is way off and, as I write in my study, has distracted scholars and journalists from true and pressing differences regarding teacher pay and the structure of the school day.
Sincerely,
Sam
Of course there are some other things to consider, not widely reported in “portraits” of K-12 education in the US.
This year, 51% of K-12 students live in poverty.
In 2013-14, 35 states provided less funding per student than they did before the 2008 recession.
The price tag of K-12 education has increased since 2008, due to rising costs of supplies and tests; the need for more wrap-around social services, especially for special education; dubious investments in technology and more—but not teacher pay.
Between 2000 and 2012, average teacher salaries increased less than 1 percent, in inflation-adjusted terms and average teacher pay — $56,643— is lower than the average pay in many other professions that require college and graduate degrees.
Data Sources
POVERTY http://www.southerneducation.org/Our-Strategies/Research-and-Publications/New-Majority-Diverse-Majority-Report-Series/A-New-Majority-2015-Update-Low-Income-Students-Now.aspxPov
FUNDING CUTS http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=4011
TEACHER SALARIES http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/07/education/teacher-pay-hurt-by-recession-report-says.html and http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d12/tables/dt12_084.asp
The National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education site, lists funding from Kaplan, ETS, Pew, etc.
The Gates Foundation “invests in research and data systems”, related to education, in the admitted amount of $2 bil. dollars Two billion dollars will pay for an approx. 33,300 researchers and data analysts.
When we accept the research of any organization that receives money from multinational corporations and/or plutocratic “philanthropies”, the first demand should be the disclosure of the funders’ potential financial benefit. If undisclosed, it should constitute legal fraud.
In situations where potential benefit exists, like the development of copyrighted curriculum, associated testing, data processing hardware and software, the “philanthropy” should voluntarily reject the tax benefit of a charitable deduction.
Then, unless we are confident researchers have the personal integrity to select focus and clearly report findings, contradictory to the objectives of the funder, the papers should be dropped in the round file.
On the face of it, if research supports nonproprietary interests, its value rises.
Hi, Linda,
Thank you for your input.
The National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education is a non-partisan research center focused on the causes, manifestations, and consequences of educational privatization here and abroad.
If you look at our archive of 220 working papers, you’ll discover that most of them find significant problems with educational privatization.
You are right that readers must always consider the source. But I assure you that the National Center for the Study of Privatization as a source is far from ideologically biased.
I can also assure you that my study of teaching time is a pro-teacher study. After all, I concluded that U.S. teachers 1) spend more time leading classes than their OECD counterparts (though not as much more as long claimed), 2) don’t earn as much money as their OECD counterparts, and 3) work under more stressful conditions than their OECD counterparts because of federally mandated high-stakes testing. I urge you to read at least the introduction and conclusion to the study to see these points spelled out in detail.
Sincerely,
Sam
Sam,
The final sentence of my prior post applies.
It’s unfortunate that all of us have watched while this or that researcher/organization establishes credibility by appearing benign and employing the magic words, non-partisan or non-profit. (If what is meant by non-partisan, is both political parties serving the plutocrats, then the Kochs, Gates and Waltons are using the right terminology. If what is meant by non-profit, is the potential for huge philanthropic executive salaries and a profitable end run, for the funders, again, the right terminology.) That benign researcher, perceived as legitimate, then writes a paper that skewers the poor, the middle class, public services, or serves profit-making goals ….. The paper makes the rounds, finding high visibility in state capitols and in the media.
Aren’t the following, examples? Pew’s association with the Arnold Foundation on pension research, Pew’s association with an organization titled, privatization of education, the TIAA Institute’s association with the Arnold Foundation, the PTA, National Council on Social Studies (see Hofstra University Prof. Singer’s letter posted on-line), etc. associations with Gates…..
The door has closed on a time, when university or think tank research is respected as more than the payment for services rendered. The 250 universities that take money from the Kochs are certainly aware of the reported sentiment expressed by Charles Koch in a speech excerpted at Greenpeace. He is quoted as saying, funding should cease, for institutions that don’t serve the company’s interest or free enterprise.
Linda,
I appreciate your cynicism, but it is misplaced in the context of both this study and the National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education.
The study calls for abolishing high-stakes testing, raising teacher pay significantly, reducing U.S. teaching time to Finnish levels, and integrating 15-minute breaks between classes to give students, teachers, and administrators alike an opportunity to get some fresh air and regroup.
Apropos teacher pay, in particular, I made clear in this Q&A about the study that it would necessitate not only raising teacher pay but also raising marginal income tax rates as well as taxes on long-term capital gains, as income polarization in the United States must be reversed for teachers to have decent purchasing power: http://internationalednews.com/2015/01/28/teaching-time-in-the-u-s/
As for the research center, it’s the National Center for the STUDY of Privatization in Education. Again, I urge you to check our archive of working papers. You’ll be surprised.
Sincerely,
Sam
Sam,
Germa Bel’s economic research may have a place in your archives. He found that Germany, was unique among European nations, in the lead up to WWII. In Nazi Germany, there was a drive for privatization, forming a powerful coalition between business and government. One deduction is that a balance of power is essential to protection of minorities.
In addition to minority safety issues, United States unionization, meant economic opportunity for emigres from Europe, following WWII. (Rick Berman’s son, in opposition to his father’s attacks on unions, has spoken movingly about his grandparents’ American progress, linked to their union benefits.) With public unions as the dominant
union populace, in the United States today, its preservation is of critical importance.
Does the Center’s archive have papers that address the legacy of privatization on unions and, the demise of the middle class? Does it have papers that address a link between the growth of a Black middle class and public unions? Historically, data suggests the civil rights employment laws benefitted minorities in public employment more than they did, in the private sector.
Thank you.
Linda,
Thank you for your detailed comment. Please write me directly at sa307@tc.columbia.edu, and I’ll be glad to address your questions.
Sincerely,
Sam
Randomly clicking on just one Center paper (with an innocuous title), I found, “support from the National Center on School Choice”, which is partners with NBER, Harvard and Stanford. All three organizations have been discussed at this site and, opinions about their objectivity have been formed.
Linda, whatever you may find on the website of the TC National Center of Privatization, you have my personal assurance that its former director Henry Levin and its new director Samuel Abrams is not a free market ideologue.
Diane,
First, a profound thank you for your tireless efforts at this blog.
I refer as many people as I can find, to this site, because I think the community of work, displayed in your posts and by the commenters, will hearten and drive citizens to action. In broader terms, your insight, writing and oratory skills, ability to prioritize vast amounts of information, persuasive argumentation, humanity, industriousness….. makes me believe there is cosmic hope for America, to remain a democracy.
You vouch for the Center’s leadership and I acknowledge your testimonial.
It is my understanding that Kaplan is one of the largest subsidiaries of Graham Holdings, which is 70% owned by the beneficiaries of family trusts, with the remainder traded as common stock. The firm’s owners must believe in for-profit education. In 2013, they sold the Washington Post to Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, which may reflect, the highest bidder or, in sync thinking.
Corporations have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders. The Board may choose altruistic activities but, there is no structural defense for it, unless it can be linked to profit for the business.
ETS explains its mission, in an 11 page report that addresses the question, “how can we remain financially viable in a highly competitive business environment while remaining true to our mission of serving the public good.” They conclude, “the line between profit and nonprofit is being blurred….we will do our mission while making enough money to continue doing it better and in BIGGER WAYS (caps-mine)”. Can we assume their funding, allied with reformer philanthropy funding, attempts to find “bigger ways”?