This article appeared in the Wall Street Journal. It reports a trend among states to pay teachers for “performance,” meaning student test scores, not for masters’ degrees. So a history teacher who wants to get a degree in history gets no salary increment. The science teacher who wants to learn more about science will get no salary increment. The message to teachers: More education doesn’t make you a better teacher. Or, the less education our teachers have, the better for the district. Isn’t this an argument against education itself?
Of course, with the rise of online “universities,” there are a lot of dubious masters’ degrees being awarded. Wise school districts should be able to award higher salaries to those who deepen subject matter knowledge or who learn more about educating children with special needs or who earn a degree that makes them better teachers.
See the post that follows this one, written by Bruce Baker.
Here is the WSJ article:
Pay Raises for Teachers With Master’s Under FireByline: Stephanie.Banchero@wsj.comThe nation spends an estimated $15 billion annually on salary bumps for teachers who earn master’s degrees, even though research shows the diplomas don’t necessarily lead to higher student achievement.
And as states and districts begin tying teachers’ pay and job security to student test scores, some are altering—or scrapping—the time-honored wage boost.
Lawmakers in North Carolina, led by Republican legislators, voted in July to get rid of the automatic pay increase for master’s degrees. Tennessee adopted a policy this summer that mandates districts adopt salary scales that put less emphasis on advanced degrees and more on factors such as teacher performance. And Newark, N.J., recently decided to pay teachers for master’s degrees only if they are linked to the district’s new math and reading standards.
The moves come a few years after Florida, Indiana and Louisiana adopted policies that require districts to put more weight on teacher performance and less on diplomas.
“Paying teachers on the basis of master’s degrees is equivalent to paying them based on hair color,” said Thomas J. Kane, an economist at the Harvard Graduate School of Education and director for the Center for Education Policy Research.
Mr. Kane said decades of research has shown that teachers holding master’s degrees are no more effective at raising student achievement than those with only bachelor’s, except in math. Researchers have also shown that teachers with advanced degrees in science benefit students.
Mr. Kane and other critics suggest that schools alter pay plans to reward teachers on other accomplishments, such as advancing student achievement.
Teacher unions aren’t necessarily opposed to changing how teachers are paid. But they worry administrators will craft pay schemes too reliant on student test scores, or that they will slash the master’s bump and not replace it with other methods to move up the pay scale.
Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, the nation’s second-largest teachers union, said districts and local unions should create contracts that reward teachers for master’s degrees that are relevant to classroom instruction.
“What is so ironic to me is that the same people who keep telling kids that it is really important to gain additional knowledge are the same ones saying ‘not so much,’ when it comes to teachers,” she said.
In North Carolina, teachers were incensed when the state chopped the extra pay for master’s degrees. Kirsten Haswell, a high-school English teacher at Charles B. Aycock High School in Pikeville, N.C., said she is working toward an online master’s degree in instructional technology at East Carolina University, in part because she needs a raise. She has been stuck at $30,000 for her entire five-year teaching career there. But mainly, she said, she enrolled to learn how to use technology in the classroom.
“I have learned a lot of new tools that really help my kids,” she said. “If people feel the master’s programs are weak, than they should change them, not punish us for trying to advance our knowledge.”
About 52% of the nation’s 3.4 million public elementary and high-school teachers held a master’s or other advanced degree in 2008, compared with about 38% of private-school teachers, according to the most recent federal data. The national average salary for a teacher with five years of experience and a bachelor’s degree was $39,700 in 2008, compared with $46,500 with a master’s, according to the federal data.
About 90% of the master’s held by teachers come from education programs, according to a study by Marguerite Roza, a research professor at Georgetown University who specializes in school finance.
For decades, U.S. teachers have been paid on a salary scale known as “step and lane,” which awards automatic pay bumps for years of service and advanced degrees. In general, the raises come on top of annual increases negotiated through collective bargaining.
Advances in data collection have allowed researchers and state officials to link student achievement more directly to teachers. The data reveal wide variations in teacher effectiveness and have shown, for example, that educators improve rapidly during the first few years in the classroom, peak at about 6-10 years of experience and then level off.
The data have prodded leading policy makers, including U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan, to push for new teacher-pay plans.
Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, a Democrat, tried unsuccessfully last year to replace the old step-and-lane structure with one based more on classroom effectiveness. The union pushed back and went on a two-week strike over the issue and others. Philadelphia officials are currently locked in negotiations with their union over a similar idea.
The master’s bump cost school districts an estimated $14.8 billion during the 2007-2008 school year, the most recent data available, according to Ms. Roza’s research. While the master’s pay represented only about 2% of what districts spent, Ms. Roza argues it would be better directed toward paying teachers for classroom effectiveness or recruiting highly talented educators.
Of the 730,635 master’s degrees awarded in U.S. colleges in 2011, about 25% were in education, the second highest percentage of any field, behind only business, according to the federal data.
State and local policies drive those numbers. Eight states, including New York and Oregon, mandate teachers earn master’s to move from provisional to full license, and 15 require extra pay for the advanced degrees, according to the National Council on Teacher Quality, a nonpartisan research and advocacy group. Hundreds of districts award the pay raise even if state law doesn’t mandate it.
But some districts are starting to experiment. The Douglas County School District in suburban Denver, for example, recently implemented a salary scale that pays teachers based on market rate. Positions in high demand, such as chemistry, pay more than those in positions of low demand, such as third-grade teacher.
The Newark contract, negotiated in 2012 between district and union leaders, including Ms. Weingarten, replaced the traditional step and lane with one that awards salary increases based largely on teachers’ classroom performance. A $100 million grant to the district from Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg helped pave the way for the agreement.
Under the contract, teachers can get a master’s bonus, but only if it they earn the degree from a district-approved program aligned to the district’s priorities or the Common Core math and reading standards adopted by 45 states, including New Jersey.
Superintendent Cami Anderson said the policy “creates an incentive” for colleges to tailor degree programs to what teachers need to help raise student achievement. “We want to reward outcomes instead of inputs,” she said.
Colleges of education have been under assault recently by critics who say they have lax standards and weak curricula. Many, including the Obama administration’s Mr. Duncan, have called for drastic overhauls.
Sharon Robinson, president of the American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education, said master’s programs can help teachers become more effective in the classroom and boost their “intellectual development,” but noted some are not getting the job done. “The public should not pay for credentials that are unrelated to educators’ work because doing so would inflate operating costs for schools with no obvious benefit to students,” she said.
“Mr. Kane said decades of research has shown that teachers holding master’s degrees are no more effective at raising student achievement than those with only bachelor’s, except in math. ”
That is contrary to this US DoE data: The Master’s Degree Effect? http://www.edweek.org/tsb/articles/2012/02/29/02effect.h05.html
Kane has a doctorate. Does that make him twice as worthless?
Nah, I think for a doctorate it should be three times as worthless. Double worthless for a masters and just worthless for a teaching degree.
The only one research study that Kane referred to dealt with 3-8 Teachers with MAs in Math or English, MAs in “other” and without MAs. It was based on Math and English scores. It was shown that Teachers with MAs in Mathematics significantly improved their students scores in Mathematics. First of all, how many of you know of a 3-8 Teacher with a MA in Mathematics? Second, the study did not measure increased learning of students in anything but Math or English. Who is to say that the students overall learning experienced wasn’t improved? Thirdly, does anyone seriously think that a MA in Music or Art or History would improve a students score in Mathematics or English?
It becomes a matter of interpreting this “research”. It was shown that if you had a Masters in Mathematics or English in 3-8, students scores improved, whereas a Masters in something else, didn’t necessarily improve scores in Math or English. Too me, this seems like a pretty obvious result. Maybe they could show that a Masters in Mathematics didn’t improve students scores in Music or Art?
Thank you, Tim, for pointing the idiocy upon which Kane’s argument (and that of others of his ilk) is based. If those criticizing American public eduction were to truly examine the research upon which Kane bases his article, they would argue for masters degrees in every area in which children learn and are taught–math, English, library, ESOL, sciences, history, social studies, geography, technology–however that term is defined (home & careers/consumer science/home economics, industrial arts/shop, computer sciences, etc.), physical education, theater, dance, art and music!!! Then there are all the other things that teachers and schools must teach: fire safety in the school and in the home; conflict resolution; manners; how to adjust to parents’ divorce, oversees deployment, job loss and unemployment, alcoholism and other drug use, violence in the home, street, school, society; what to do if a shooter shows up at school, school lock-down procedures; bicycle safety, etc., etc,. etc.. Seems to me that an annual fifteen billion dollar tab is a deal for the services teachers provide…
Does Mr. Kane not understand what that says about his own academic credentials? To suggest advanced degrees are pretty much worthless, which logically must include your own, is a strange argument to make if working in education yourself on the back of advanced degrees.
What does that say about his own effectiveness? That we should judge it by test scores?
Tim, Do you have a citation for this research? I didn’t see anything about a specific study in the article, so I’m not clear where you got info about this.
I can’t get into the Wall Street Journal website to post the above information, so if someone else can, I’d greatly appreciate it. TIA.
Sorry, I just get so sick of seeing the lies promulgated by “reformers” and their economist cronies, which are perpetuated by journalists who accept what they say at face value and don’t bother to investigate.
This is exactly the opposite of what they do in Finland. It can only be a strategy by those wanting to destroy public education in the U.S.. Knowing how to do research is essential for teachers who must constantly be studying their classrooms and working toward improvement. Research methods from graduate school help learning continue. When learning by a teacher ends, they need to retire.
It is my understanding that there are no Finnish teachers without masters degrees. If that is true, we can’t tell if the ones with masters do significantly better than those without masters degrees.
That is correct. You must have a masters degree in Finland, and only the top 10% can make it into these masters degree programs. That is the status of teaching in Finland.
It’s my understanding there are no American teachers encased in a block of cement, so we can’t tell if ones free from cement encasing are significantly better than those encased.
Come on, it’s common sense. You’re likely to be a better educator if you are better educated.
And how would you define “do significantly better”?
Let me guess: standardized test scores, right?
I have no doubt that a teacher is likely to be a better educator if the teacher has more education, but that is not the issue. Is a student likely to get more out of a school if the teacher has a masters degree or if they are in smaller classes? Is the student more likely to get more out of school if a teacher has a masters degree or there are wrap around medical services? Many here argue that having a full time school nurse is important, but wouldn’t students be better off with a full time pediatrician on site?
The question is which is the most effective way to spend the resources.
Jim:
It is likely, but not certain, that a better educated educator is a better educator. But that is not the same thing as saying an educator with a masters degree is a better educator than he or she was before they took their courses. In fact, unless they took their courses out of school time, then it could be easily argued that taking courses reduced their effectiveness as educators while they were focused on this course work.
In addition, it seems to me to be quite reasonable to argue that a school district should help pay for relevant graduate courses – but that does not mean that teachers should be paid more simply because they have taken graduate courses. On the other hand, I can certainly see paying teachers more because they maintain current certifications in multiple discrete subjects since this clearly is to the benefit of the school district, if not the students.
If the measurement tool that you are using in order to determine whether Master’s degrees are of value is a set of invalid tests in of English taken by the teachers’ students, then your results are themselves going to be invalid.
Also, did these studies differentiate among the courses of study followed to obtain those Master’s degrees? It’s impossible for me to believe that knowing more about one’s subject makes on a worse teacher. I suspect that subject area knowledge is the sine qua non of good teaching, that it is necessary but not sufficient.
In addition, teacher education programs that offer Master’s degrees vary enormously in quality, so any general study of this subject is going to be comparing apples and oranges.
That all seems correct, but it does suggest that awarding uniform salary increases based on Master’s degrees that vary enormously in quality is not the best way to spend education dollars.
Robert:
I think you are making the same point that Tom Kane made – if more politely. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that there is a large variation in the quality and relevance of masters degrees and graduate courses. This certainly raises questions about the robustness of any research that simply lumps all masters degrees into the same bucket. However, it also undermines the notion of why on a pay scale all Masters and graduate courses are treated as equivalent.
The first thing Finland did was get rid of “Education Schools” which is a significant problem in the US. Ed School Masters programs have very low GRE score admissions (many don’t require the GRE, or attempt to hide their student’s scores), unlike serious Masters programs they do not demand a 2nd and 3rd language requirement (talk about phony and shallow multi-culturalism), they usually take teachers from undergraduate programs with shamefully low ACT and SAT scores. Merseth at Harvard has pointed out that when the women’s movement freed up the talented and hardworking from being trapped in only nursing and education a vacuum was created.
“The first thing Finland did was get rid of “Education Schools”. . . ”
They did? Got Proof?
GRE, ACT, SAT, the paragons of educational assessment and true indicators of academic “achievement”.
Could you elaborate on the connection between higher ACT/SAT scores and good teaching? Thanks.
Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth.
Susan:
What is the “lie” in Michael’s statement?
SAT and ACT scores are not about “intelligence,” “ability,” “future success” or anything else. If you were halfway honest you would know that.
Susan:
You are simply wrong about the absence of a strong link between SAT and other measures of IQ. For example,
Click to access frey.pdf
As for “ability” and “future success”, the link with SAT is undoubtedly far weaker as is the link with IQ.
Bernie, Susan,
The SAT is not as powerful in predicting college success as school grades.
And yes it is closely related to the IQ test, its parent.
At my institution ACT seems to do a reasonably good job predicting success, but as a relatively open admission research university we have a much wider range of scores than most universities.
TE
That is my view. Restriction in range at many colleges attenuates the relationship between SATs and college grades.
A recent meta-analysis pushes the issue further though without resolving many of the major issues largely because many of the hypothesized variables are highly correlated and there is no easy way to disentangle them. See,
Richardson, M., Abraham, C., Bond, R. (2012). Psychological correlates of university students’ academic performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 353-387.
TE,
You may be able to link to an actual copy of the paper. I am limited by this pretty good synopsis with a fair amount of reading between the lines..
http://www.danielwillingham.com/1/post/2013/02/what-predicts-college-gpa.html
JSTOR does not give on-line access to very recent issues of journals.
Bernie, I may be wrong about this, but wasn’t the SAT validated against IQ scores as well as college success rates after the freshman year? I have vague recollections that both were done. If that were the case, then it would be, of course, no surprise if IQ scores and SAT scores were correlated. Let’s not get off into a discussion, though, of Spearman’s G and the validity of IQ scores. I would blather on interminably if we did. : )
Robert:
There are many issues with the relationship between SAT and IQ, e.g., restriction of range, distinctive population, coaching. Certainly above a certain score there is little if any practical significance in terms of suitability for a job once the scores are above 1950 with the current 3 part test. David McClelland, my old boss, made this case in the early 70s. It created a bit of a firestorm at the time.
Click to access ap7301001.pdf
The issue was critically revisited by Gerry Barrett in the 90s. I can’t find a link but it is in a 1993 issue of the American Psychologist if you can access a University library.
Bernie,
The SAT was derived from IQ testing. The man who created the SAT–Carl Brigham–was one of the pioneers of IQ testing. Learn about it in my book “Left Back.”
Blather, blather, blather… It still does not change the fact that there are big $$$$$$$ to be made in creating untested and unproven standards that do not take into consideration how CHILDREN LEARN–cognitively, physically, socially, emotionally, then creating tests (and selling accompanying resources at significant and nearly monopoly-driven costs to school districts) that nearly all children will fail, administering and assessing said tests so teachers and their children are declared failures, ending with a death sentence to schools, while firing experienced, tenured teachers–who have spent all of their professional lives studying, reflecting on, and implementing how best to teach their students. Once this is accomplished, move over public schools!! Charters are on their way. “Teachers” are five week wonders, hired at a fraction of the cost, with no benefits, working long hours, and fired on a whim. Money that could have been spent in ways to really help children learn–especially impoverished children isolated in city centers or rural areas–is channeled up to the top. Yup, blather, blather, blather on…to distract teachers, parents, students from what is really taking place…because we all know this ain’t about educating kids. It’s about stealing education $$$$$, hope, enthusiasm and energy for learning (and teaching), children’s present and future, and making beaucoup $$$$$$$ for the 1% of the 1%… Hmm…if you think that they’re going to share with their flunkies, you are barking up the wrong tree. There just isn’t enough room in that rarified air!
The ed school at my university is doing its best to claim a chunk of the 15 billion spent on teachers with masters degrees. What do you think is the fair share for the schools? Remember that without the tuition there is no way to get the degree and without the degree there is no way to change lanes. No doubt the schools would like to take almost all of it, but competition between them will likely limit the percentage that the schools can take out of the teacher’s salary increases.
I should add that I teach at a state university. They are not interested in maximizing profits so much as maximizing revenue.
Robert:
Here is the Barrett reference – sorry no link
Barrett, G. V., & Depinet, R. L. (1991). A reconsideration of testing for competence rather than for intelligence. American Psychologist, 46(10), 1012-1024
Not all intelligences can be measured, not all worth measuring can be measured….like empathy and a soul. Watch defies measurement:
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=16lnlJqh_WY&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D16lnlJqh_WY
Linda:
McClelland says essentially the same thing.
Robert Shepard, as I pointed out to Bernie, the SAT is a direct descendant of the IQ test. Developed by the same testing specialists. Father of both: Carl C. Brigham, famous for his racist writings. He believed that IQ pertained to racial and ethnic groups and was immutable.
Thanks, Diane. Yes, I do remember this from your book and also from The Big Test: The Secret History of the American Meritocracy, by Lemann.
Bernie, thanks for the reference. I will have a look. I have long been amused by folks who speak of some single characteristic called intelligence and by those who speak of seven or eight intelligences, or whatever Howard Gardner has decided that his count is now. Back in the middle of the last century, Jorg-Peter Ewert made a big splash by mapping, explicitly, the neural system for feature detection in the frog brain that enables it to distinguish a fly in its visual field. I’m with Marvin Minsky and Jim Hawkins on this one (though I don’t for a moment buy into their reductionism): the brain is a complex system of many, many hundreds of thousands of distinguishable mechanisms, all interacting with astonishing complexity at many levels of hierarchy–at many design levels, and one can isolate any of these and call it an intelligence. And furthermore, it’s an extremely plastic set of mechanisms. And ability depends not only upon those systems but on their interactions with learned heuristics and prostheses of many, many kinds. Multiple intelligences, well, one could certainly say so! I should love these tests of general aptitude because I have always done extremely well on them, but I have come to believe that these are extraordinarily crude instruments. The older I get, the more I am impressed by the intelligences that I see around me that people don’t even think of as intelligences and the more I am aware of my own limitations in particular areas. How many of us have ever pushed up against our own intellectual limitations–seriously pushed up against them–in any area? I think that Shaw was onto something when he said that most of us rarely do any serious thinking (by which he was referring to consciously directed attempts at problem solving and creation, I suppose) and that he had made an international reputation for himself by thinking a bit, on average, once in a fortnight. The gap between what we are capable of intellectually and what we actually accomplish is so enormous, and what each of us, including any kid in a classroom, just about, is capable of is so astonishing that all this attention to tests of general aptitude seems rather silly–sort of like getting excited at finding out that that Mars Rover could be used to haul groceries out of the Stop n Shop or that micrometer could be used as an awl.
Robert:
There are lots of issues here but it takes some careful analysis and a boatload of additional information to begin to generate practical policies. As I was thinking – regular Bernie thinking not GBS thinking – it struck me that there is a basic similarity between the argument that we should base teacher’s pay on seniority and we should base it on student test scores. Both are definitively imperfect proxies for what we are interested in assessing – namely teacher effectiveness. The issue many folks have here is that when stated in this way to the public, seniority appears to be a weaker proxy. The challenge as I have said before is that you cannot beat something with nothing. Yelling nasty things at reformers, calling them names and questioning their motives simply does not really help though it might win the immediate political battle.
Jeff Hawkins, not Jim
I hope, Bernie, that you do not think that I am one of those polarizers. I do feel strongly about a lot of these “reforms” because they seem to me to be so misguided. And the new CCSS in ELA really are idiotic. I can’t think of a kinder word for them that is at all appropriate. It is shocking to me that these are taken at all seriously, and I believe it demonstrable that they will do enormous damage to our country.
One thing I’ve learned over the years, Bernie, is that more often than not, when something is going terribly wrong, there’s a failure in the system rather than a failure on the part of the individuals working in it. I think that trying to come up with a measure of something as complex and varied as “teacher effectiveness” is akin to searching for the philosopher’s stone. Again, I think that the way that you get effective teachers is by raising barriers to entry, empowering teachers, and making quality control THEIR job. One has to create the system for making that bottom-up continuous improvement standard operating practice. Handing a checklist of ANY KIND to some outside overseer is not going to do this magic, any more than empowering a central committee to make all the manufacturing and production decisions for a vast nation will. We are approaching this from the wrong direction–from the top down. If there is one book that I would encourage everyone with a ticket on the reform train to read, it’s Herbert Simon’s “The Sciences of the Artificial.” Crude top-down thinking in terms of theoretically optimal strategies simply doesn’t work in situations of enormous complexity.
Robert:
No, I think we may differ on a number of key areas but I see your comments as constructive and that you are willing to discuss and think about some difficult issues.
I did think you went too far in backing off from your use of the word “rigor”. I love George Orwell and I do not intend to sacrifice the right word to any effort to distort or polarize our language. Indeed I would argue that it is the lack of rigor that is the reformers likely Achilles heel.
P.S. When you call me a “troll” I will know you have gone over to the “issue cannot be discussed” dark-side.
(That is actually an attempt at humor, but I have a cold and I have got to get some sleep.)
Diane:
Brigham in his 1930 Psychological Review article disassociated himself from his earlier writings on ethnic differences in “intelligence” test scores:
This review has summarized some of the more recent
test findings which show that comparative studies of various
national and racial groups may not be made with existing
tests, and which show, in particular, that one of the most
pretentious of these comparative racial studies—the writer’s
own—was without foundation.
Brigham, C.C. 1930. Intelligence tests of immigrant groups. Psychological Reviews 37:158-165
This article is interesting because it shows an early effort to grasp the underlying notion of Factor Analysis before the algebraic foundations had been laid and without the use of computers to ease the burden of endless calculations.
Though his earlier work appears to have been the source of support for nativism and racist attitudes.
As I have said before, Gould’s assertions in Mismeasure of Man needs to be treated with caution.
Bernie,a much bigger issue for genetic determinism with regard to IQ is the new work in epigenetics that is showing that the identical twin studies did not, in fact, control for environmental facts. Genes are not simple recipes. They are switches that are turned off and on–expressed, not expressed, or partially expressed based upon the the environment in the sex cell, which is in turn a function of the environment of the parent. So, raising identical twins separately does not control for environmental factors. See Jablonka’s Evolution in Four Dimensions. See also this:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2011.06037.x/abstract
A new picture of our genetic endowment is emerging because of this paradigm-shifting work in epigenetics. Think of a mixer used by a rock band with knobs for various settings–bass, treble, tremolo, chorus, etc. Think of the parent’s environment as what sets those knobs–what controls their expression. This new understanding is revolutionary. It explains why genetic change can occur so very quickly, as in the Siberian fox experiments. It explains punctuated equilibria. The genetic endowment is very, very flexible. A single genetic complement can have highly varied phenotypical consequences, and the possible variations on these are themselves subject to evolution. It’s a much more plastic and flexible system than people recognized until very, very recently. Most of the pop culture writing about behavioral genetics is based on simplistic, outdated models. And certainly, those old heritability studies of IQ are now completely out the window. They have been discredited. Those studies did not control for the epigenetic factors within the environment of the DNA in the sex cell, factors that are themselves subject to the environment of the parent.
The study and work that I did to earn my master’s degree in history is one reason that I love history. Because I love history, my students learn to love history. (They really do.)
The trend of not paying teachers to study their fields would help destroy this virtuous cycle.
What on earth are they thinking?
Sorry, off-topic, but here’s yet another article from someone who’s onto TFA: http://www.slate.com/articles/life/education/2013/10/teach_for_america_recommendations_i_stopped_writing_them_and_my_colleague.single.html
And the closing to that piece tells it all:
But TFA members do not work in service of public education. They work in service of a corporate reform agenda that rids communities of veteran teachers, privatizes public schools, and forces a corporatized, data-driven culture upon unique low-income communities with unique dynamics and unique challenges.
Paying for masters degrees is very good for on line for profit education schools (and revenue maximizing education schools like the one at my university) but there is much less evidence that it is the most effective way to spend money in education. The graph that Cosmic links to does not reference controlling for factors like student SES. Might there be a higher number of teachers with masters degrees in high SES districts? Are there a higher proportion of less experienced teachers amoung the teachers without master degrees? Either might explain the differences in scores.
I agree with Dr. Ravitch that teachers who become better at teaching their students should be the ones getting raises, but I would make that independent of degrees held and use a peer evaluation system like Montgomery County uses.
Thanks for making my point about economists, TE! Show them data straight from the DoE and they will do all they can to refute it, because the bottom line is the bottom line: they don’t want to pay teachers for increasing their education. (Of course, in higher ed, where TE works, teachers are paid based on their level of education, though in this zeitgeist, I wouldn’t be surprised if that changes in public colleges down the road, too.)
As Diane asks, “Isn’t this an argument against education itself?” Yes, absolutely it is and it is a poor model for students.
Cosmic,
At my university at least all faculty salaries are negotiated on an individual basis. The salaries of a first year English professor and a first year engineering professor and a first year medical school professor are very very different despite all of them having a doctoral degree. I should add that my spouse had several distinguished professors who only had B. Phil degrees, though that is much less common now than it was 30 years ago.
Did the figures in the graph you link to control for teacher experience, student SES, and all of the other factors that are commonly cited by folks on this blog as factors influencing measured student performance or do you think that those factors are not relevant to student scores on standardized exams?
I think your point is irrelevant, because the claim that Kane and other “reformers” have asserted is against the effectiveness of teachers with master’s degrees in general, not specifically in relation to different populations that teachers serve.
Today, educational level is tantamount to obtaining full time faculty positions in higher ed and most four year colleges summarily dismiss applicants who don’t have doctorates. In my area, many public colleges and all community colleges have step and lane salary schedules, similar to those in K-12 school districts, though there may be room for individuals to negotiate.
Cosmic,
My point concerns the evidence you presented and has nothing to do with any statement by Kane. Without controlling for other factors that are perhaps correlated with both student scores on exams and teachers holding master degrees the graph you have linked to is not very persuasive. Perhaps there is a study that does try to control for things like teacher experience and student SES status.
Universities typically don’t hire folks without terminal degrees in their field, but that has been the result of competitive pressure. There is no requirement for private schools like Harvard or Stanford, for example, that professors have a terminal degree. University wide salary schedules certainly would not work for universities with a variety of schools. Even in my department there are substantial differences in salary that are independent of seniority. A newly hired full professor, for example, is earning a salary twice as high as another full professor with twenty years in rank.
Your point is irrelevant because I was addressing the false claim made by Kane and then you refuted it with unrelated gobbledygook. Your point is also inconsequential since, unlike Kane and other economists in cahoots with corporate “reformers”, it’s not being used to determine state and federal policies.
Cosmic,
I think there are three ways you could argue my objection to the DOE is incorrect.
1) the data actually does try to control for all the factors that are corrolated with student performance and teachers holding advanced degrees
2) the data does not try to control for those things but that is ok because there is no correlation between teachers holding advanced degrees and teacher experience or employment in relatively wealthy school districts, etc
3) the data does not try to control for those things but that is ok because those things are not corrolated with student performance on standardized tests.
Which is your objection?
In my experience, some colleges give credit for teaching experience at other colleges while others don’t. Some give credit for hours above the masters. A number of public colleges in my area are unionized. Most colleges, whether private or public, prefer earned doctorates because they value education.
CT:
Teachers with Masters Degrees are also more experienced, so you have a covariate that confounds the effects of graduate education. TE is correct and it is naïve in the extreme to take such a graph and make a pronouncement on such a small effect size when there are so many known factors. TE mentions student SES and research shows, (see, for example, the appendix in Reign of Error) that this is a large determinant of NAEP scores and really does need to be controlled for.
Here’s the citation, complain to them about their data analysis and reporting:
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress, various years, 2005-2011 reading assessments. Vol. 02, Issue 05, Page 9.
BTW, when the DoE was functioning, those charts were posted on their website, along with similar charts for math, so tell the DoE that they are “naive.”
CT:
Their hobby is insulting teachers, not the edudilettanates. They bond over their disdain for the lowly k-12 classroom teacher.
The further one is away from the classroom and children the more one thinks they know about authentic teaching and learning.
Read this quote this morning:
“I am now plotting data mine fields to hedge bets on children who shall be over tested to see if my teaching showed an acceleration of growth on the excel chart. The amount of human energy being poured into this endeavor would make the Soviet’s five year plan look like the height of efficiency.”
I am willing to tell the DOE that if they really think the data presented in the graph is useful evidence.
CT:
They undoubtedly are posted where you say they are and if they have not controlled for the other factors then the charts are indeed misleading and naïve. When NCES comes back on line I will check what else they report and if they leave it as an unqualified statement I will raise the issue.
But it’s fine to accept Kane’s claims at face value, with no citations at all.
CT:
Of course not. Kane needs to provide data to support his position that is current and robust. Alas we cannot analyze the NAEP data set at the moment to check to see the relative merits of Baker’s and Kane’s position. Even then, we would need to expand the measures of teacher effectiveness to go beyond the low stakes NAEP measures to include observational data and other possible metrics.
Oh please. We know what “creative destruction” is all about. Must keep the failing schools/bad teachers narrative going. Tear ’em apart and replace with 5 week trained inexperienced TFA at boot camps for deserving minority kids. God forbid anyone should believe that veteran teachers are actually effective, let alone highly educated ones. Ruins the business plan. Don’t need no stickin smart ass teachers in schools that are just gonna be dumping grounds for the undeserving. Chile, here we come!
CT:
The issue is what are reasonable, objective and effective ways for determining how teachers should be paid. Do you have any alternatives?
Get with the program, Bernie. The question is really how quickly can the education profession be destroyed and replaced with low-paid, minimally trained, inexperienced, temporary “teachers,” in a two tiered system –three where vouchers are permitted. It’s already happening in major urban areas across the US.
Linda: ARGHHH!!! On all counts!
Skim or ignore…not worth the effort. Viewpoint never changes. One economist left behind is not so bad.
One economist and his cheer leader left behind can be a good thing.
So how should this work, teachingeconomist? Should we just pay every teacher what they would receive if they had an advanced degree? Of course not. The idea behind the argument against paying for advanced degrees is to pay teachers as little as possible. That is not the way to attract the best people to teaching.
It’s common sense to pay teachers for masters degrees because we want people who teach to be educated. (Though it shouldn’t count if it’s from a for-profit school, I do agree with your tone there.)
I would suggest that teachers be evaluated by their peers, something like what is being done in Montgomery County. I don’t know why folks here are arguing that teachers must pay on line education schools in order to get a higher salary. Shouldn’t we leave the University of Phoenix out of the decision and have the criteria for promotion or raises be good teaching?
Montgomery County has a step and grade salary schedule: http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/departments/ersc/employees/pay/schedules/Salary_Schedule_FY2014.pdf
I don’t know why economists blow so much hot air, but how about they receive merit pay based on how accurately they report information and how little BS they use to cloud matters?
I like the peer evaluation system that they use. Should it be expanded to include making salary recommendations? I think it would be a good idea.
Wow by those standards many would be penniless.
Why can’t it be both? If a teacher can show student achievement (through their OWN means, not Common Core…the perils of Common Core are a whole other discussion), and they have an advanced degree over their counter-part, they should be paid more. They are doing more with more knowledge. BTW…I’m a teacher in Wisconsin.
I was a chemistry teacher for four years and then I went back to school (full time) to get a MS in Chemistry. I was a TA for the undergraduates and really learned which skills were important for success in college. After that, I got an exciting opportunity to participate in a project that led to a patent for our invention. We got venture investment funds to start a company. Although that was fun, it was frustrating to work with the business side of the company so I eventually found my way back to HS teaching. I was so excited to bring my experiences to the classroom. Instead, I was shocked that in my time away, the emphasis in HS chemistry curriculum was going AWAY from what I experienced as important. In my new state, I was part of a very large school district so my inputs to curriculum had to be close to what they wanted me to input or else I was written off as “philosophical”.
Who wrote the national curricula? I found that the changes in chemistry curriculum were headed towards learning more stuff at a more superficial level. Also I found more memorization than I ever had to do as a student myself in the 80’s and 90’s. In our information age, why are we headed towards more memorization?? The people who know nothing about chemistry appeared to be happy that the kids were doing “lots” and if they were not doing “lots” because they were focusing on problem solving skills, those who know nothing about chemistry thought there wasn’t enough rigor.
Now I have small children who are preschool but love to read and learn with me. I am trying to cultivate a love of learning with them. I am nervous about what will happen when they hit our local public schools. Even if they like school, I will hate having to gloss over exciting topics in the interest of cramming stuff in to do well on the multiple choice test.
The real work world almost never comes with multiple choice tests, so why are we spending a tens of years teaching them how to take them?
I wonder what would happen to the amount of teachers earning masters degrees if you took out a pay raise. Do you think collages would see a dramatic drop in Eduactional Masters programs? Would more people lose jobs? Less student loans? Have the government figure out the amount of interest that they make off Loans to teachers earning their Masters. That may change this debate. I know I will have to work for 8 years before my raise equals the amount of my money I spent on my Masters degree.
I think that graduate education programs would shrink, especially on line programs.
TE:
I checked the feedback on Walden Graduate Programs. It is pretty miserable with almost no comments on how it has helped or changed classroom practices. Now I am plagued with ad for the school. There is no readily available info on costs but there are lots of complaints about billing practices and redundancy of courses.
BTW, the invention my team created was a food quality sensor. Both a sticker and a handheld device. I was the only person on my team who didn’t go to MIT, and my team mates were brilliant and creative. I was using my knowledge of chemistry to create something useful and the invention phase was exciting. But if I had merely memorized chemistry during school, I would never had been able to apply it like that. You may ask “where is the product?”. Well, our CEO wanted to release it before the ending kinks were worked out so we failed our large scale grocer tests. But I know with time we could have released something awesome.
If we don’t listen to our more experienced and educated people in any field then we will lose our creative edge as a nation. I can promise that a majority of the crops of kids coming out of our public schools today would not know where to begin working on a creative project bc it doesn’t come with a multiple choice test. And then we can expect our great nation, known for innovation, will lose that. And what else do we do as a nation? We are reducing our manufacturing and exports so if we aren’t training our kids to create and invent, we will lose our edge.
When I hear about student performance studies, the data is nearly always the student performance on multiple choice tests. So again, if we want a nation of awesome multiple choice test takers, we are on the right track. If we do studies that measure other aspects of student performance (harder to measure objectively so those studies don’t happen much), I think we will find that a Master’s degree from a good program does help. A lot.
Hey, Diane,
i am in favor of this! Since experience has no value and neither does continuing education, they no longer have any reason to deny us full pay! Everyone should go right to the end of the salary schedule and that’s what we should get paid. No more denying us full pay because we don’t have enough experience or education. They finally came up with a good idea!
Steve Ruis, Chicago
In the book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”, Thomas Kuhn discusses the history of experimentation and data analysis as it applies to chemistry, physics and biology. His main thesis is that our advancements in science throughout history were not linear. He talks about how the culture and environment of the scientist affects what he/she finds from experimentation and data analysis. For instance, early chemists used experiments and data to verify the existence of a non-matter entity called “ether”. It took a scientific revolution to change the environment, and then experiments that once verified the presence of ether later proved that it didn’t exist.
He cautions that the use of experimentation and data analysis in the social sciences is relatively new compared to chemistry, physics, and biology, so we should heed the lessons learned from the older sciences.
So the lesson I take is not that we need to stop taking data and using it. Rather, use it, but also treat it with a healthy dose of skepticism. Also, plan to incorporate it with other observations.
I just see many arguments about education reform that seem to stop when someone says “the data says”. We need to discuss the collection of the data.
As a teacher, I participated in data collection with a very respected University that has a world-renown college of education. I would get surveys to fill in for my students in my 2nd and 7th period classes. One year, my 2nd period class was a study hall. The survey asked me to comment on how the student was performing on my tests now vs. another time. I don’t give students tests in study halls. I left my 2nd period surveys blank and filled them out for 7th grade. The grad student came back and told me to fill them out for 2nd period. She said “just make your best guesses”. It made no sense but I put random checkmarks and shook my head the whole time.
I guess the social sciences presume that if they collect enough data, the relatively small amount of useless data will become insignificant. But I can say that the whole experience, plus what I know about data collection and analysis in chemistry, left me less impressed with arguments that start with “the data says”.
Kate:
Interesting series of comments. The survey you mentioned is GIGO. The assumption that bad data will average out is seriously flawed. I would simply have told the Grad student to politely pound sand. Bad methods are bad methods.
Corporate reform: Begin with a moronic outcome measure and work backwards to ruin American public education.
Forget teachers: Imbecillic logic dictates that the “best” outcomes are those that come from “test result coaches.” Of course, such is useless when it comes to actual life quality (including altruistic and aesthetic social contributions).
Bubble in, bubble in….
Well said!
It’s all based on an overly simplistic, one might even say simple-minded notion: Just give a guy a KPI.
But it’s also a part of the rolling out of some very carefully conceived strategic business plans.
Two quick points on the way we pay teachers:
The unitary pay schedule used as the basis for teacher compensation in 99.9% of public school systems is outdated. It has served its intended purpose (equalizing pay for male and female teachers and equalizing pay for elementary and secondary teachers) but makes it impossible for school districts to attract and retain related service providers in special education and teachers in some academic disciplines. Moreover, the pay schedule effectively OVER-values longevity and the accumulation of credits at the expense of, say, a willingness to teach in the challenging schools in a district or the challenging classes in a school. Moreover, in many districts where there are more than 25 steps in a pay scale, which delays the ability for a teacher to earn a decent wage until late in their career. For an alternative to the unitary pay schedule, see http://waynegersen.com/2013/10/14/a-rational-reward-system-for-teachers/
The advent of on-line master degrees and coursework presents a conundrum for school districts, school boards, and “reformers”. Traditional degree programs typically required teachers to spend years in graduate school in order to earn a masters degree. Today It is possible for a teacher to earn a degree in months by completing an on-line degree program from a bona fide institution. Ironically, the “reformers” who favor on-line learning for students tend to be the same group leading the charge in opposition paying teachers for on-line degrees… and in many cases teachers and school boards are reluctant to recognize credits student’s earn on-lline. I don’t think we’ve sorted through how on-line education works for the benefit of students— who SHOULD be the primary focus of our deliberations.
I agree with both points.
wgerson:
Nicely stated. This is not an easy problem to solve. On the one hand expanding subject matter expertise and improving classroom practices makes sense, but there are many incentives to make such credits pro forma and meaningless in terms of likely impact on classroom practices. The same issues afflict graduate law enforcement courses as well.
I am less certain about the long term integrity of peer evaluation processes for allocating merit increases.
It seems to me that nobody should become a principal who cannot effectively and objectively evaluate classroom performance
Experience and a step scale is the most important building block in my opinion. The research in the wsj article says 6 to 10 years, you say typical step scales are for 15 years, so maybe they switch it to 10.
Question b, how much is 10 years of experience worth over a starting wage? Double?
So it is just a basic equation W=4Ky+40K for y of 1 thru 10.
Then add some extras for approved degrees, national board, teaching in harder schools. Maybe through in a microwave for merit pay. Of course how does the P.E. teacher or the art or music teacher compete for merit pay? Is teaching 7th grade worth more than teaching 11th? Is science worth more than social studies?
I’ve got to think that at some point you build the fairest pay foundation and keep it simple and not split too many hairs. It is a contract of trust between an induvidual and society to do a good job and any micromanaging beyond that only serves to destroy the whole eendeavor.
“. . . would inflate operating costs for schools with no obvious benefit to students.”
Or perhaps those making statements like that can’t see/perceive beyond the “obvious” and are in no position whatsoever to comment intelligently whether there are benefits to the students or not.
If a tree falls in the woods and there is no one to hear it does it make a sound?
“educators improve rapidly during the first few years in the classroom, peak at about 6-10 years of experience and then level off.”
So a school filled with zero or one year or experience greenhorns would not be a good education model.
This is a case for teachers with 10 years of experience. Don’t think Gates and the masters of the universe leave their kids with a bunch of rookies.
Nor do they have the common core, test prep, testing, one day a week nurses, closed libraries, limited pe, music and art. They have the exact opposite of what they are foisting on OPC. Want a good school, do what Gates does for his kids not what he says is good enough for other people’s children. He’s simply a clueless man with endless supplies of money.
Maybe they should do a little economic analysis of ye olde common core? Spend .5 trillione dollares for a return of negative 15 cents? Sounds like voodoo economics to me.
Watch this Arkansas teen pull back the curtain on the national standards. Follow the money.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vGK5MoHHJno
I really like how he found the disclaimer…. not responsible for errors or omissions. There’s a real vote of confidence. Any word on pregnant women or operation of motor vehicles after exposure to the common core?
Wow! Any educational professional would be proud to be the author of that presentation. Pat Richardson made his mama and papa proud. I am trying to figure out how to get my local school board to watch it. Thanks for posting this video, Linda.
Hacking into iPads…planning, designing and presenting common core truth workshops, asking Coleman to answer THE question on education misinformation…..who says our kids aren’t smart?
It’s happening in Indiana…no compensation or lane change for advanced degrees.
This is pathetic, especially for those who want to create life-long learners of their own students. This will cut down on administrators who are sometimes hired on the basis of having or desiring a doctorate, since you need a masters first. We, teachers and all educators included, are more than test scores.
Oh, God, my head hurts. Where does one start. Where does one find effective teachers to hire anyway. Probably teachers who have been in the classroom for 6 or 7 years. That, by the way, is the approximate time it takes to hone ones skills in the classroom according to one study. (sorry that I don’t remember the study) Perhaps that is why the teacher effectiveness scores even out at around 7 yrs. of teaching. As for paying third grade teachers less than chemistry teachers. Effectively taught third graders are the ones who just might be the better chemistry students later on. Just sayin.’ I’ve taught young ones and older ones and the smaller kids are just as difficult in terms of preparation, knowing what is age appropriate, knowledge of literature, teaching lessons in the value of sticking to things even when they are difficult. Seriously, I’ve been in schools where if the principal doesn’t like your face, there is no way you will be perceived as efficient. As I said, my head hurts. PS I paid 10,000 of my own money to get a masters degree.
Where are you going to find “effective teachers” who are willing to be treated as though they have no brains and don’t see what is going on. Catholic school teachers formed a union to due to different wage schedules between elementary and higher grade levels.
What the “deformers” are doing is creating a new generation of labor activists. That will happen and I can’t wait.
Remember -every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
“where are you going to find “effective teachers” who are willing to be treated as though they have no brains
You said a LOT there. It used to be the case that people treated teachers with respect. Now, typically, they are treated as idiots. They are subjected, very few weeks, to “trainings” (Sit up. Roll over. Fetch. Good boy.) that start from basics and totally reinvent everything that they are doing, and they are told in these trainings that whatever they have been doing in their classrooms for years is entirely wrong. I was speaking recently to an elementary school teacher here in Florida who said, “Every few months these idiots in the State Department completely change their approach to writing. And every time, the new approach is treated like the sacred text carried down from the mountaintop. You put all these education bureaucrats end to end, and you won’t reach a conclusion–at least not one that stands the test of time.”
An even if one did believe, absurdly, that student test scores on high-stakes ELA exams were valid measures of teacher effectiveness, one would still have the insuperable issue of isolating and controlling for other determinative factors of those test scores. One can’t even do this by comparing outcomes for teachers of students at some previous ability level as measured by those tests because particular community factors play such a large role, and those can’t be controlled for.
Robert:
This may well be true, but it leaves open the issue of what criteria one should use to pay teachers.
If it were up to me, Bernie, pay would be based on demonstrated expertise in the subject area. I was very fortunate, when I was a kid, to go to a public lab high school run by a university. Most of my professors had PhDs. The one teaching Russian history knew Russian history. The one teaching psychology was a psychologist. This made a difference. A BIG difference. And that was clear to all the kids. Kids are no dummies. They can figure out whether the person leading the class knows his or her subject.
Bernie, I am not a big fan of summative testing, as you know. However, here in Florida, if you want to teaching “social studies,” you have to pass a competency exam in the subject. Just for fun, I took the practice exam for that. I was quite pleased with it. It covered a LOT of fundamentals in many fields–world history, American history, basic economics, anthropology, sociology, etc. I was prepared to hate the test and to rip it apart. I was surprised at how well-thought-through it was. These competency exams are being required for certification in many parts of the country. As much as I hate summative testing, I am inclined to be a supporter of these.
The Florida social studies competency practice exam that I took (for fun) was a big surprise. There were questions in biological and cultural anthropology, questions in micro- and macroeconomics, questions from every period of history, questions that required breadth of substantive knowledge–the sort of breadth that a teacher, who should be able to seize the teachable moment–needs to be able to explore with kids in more depth.
Robert:
It is good to hear that you found the Florida test to have content validity. I have less of a problem with such summative testing so long as they are seen as necessary but not sufficient for licensing. My wife is a wonderfully knowledgeable and effective language teacher (she was certified in German, French, English, History and Social Studies), but I would be hesitant to have her teach math even if she passed the certification exam.
Are you suggesting that certifications are a basis for determining teachers’ pay?
Bernie, It sounds to me like you are looking for that one determining factor by which we can measure teachers and have an accurate assessment of their competency. You are not going to find it. They are trying it right now with high stakes testing. Sure, they say they are considering other factors, but when one factor has enough weight to tank an evaluation, then that factor is essentially the only one of importance.
2old2tch:
Why would you attribute to me a line of reasoning that is so clearly flawed? While finding a single simple criteria is attractive, the likelihood is remote. Moreover, in the absence of a new consensus emerging as to how to map the career progression of teachers, seniority and additional degrees are marginally acceptable.
It appears you are not a K-12 educator.
So I am wondering of all the topics to devote free time to, depending upon how much you have, why are teacher salaries, of all the professions (although the goal is to destroy that concept) a concern of yours?
Linda:
No more answers until I see your definition of classroom effectiveness.
Sorry Bernie…I don’t report to you. Play your game at home.
Linda:
Of course you don’t report to me. You asked a question, I did you the courtesy of responding. Is it that unreasonable for you to respond in like manner? Is this how you respond to your students who have a different point of view? I am not playing gotcha. The definition of teacher effectiveness is a critical issue in this general policy debate. It is not easy to define and it is even harder to measure in a meaningful way. So, if you, or anyone else, has a workable operational definition then I am genuinely interested.
I have respect for my students but not much patience for the edufrauds who have no respect for teachers and lie to the public for their own personal gain. And some like to fake admiration while talking out of both sides of their mouth. They also don’t like to be challenged. Evidently, we are supposed to worship the know nothings in power.
Bernie,
There is no metric with which to measure teacher quality. Bill Gates has poured hundreds of millions into the pursuit of that metric and now says it will take at least a decade to find out whether “this stuff” works. He doesn’t know because he has not found the metric. Arne Duncan has bet $5 billion that someone will find that metric. NO ONE HAS.
This would seem to me to be an argument in favor of spending the 15 billion now being split between teachers and education schools on something that has an important impact like wrap around medical services for students in districts that need them.
Diane:
I doubt that there will be a single metric for any multi-dimensional phenomena that is manifested in widely varying contexts. But there may be proxies, like body temperature, that signal whether things are a problem or not but are seldom diagnostic in an of themselves.
Bernie,
I disagree. While I would not award extra compensation for masters degrees unrelated to school work or subject mastery, and I would be unlikely to award any extra compensation for degrees purchased online, I think that a teacher’s desire to learn more about her field or about school-related subjects should be rewarded.
The conundrum is that the reward might well create the desire to learn more about his or her field. If Robert Shepard is right that a class that reads your book Left Back is a great bargain, how much better a bargain is it if the student reads and discusses the book without having to pay an education school the vig?
Diane:
I do not necessarily disagree but doctors, lawyers and other like professionals do not get rewarded for deepening the knowledge of their field – it is expected like maintaining your certification. The issue is how do you best allocate the resources to optimize what happens in the classroom.
It obviously wasn’t clearly flawed to me. Diane apparently felt you were looking for a metric as well. Perhaps I should say it appeared that you were looking for the special sauce. Robert has given you several good examples of qualities that can make an effective educator, but in reading reflections and thinking back over my own observations of good teachers, I do not see a magic formula. Given that teachers may account for about 10-20% of the in school factors that influence student performance, and remembering that about 60-70% of a student’s performance is determined by out of school factors, at most we are talking about 8% (20% of 40%) of a student’s performance being dependent on teacher effects. For me, as a special educator working with middle and high school students, establishing relationships based on trust and respect was the most important factor. I’m not sure how you are going to measure that and I don’t want to.
2old2tch:
Linda earlier asked me to define classroom effectiveness. I had not written it down before, but I took a shot and came up with the following:
Classroom effectiveness exists where (a) the instructor can clearly explain and empirically defend, before and after a lesson, what they were trying to accomplish, why, how successful they were in meeting their own objectives and what, if anything, they would do to improve their performance going forward and (b) a large percentage of students (or their guardians) see the instructor as being knowledgeable, responsive, diligent and supportive of good learning behavior for individuals and the class as a whole.
After a little back and forth, Linda seemed to agree with this framing.
As written, I see no special sauce or, more accurately, litmus test. I do not see how it can be operationalized by less than two independent metrics and probably considerably more. In addition, I am not sure exactly how nor with what degree of precision and reliability it can be quantified, but I am optimistic the necessary metrics can be developed for any particular purpose. Such measures may already exist. But in accord with Duane and Wilson, whatever the measures they will not be perfect measures.
” In addition, I am not sure exactly how nor with what degree of precision and reliability it can be quantified, but I am optimistic the necessary metrics can be developed for any particular purpose.”
And therein lies the rub for me. We are seeing the results of “not ready for prime time” metrics being applied in education today not only in high stakes testing but in the classroom as well. Scripted curriculum that makes the generation of data easy is replacing the professionalism of teachers. Benchmark testing used as a surrogate for a teacher’s judgement. Computerized instruction that spits out suggestion for further instruction based on limited information. Rubrics that break down a teacher’s life into tasks to be accomplished in an exemplary manner. Walk throughs used to make judgements about a teacher’s ability to teach based on “real time” checklists that become data points on a skill performance graph. ENOUGH!
2old2tch:
Granted that all these are currently sub-optimal, do you have an alternative given that it is perfectly reasonable for parents, taxpayers and school administration to ensure that what happens in the classroom is as effective as it can be?
Who observes school administrators? Plenty of issues there. Don’t assume ALL the incompetence is in the classroom. BIG mistake.
Linda:
You are absolutely correct. You have to ensure that the system works first at the top. Unfortunately the political demands on the job of Superintendent are normally so consuming (or are allowed to be) that the key responsibilities of selecting and supporting building leadership are seldom given the attention they deserve. And so it begins.
I have no quantitative system for determining whether the services for which I contract are as effective as they can be. I expect them to be at least adequate. Very often my criteria for adequate comes from qualitative “data.” I ask other people. I ask other people who they go to for eye care. I check with other professionals to see what they know. I ask friends which garage they use for car repairs. As a matter of fact, that is the way we used to find out about the teachers our children had! I never asked what percentage of their students passed an exam even when they were taking AP classes. I trusted that those teachers who were teaching AP were qualified. They were. Word of mouth has been a very good way of checking out or finding out information for a long time. When quantitative data is available, I look for patterns that might inform my decisions. For me, though, the qualitative data is more often the most critical.
No, sorry, Bernie, I was off topic. I do think that demonstration of broad subject-area knowledge should be a requirement for entry into the profession. I have taught with French teachers who could not read and write and speak French, with Algebra teachers who had to read the next lesson themselves to learn what they would be teaching in the coming days. We all have.
On the subject of criteria for teacher pay, I am loathe to establish uniform mandates applicable to all districts–on most subjects that’s the case. I believe in something called the free market of ideas–in people having the freedom to try various approaches, including newly developed ones. That’s how innovation occurs. I suspect that if you have high barriers to entry into the profession, then you can get away with having uniform pay scales that will not offend people’s reasonable demands for equity. And I think that if one instituted bottom-up quality control run by teachers (plan-do-check-act performed in the context of Japanese-style Lesson Study), one would see enormous improvement in teachers over time that would justify graduated pay scales–pay for length of service. My problem with these various merit pay schemes is that they are invalid.
I also think that schools should be run by teachers’ councils that elect their own leaders and subject them to votes of confidence every few years.
I think that people function best in conditions of autonomy. As Teddy Roosevelt famously observed, you find someone who knows what he or she is doing and then get the hell out of the way. The various merit pay schemes get in the way. The trick is finding someone who knows what he or she is doing in the first place–those barriers to entry to the profession that I mentioned earlier. But if you want the best and the brightest, you have to pay for them. There’s the rub.
One more comment on this topic of measures of teacher effectiveness. When I was teaching, I considered myself, for the most part, a failure. The kids had so much potential and needed so much nurturing and guidance and individualized diagnosis and assistance, and there was so little of me to go around. I knew that every one of those kids needed one-on-one tutoring from me, full time, and that anything less wasn’t enough. I knew that people were fooling themselves if they believed that there were magic alternatives to that. I had to remind myself often of my successes to keep from going crazy over this. There is a scene in Jesus Christ Superstar that many would consider blasphemous in which the lepers crowd around Yeshua so hungrily that he cries out, overwhelmed. One evening when I was teaching in a particularly troubled school, I had a nightmare that conflated that scene and my classrooms. It was so horrifying that it actually woke me up. Teaching is damned hard. The last thing that teachers need is an overseer with a stick. The Danielson rubric looks pretty good to me, but it is being used in ways that are appallingly counterproductive. There seem to be a lot of folks, these days, with a Rhee-like attitude–we just need to get tougher with these teachers, who are slacking off. That sort of crap doesn’t improve things, not one bit. If you want great teachers, then make this into a high-status, high-barrier-to-entry profession; teach future teachers about the vast number of possible lesson design formats; make sure that they are experts in their subjects; teach them what is known of the cognitive science of learning; give teachers much smaller class sizes; train people in Lesson Study; empower them to work together to evaluate and refine their lessons and give them the time to do that; make them into self-governing bodies; allow them to choose from among and adapt competing standards, curricula, and learning progressions; treat them like the experts because you have chosen experts to do the job. We get what we are willing to pay for, but if we don’t pay on the front end, we pay on the back end, in delinquency and criminal behavior and drug addiction and alcoholism and social services and prisons. We’re going about all this in the wrong direction. Continuous improvement flows from the bottom up. You know what flows from the top down.
Robert:
I do not disagree with your vision – though I am sure some here will because of its implications. It is less clear to me how we get from where we currently are to where you want us to be.
As to your ideas about one-on-one teaching – isn’t that essentially John Taylor Gatto’s argument?
Sorry, Diane, but I believe you are misinformed. All of the schools listed in the EdWeek article that you posted the other day are regionally accredited colleges and,regional accrediting bodies do not permit colleges to just sell degrees.
Although I have not worked at any of the specific schools listed, I have a lot of experience teaching online and there are many checks and balances to ensure academic integrity and that standards are met. A lot of online grad students are pursuing National Board certification through NBPTS, too. In my experience, such programs are not for everyone precisely because they can be a lot more challenging for students than brick and mortar classes.
Personally, I am much more concerned about how nursing students are acquiring procedural knowledge when they take courses in strictly online programs. Never hear folks complaining about that though.
What 2old2tch described is right on target, such as in regard to the meager slice of the influence pie that teachers really have in the lives of children (even Hanushek agreed on that point, though it’s of no significance to him).
I, too, would underscore the importance of relationship-based learning. And I would second, “I’m not sure how you are going to measure that and I don’t want to.”
I would also add that, although those promoting market-based education are most likely inclined to try to measure it, and then “bring it to scale,” it is not something that can be bottled and sold.
Oh great. So now teachers should be responsible for footing the bill for wrap-around and health services for students? Unbelievable.
These people have no concept of what it’s like when teachers are paid minimum wage or just above it –and that is a real possibility when union protections and step and lane pay schedules are eliminated. There are literally millions of non-union teachers who have been in this boat for decades, with no benefits whatsoever, most of whom work in Early Childhood Education and Higher Education, and I have spent the vast majority of my career working in both. I have loved my work but, unfortunately, when the plate is passed, I have to say, “I gave at the office,” because I can’t even afford to pay for my own health insurance.
I would not say teachers are responsible for making sure children are healthy and ready to learn, it is policy makers who must allocate resources to the places and programs where they will do the most good. Perhaps it should go to early childhood education rather than health care.
I’ve been giving at the office to that cause for 45 years. Besides an intrinsically very rewarding career, all I have to show for it is a life in poverty that has resulted in my being eligible for less than $10K per year in Social Security benefits to live on when I “retire” next year.
The fact that politicians aren’t willing to face is that if you want great teachers, then you have to make the process very selective, you have to require a great deal of subject-area expertise, and you have to pay a lot more.
The year I left teaching for a job in publishing, I tripled my salary. I WANTED to stay in teaching, but I had a family to support.
And here’s another relevant that the reform crowd doesn’t want to admit to: If you control for the socioeconomic status of the kids taking the international tests, our students and their teachers are among the best in the world. It simply is not the case that our schools are failing.
I also wanted to mention that I am NOT one of those who believes that teacher education should be limited to subject-area study–that what one can learn from education classes is useless. There is MUCH of value to teachers that can be learned from studies in education per se. It’s doubtless the case that education programs vary widely in their rigor. I’ve seen a lot of junk assignments in education classes taken by my colleagues. But I have also seen them doing really substantive work in their graduate education classes–learning basic statistics, for example, and learning about the astonishing variety of approaches to lesson design. And simply reading Ravitch’s Left Back in an education class is worth the price of admission.
People who make that claim are liars and possibly on the payroll of these “foundations” who promote these lies.
You have to know theory to be able to teach. You have to know about psychology in order to be able to teach. In the lower grades, specializing in one subject area isn’t necessary, but you had BETTER know how to present material to children and know about classroom management.
Furthermore, what constitutes “rigor”? Please stop using the language of the “reformers” who want to abolish public education and teachers’ colleges because of ideology.
Yes, Susan. I cringed myself after I used that word, which has become so debased by the deformers.
Robert:
I agree that there is much that professionals can gain from well-designed courses that focus on their own and others professional practices. This all begs the question, however, of the criteria to use in mapping out a career and pay progression for teachers. Seniority and courses are “objective” and “granular” but do not necessarily reflect classroom effectiveness or value to the school district.
Define “effectiveness” beyond test scores and your children only.
Linda:
Okay, I will take a shot so long as you also provide a definition.
Classroom effectiveness exists where (a) the instructor can clearly explain and empirically defend, before and after a lesson, what they were trying to accomplish, why, how successful they were in meeting their own objectives and what, if anything, they would do to improve their performance going forward and (b) a large percentage of students (or their guardians) see the instructor as being knowledgeable, responsive, diligent and supportive of good learning behavior for individuals and the class as a whole.
How did I do? What would you change, add or drop?
And who decides? You?
Linda:
One more, then it is your turn. The folks making the assessment are two or more educators, one of whom is selected by the teacher/instructor.
Again, what do you disagree with and why? What would you add to what I have written?
I agree with both statements and that’s how it has been for many years.
The rigamarole they are selling now just creates more hoops, obstacles and useless paperwork to prove your worth. It takes time away from planning field trips, creating unique lessons, interdisciplinary units, and project based assessments, etc.
Despite their flowery rhetoric it is not about improving, it is PROVING because we can’t trust teachers. Didn’t you know we are all in it for our pensions and our easy schedules?
Test scores ARE the only measurement that matters from now on.
Now there is even less time for us to focus on your children as individuals.
That seems like a pretty good definition of effectiveness. Repeating, here, my note from above regarding invariant merit pay schemes:
On the subject of criteria for teacher pay, I am loathe to establish uniform mandates applicable to all districts (on most subjects I am against invariant mandates; we need invariant standards for screw threads and the like, but in most cases these are dangerous). I believe in something called the free market of ideas–in people having the freedom to try various approaches, including newly developed ones. That’s how innovation occurs. I suspect that if you have high barriers to entry into the profession, then you can get away with having uniform pay scales that will not offend people’s reasonable demands for equity. And I think that if one instituted bottom-up quality control run by teachers (plan-do-check-act performed in the context of Japanese-style Lesson Study), one would see enormous improvement in teachers over time that would justify graduated pay scales–pay for length of service. My problem with these various merit pay schemes is that they are invalid.
I also think that schools should be run by teachers’ councils that elect their own leaders and subject them to votes of confidence every few years.
I think that people function best in conditions of autonomy. As Teddy Roosevelt famously observed, you find someone who knows what he or she is doing and then get the hell out of the way. The various merit pay schemes get in the way. The trick is finding someone who knows what he or she is doing in the first place–those barriers to entry to the profession that I mentioned earlier. But if you want the best and the brightest, you have to pay for them. There’s the rub.
I would love to have evaluations managed by the teachers’ councils. They might include one administrator (who is, remember, subject to no-confidence votes by those councils). And having one of three evaluators be a colleague suggested by the teacher makes sense to me.
I know that I will be accused of letting the fox guard the chicken coop. But that’s not what I am suggesting. If you appoint professionals to teaching positions, you should be able to trust their judgment. If you can’t, then you have hired poorly.
Robert:
Thanks for the feedback. I am sure that there must be well-established definitions of teacher effectiveness in the Education literature and I am certainly open to a dramatically different approach. Mine is derived indirectly from the work of Chris Argyris, who was my thesis advisor many years ago. Most of my professional work is predicated on his insights into organizational behavior and organizational learning. He would agree with you as to the notion of participative management. He would also point out that, as in Animal Farm, such systems are very demanding of the skills of all participants and are by no means stable.
Practically speaking I would agree that a high bar of entry to a profession would forestall many questions about pay.
Typo: they’re not their. Wish I could edit.
They are very much dependent upon the skills of those involved. I have been impressed, over the years, by the extent to which ordinary folks rise to the challenge of managing a collective responsibility placed upon them. Particular expertise of the kind that one finds on the line and not in the central office, social sanction, and the dedication that comes of being given autonomy and being entrusted with responsibility all work together to create the sort of conscientiousness that one sees on, for example, juries or in those quality circles in Toyota manufacturing plants. There is a lot to be learned from both about how to improve education. These top-down approaches, and totalitarian approaches generally, don’t work because they run smack up against a) limitations on centralized information and knowledge and b) human nature.
It would really help if people would quit feeding certain libertarian trolls and just let them disappear. They aren’t interested in “debate,” because there is NO sane argument against the existence of public education and these trolls are interested in promoting an insane agenda.
Susan:
Who are these “certain libertarian trolls”? If you are by chance referring to me then please identify one statement I have made that argues, sanely or otherwise, against the existence of public education?
Even my favored criterion–subject-area knowledge–is not the answer, carried down from the mountaintop. I am thinking, right now, of one middle-aged elementary school teacher I knew a few years back. I saw this person in action. She was not a scholar, by any means. But she was an AMAZING teacher–creative, energetic, enthusiastic–a regular pied piper. The kids loved her and would follow her anywhere and she took them to some pretty amazing places, even though she wasn’t going to be writing any treatises anytime soon.
Robert:
That is a good example and it adds to the puzzle.
Indeed. There is no substitute for particular judgment by individuals in specific contexts. I am always suspicious of centralized authorities and their invariant mandates.
Let’s say they are correct and degrees are meaningless to improve outcomes. That is now a given. Now let us extend that new reality we never thought of before as we are way too educated and that is bad and non productive after all. So, what should we do not with this amazing new reality we never understood before?
We should immediately shut down the colleges and universities as they are worthless. Business doesn’t need them, schools don’t need them as they are non productive and useless. As a result great inventions, new medical discoveries and the workings of the universe will just come to mind while we smoke joints with a large thick drink of white lightening. This is what they are really saying. Does this make any sense?
Business will be soooooo happy as now they do not have to pay extra for those pesky degrees and extra trainings as they are now useless and non productive in the New World Order of fascism and billionaires. All that money will not go their “Party Fund.”
Soon, we are going deeply into this as the fear of repression is way out of control now.
George:
Who is saying these things?
Diane, I am very grateful for your blog and for your support of teachers. I am grateful for the connections you make between a critical thinking, informed, educated citizenry and the continuation of American democracy. I regularly read your blog and the discourse that is taken up by your readers. I share many of your posts with colleagues because they need to hear a voice of reason and sanity. Because I am retired, I have more freedom with my voice and can afford to share your words and speak my mind. I hear many detractors asking for proof, for definitions of effective teaching, questioning the value of an educated populace and educated and veteran teachers. I am angered that so many “economists” want to turn the teaching profession into another part-time, minimum wage job. And I am insulted that colleagues are forced to prove their worth in countless classrooms across our country and here in your blog. We pour out what we know about teaching, how children learn, the impact of the learning and teaching environment… We are the experts in our craft. We view each student individually, sometimes a puzzle for us to solve–sometimes many puzzles needing to be solved.
Our detractors do not want to hear any of this…because they are not interested in creating an educated, critical thinking citizenry. In fact, their goal is the exact opposite, the creation of enormous wealth for what is now the 1% of the 1%, the kind of elite class that none of us have seen in our lifetimes, and below this 1% a servant class, serfs, not even able to eke out a subsistence life, who will be grateful for crumbs that fall from the tables of .01 % of the world’s population.
Such sin, such arrogance, such inhuman a world view… I am disgusted and sickened by the depravity that has been created for the children of the world…
Dear Dorothy Petrie, thank you for your letter. Keep sharing. Give your colleagues the support they need.
The State does not want to pay teachers more for higher degrees because it wants all of us to be like the State: dumb, dumber, and dumbest.
Mr. Kane’s performance pay should be based on how many more students
he attracts to Harvard’s college of education after this article.
“And as states and districts begin tying teachers’ pay and job security to student test scores, some are altering—or scrapping—the time-honored wage boost.”
Since the desired end result seems to be higher test scores perhaps all teachers should be replaced by robots that spout test related garbage until the students “learn” it and then are allowed to go to the next testing level. To heck with wisdom.
Duane Swacker: your quest is not in vain.
After reading 127 comments on this thread I realize more than ever that if you subtract standardized testing and its related psychometric jargon like “achievement” and “performance” and “effectiveness” the education rheephormers are left with—
Nothing. The circularity of the arguments that attempt to minutely and precisely measure qualities by quantities takes my breath away. “There is no there there.” [Gertrude Stein—who, by the way, never met or knew Noel Wilson]
Linda: I so much appreciated your term “edufraud.” I reciprocate with the following: “edubabble.” It’s filling the airwaves and world wide web but it’s ceding ground to the “special interests” that drive State Commissioner John King to distraction.
Y’all keep posting. I’ll keep reading.
🙂
KrazyTA:
So what is your counter argument to those school districts that are no longer going to consider graduate courses when determining teachers’ salaries and subsequently their pensions? The consequences seem to me to be pretty serious.
I agree, KrazyTA and Linda, “edufraud” is a great descriptor!
Yes, you are absolutely correct that everything in the “reform” equation hinges on testing. No surprise there, since they have the power to control the tests, as well as the test outcomes, such as by manipulating cut scores. That’s the “edufraud” upon which their house of cards is built –and will soon come crashing down…
Love “edubabble,” too! That is what I was referring to when I wrote “gobbledygook,” for want of a better word, to describe the discounting of DoE documentation on the effectiveness of teachers with master’s degrees, while Kane’s claims were just a given and not disputed by those very same people –regardless of the fact that no evidence whatsoever was provided. (A nod to the Harvard elite.)
So, now our resident “edufrauds” will be complaining to the DoE that they have been showing evidence of the effects of teachers with master’s degrees on their website, which is contrary to “reform” talking points. I have no doubt Duncan would be very pleased to remove that from their site. (Glad EdWeek has it up, but just in case it disappears from there, too, I’ve saved the page.)
Just because one studied with Argyris does not mean one has any more insights on teacher effectiveness than everyone else who has sought unsuccessfully to find a method for pigeon-holing teachers so their income can be limited. (And, yes, Argyris and the business model were very much components of the grad courses I took in educational administration.)
I realize this is an old article, but as a teacher of 14 years who is in the final stages of earning a Masters degree, I felt compelled to throw in my two cents.
So let’s see…we are not going to honor teachers who take time out of their own lives, families, and time spent with their students because they want to learn more and thereby earn more for wanting to become a better educator? I have spent the last two years and countless hours at the computer studying, writing, researching and also infusing whatever knowledge I have gained into my classes. I have learned more about how kids learn, and I have tried out new strategies to reach my auditory and kinesthetic learners, for example. I even read Diane’s book, the Death and Life of the American School System and had my eyes opened further with regard to all the politics involved in education. This makes me want to quit teaching high school and go teach college…but wait. It’s isn’t any better, according to a university professor friend of mine. Still, the knowledge I have gained these past two years, coupled with the discoveries I made as I researched and wrote my thesis is priceless.
But that’s what this “trend” is trying to illustrate. It is priceless. A Masters isn’t worth anything.
And if you think about it, private school teachers aren’t paid any more for Masters degrees than Bachelors degrees. Why? Because they’re at private schools and teachers all get paid the same, no matter what. My friend’s aunt is a private school elementary school teacher with 30 years’ experience but gets paid $20K less than I do as a public high school teacher with nearly 15 years’ experience.When I began my Masters she told me she’d love to earn hers, but it is of no use to her because she won’t get a penny more.
The lesson is: Yes, kids, get your Masters in engineering, law, business, whatever you like, but if you want to be a teacher, why bother? All that matters is that you can teach your students to the test…because “obviously” a Masters doesn’t mean a teacher will help raise student test scores. Another ploy not to pay teachers what they’re worth and tie student success to one-size-fits-all standardized tests. Oh, and tell me why we are still testing 10th graders in the California State Test for life science? Why are we being forced to take a whole day out of class time for this test when most 10th graders haven’t had life science since middle school? Is it the science teachers’ faults if the kids don’t pass? Even if they, too, have a Masters in science?
What’s next? States all pay teachers the same salary no matter how long they’ve been teaching? My department chair–yes, my department chair–“advised” me not to submit my transcripts to HR this summer for my Masters pay raise. You know why? “The other teachers here who just have a Bachelors degree work just as hard as you. It’s not fair that you get to earn more money than them because you’re getting your Masters degree.” Seriously? It’s unfair? What about the $15K + of my OWN money I put into earning this degree? And I mean earning. Nothing about earning this degree was easy, from my first course in curriculum and assessment to my final course in technology (which, I might add, is opening me up to new opportunities in adding technology to my classroom).
Now I am truly beginning to understand why wonderful, skilled teachers are dropping the teaching profession like a hot potato.