Ever since the Nation at Risk report, we’ve had a reform narrative in this country that begins with the premise that our schools are failing (despite the fact that when one corrects for the socioeconomic level of students taking the international tests on which this claim is based, our students consistently perform at the top or very near the top). Then, the Gates Foundation decided that the “problem” was teacher quality and not having metrics in place to drive improvement in teacher quality. They made this decision based on lousy research that used invalid test scores as the determinant of outcomes.
So, the simple-minded, one-liner for insertion into politicians’ speeches became, “Our schools are failing, and this is because we have lousy teachers.”
This narrative appeals to a lot of authoritarian types on both the left and the right–to all folks who are fond of hierarchies and top-down mandates.
What did the unions do to contribute to the teacher bashing? Well, the two main costs of education are facilities and teacher pay and benefits, and the teachers’ unions negotiate the latter. So, folks on the right who want to control costs–to keep wages and benefits down–and who believe the reform narrative think that the unions have pushed up pay and benefits unnaturally at the very time when teacher quality and educational outcomes have taken a nosedive.
There are three-and-a-half million public school teachers in the U.S. As Jon Stewart pointed out during an interview with Dr. Ravitch, in any profession–fast food customer service–there are going to be some incompetents and some jerks. But the basic current reform narrative–that our schools have failed in general and that teacher quality is, in general, to blame is wrong on both counts.
Can our schools be improved? Can teacher quality be improved? Of course. But here’s the rub: you get what you pay for. If we really want to improve teacher quality, then we have to pay teachers more, we have to raise barriers to entry to the profession, and we need to give teachers lighter loads so that they can do the careful planning, the collaboration, and the mindful self-examination the lead to continuous improvement. And we have to give them more autonomy, for people perform best in conditions of autonomy, which is something that the deformers do not understand AT ALL.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
I get a little queasy with the “raise barriers to entry to the profession” line. While I think there are possibly a number of reasonable ways that *could* be implemented, about the only way I think it *will* be implemented, at least in the current climate, is by making teachers pass standardized tests. As I’ve said many times, there is nothing inherent in being able to pass a standardized test that makes one a good teacher, and plenty of people who don’t test well can be (and are) excellent teachers.
Or I suppose it could be that teacher certification could become the province of “elite” schools like Harvard. But there too, we’re back to the standardized test issue because you have to have high test scores to get into those types of schools.
Some of the best teachers are those who have struggled in school themselves. They may just barely squeak by to graduate from a lower-tier school, but they have the ability to relate to children and an understanding of what it’s like to not understand things easily and how to work through those struggles.
Your last paragraph is the sticky wicket. Tighter budgets mean leaner staff, heavier class loads, decreased planning time, increased prep time, and teacher burn out. Our district only allows high school teachers to have only planning period a day. That is 50 minutes on average. These teachers have three to four preps. While to the untrained eye, some might say, “so what?” Elementary teachers have multiple preps; if they can do it, why can’t high school teachers? Elementary teachers have 25-30 students and see them all day everyday. Imagine what it is like to be a high school science teacher with physics, biology, and chemistry (and even the different levels among those disciplines: regular, honors, AP, IB, etc). Three different rigorous contents with lab preparation is time consuming. On top of that, 150-160 students with lab reports that need to be graded. It is virtually impossible to get done in 50 minutes all that is needed to get done for plans to be made, conferences, PD, grading, updating your gradebook, phone calls to parents, etc. That time isn’t respected.
Conversely, if teachers are given the time to plan, then that is what they should do. They need to use the time given as thoughtfully as possible.
Both sides of the argument hold up Finland and Korea (or Japan or Singapore or China, etc.) as the top countries for education in the world. In each of these, teachers are well-paid (for their own economy), well-respected and given the time and support to do a really good job. Not wanting US education to look ANYTHING like a Japan or Korea or China, as I recently saw a post showing chinese high school students hooked up to IVs hanging from the classroom ceiling, partly paid for by the government, for providing amino acids so they can better put in the hours needed to pass the end of year exams. I look to Finland as an example of how a good system of education works. And it is just as you say, very competative to get into the teaching profession, well-paid, fully unionized, small class sizes and a reasonable workload for teachers providing time for collaboration and planning. How anyone in their right mind can hold up Korea and their ilk and say this is what we want, just proves their ignorance and total disregard for children.
I believe that in Korea most students spend most of their time studying in Hakwon schools after the regular day is over.
Asian countries also have an extremely high rate of student suicide. If they do poorly in school they dishonor their family and prefer death to humiliation.
Is this what we want for our children? I’d rather my child fail a test and have time to be a child, than to study all day and night. I already resent homework time – it takes away from MY time with MY children who I love.
Oh, and by the way, affluent parents from these countries send their children here for high school to avoid the Asian educational system. They must know something we don’t.
At first I thought “raise the barriers” meant remove barriers. I would agree with raising the standards, but in a measure way. Those entering teacher prep programs are the lower third of their classes. That’s on average, and a large part is most likely due to lack of respect and teaching conditions.
But since a large portion of those completing programs actually teach, we don’t know about the ones who get jobs.
Criteria could include GPA, SAT, ACT, interviews,, whatever.
I see two problems:
At first, there will be empty seats in teacher prep programs, but that means programs will have to really recruit.
But the greater problem is if we do raise the standards, do residency programs, better prepare teachers, what do we do with them? What schools will they work in? My guess is that they will be recruited by schools which treat teachers better, pay them more, support them.
Just a thought.
Maybe an NFL- like “Teacher Draft”?
Not true. Most teaching programs require a minimum GPA of 3.0 in addition to academic exams and interviews.
Completely agree, but would add that we who oppose the teacher-bashing/high-stakes testing/teacher discharge reform movement should ourselves propose an alternate reform that would identify/improve/remove the poorly-performing teacher more reliably and with fewer adverse side effects.
Unless we propose such an alternate reform, we will lose the public debate — it is factually true that there are a few poorly-performing teachers, virtually all voters think that there are at least a few poorly-performing teachers, and those voters will stick with the high-stakes testing reform unless we can offer an alternate.
One such alternate reform is Montgomery County, MD’s “PAR” program — somewhat misleadingly called a peer review program. It’s been in effect for 10+ years and has resulted in the discharge or resignation-in-lieu-of-review of over 500 teachers (a relatively small percentage of the many teachers employed in the huge school system, but many more than were discharged under the traditional principal-observes-and-evaluates approach previously used in Montgomery County and many more than were discharged under the traditional approach during those same 10+ years in Fairfax County, VA (a large school system just across the river from Montgomery County and with virtually identical demographics and, unlike Montgomery County, no union contracts).
Under PAR, a principal identifies teachers who are possibly performing poorly. A consulting teacher then supervises the teacher for an extended period; the consulting teacher generates a report recommending retention, further evaluation, or discharge. A joint committee of principals and consulting teachers reviews the report and makes the final decision. The consulting teacher pool is composed of teachers selected by the central office, the consulting teachers report to the central office, and the central office assigns the consulting teachers to the evaluated teachers. The evaluated teacher’s principal plays no role in selecting the consulting teacher or in the joint committee’s review. The consulting teacher’s expertise matches that of the evaluated teacher’s — i.e., high school math evaluates high school math. After serving as a consulting teacher, the teacher must eventually return to the classroom and cannot instead be promoted into administration.
The teachers generally view the PAR process as fair. The union supports PAR. There have been very few challenges to the discharges. There is no high-stakes testing so no adverse side effects from high-stakes testing. And, PAR protects teachers from unfair evaluations by biased, hostile, or irrational principals.
We opponents of high-stakes testing should get behind PAR, or something like it, and offer it as an alternate solution to the problem of poorly-performing teachers.
When I referred to “raising barriers to entry to the profession,” here’s what I had in mind: ensuring that those entering the profession
a) have enormous subject-matter expertise (know what they will be teaching),
b) have a great deal of familiarity with child development and with the cognitive psychology of learning, and
c) get a lot of time in the classroom with coaching from expert mentors.
We’ve made great strides in all three areas in recent years.
I am a big supporter, BTW, of alternative certification tracks, but these need to be accompanied by tests of a and b and a lot of c.
I think that we in the U.S. have the best public school teachers in the world, just about, but I also think that we can always improve and should strive to do so. I’ve noticed that a lot of English teachers I’ve met don’t know much about language acquisition–about how people acquire the vocabularies and grammars of the languages that they speak–that, for example, many are not familiar with current scientific models of English syntax and semantics, even though we have had a breathtakingly profound revolution in our understanding of these matters in the past forty years and even though understanding of these models has profound consequences for pedagogy. That partially explains why the CCSS in ELA are so backward in their standards for vocabulary and language. So, improvements in training could be made there, clearly.
However, the big disconnect between the reformer and anti-reformer narratives seems to me to be this: the reformers have no clue how much prep and self-examination time it takes to be a good teacher and to improve one’s practice continuously. We need models in which teachers work together collaboratively and autonomously to improve their practice–in which THEY, and not their supervisors, take responsibility for this and see this as a major part of their jobs. Instead, we’ve been going precipitously in the other direction. Every teacher I know is having every bit of time that he or she used to have taken up with bureaucratic mandates (more trainings, more data chats, more evaluation pre- and post-meetings, more test prep, more testing days) with no lessening of the overall class load. And this is making a profession that should be all about the joy of teaching and learning into a daily ordeal.
Absolutely!
Agreed
After “A Nation at Risk” came out a psychologist named Bracey did a study and wrote “The Truth About America’s Schools” published by Phi delta kappa. When he heard the statistics being bantered about he did not think that sounded right so he did the research and wrote the book. The Bracey reports covered about 3 years. Of course it got barely mentioned in the press.
I spoke to our school board and offered them my copy to read. Of 5 board members only one accepted the offer. Whether or not he ever read it or not I do not know.
At our last Board meeting I urged the board to read the last book by Dr. Ravitch. Again, one board member of the 5 wrote down her name and asked how to spell it.
When lies are shouted long and loud enough people believe them and are so certain that nothing will change their minds.
Don’t confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up kind of mentality.
Maybe our schools HAVE failed to educate.
One may remember that recently the Texas legislature wanted to remove critical thinking from the curriculum.
Maybe schools failed because we didn’t the critical thinking, and problem solving weren’t part of the lifelong learning thing.
I actually think it’s the culture we’ve created, the entertainment and media industry, politics, talk radio. Facts and truth just aren’t relevant. You can just make stuff up. And some of those opposing the reforms are guilty.
Never more than now should we … Question Authority.
“And some of those opposing the reforms are guilty.”
Examples please.
I agree. We need to begin with the end in mind… improve teacher ed programs and opportunities for professional development.
“. . . improve . . .opportunities for professional development.”
If it’s anything like the kind of “improvements” I’ve experienced over the last decade, No Thanks! We get “professionally developed” so that we can “increase student achievement”. Thanks, but no thanks!!
Well, no one likes to say it, but I will…our country’s “parent problem” far outweighs any ill-conceived “teacher problem.”
Didn’t NYC just show a report that 95 percent of their teachers were rated “effective,” meaning just 5 percent were ineffective? Can the same statistics be applied to a parental-effective analysis?
The problem isn’t parents or teachers. The problem is that the way our society is currently structured, neither one can really do their job the way they’d like.
I think raising barriers to entry is very important. I currently work in public schools in a very poor country where teaching is a pretty high status occupation, and well paying (by the standards of this country). The teachers have very light work loads and a ton of freedom in what they teach and how.
Yet, the teacher quality is quite low because there are not good barriers to entry, and once they get the job they have de facto tenure (going beyond even the tenure standards of universities… it is virtually impossible to get fired here even for gross misconduct). Since they aren’t qualified when they get here and have no reason to be good teachers once they are here, the level is quite low.
Question for Prof Ravitch: Could you elaborate on what you view to be the relationship between teacher pay and teacher quality? You’ve said before that merit pay doesn’t work because “its not as if teachers are hiding their best lessons”. So is the idea that the effect of higher teacher pay would just be to attract higher quality people into the profession in the first place, but that once they are in the profession you just need to pay them the bare minimum required so that they don’t quit?
C’Tee, the year I left teaching, I tripled my salary. Tripled it. I would have loved to have stayed in the classroom, but I had a family to take care of. Here are some comparative figures for teachers’ salaries in 2012:
U.S. upper secondary
Entry level: 38,012
After 15 years: 49,414
Maximum: 56,303
Luxembourg upper secondary
Entry level: 72,499
After 15 years: 100,013
Maximum: 125,962
Germany upper secondary
Entry level: 57,357
After 15 years: 69,715
Maximum: 79,088
OECD average. upper secondary
Entry level: 31,348
After 15 years: 41,665
Maximum: 50,119
So, the U.S. is a bit above the OECD average but no where near the top. Teachers in Luxembourg make TWICE what teachers in the U.S. do.
Robert Shepherd,
I understand that teachers are not well paid in the US, but my point is that if I understand Prof Ravitch’s view it is that once a given teacher has entered the profession, we should pay them the minimum possible that keeps them from leaving the profession, because paying them more won’t result in better instruction. The point of high pay is just to attract higher quality people into the profession and keep them from quitting.
I retired June 2012. My friends who still are teaching are counting the days until they can retire. We all feel sorry for the young people entering the profession. Many won’t make it through the first year, others will leave before they hit five years of service.
If they “fire” so-called “ineffective” teachers with low test scores, who is going to replace them? Look at Syracuse, NY, where one high school gave a 0 to every teacher for their testing score.
If there is a teacher shortage in ten years, who is to blame?
The signing bonuses to compete for educators will be huge. Is that what we want? I hope I’m wrong – I’m afraid I might be right.
I think trying to answer the ‘our schools are failing’, ‘teachers are bad’ narrative is akin to trying to fight one’s way out of a paper bag. Labor Lawyer, we have already lost the public debate, the fox has been in the chicken-house for over a decade and it’s time to find the shotgun. This is a political battle over public money. The narrative at the top for quite some time has been ‘we hold the purse strings so we’ll decide how to get results for our money and lower that nasty public school bill.’ (Look no further than the new FERPA rules, which say in a nutshell: “if you want fed $ for your school, we’ll do what we please with every bit of information exchanged among teacher, student, principal, police.”)
It is not completely hopeless: many rightwingers at the grassroots level call for an end to the DOE, and often cite that cost/pupil has grown, not shrunk. This shows they do have a clue about where the money goes when you decide you want to identify, label, and count every bean in the jar. Let’s see some admin/teaching breakdowns at every level of the public education machine. Show taxpayers that the ‘conservative’ governors and neoliberal Rep/Dem leaders have been simply ‘throwing $ at the problem’, and are as we speak promulgating and peddling massively expensive and completely unfunded mandates in the name of accountability.
promulgating and peddling massively expensive and completely unfunded mandates in the name of accountability
word that! 🙂