Jack Schneider, a historian of education at the College of Holy Cross, deconstructs the claim that the biggest problem in education today is the quality of teachers. The clarion s of the Status Quo never tire of telling us that “great” teachers can turn every student into college-bound scholars. For a time, they said that the teacher was the most important influence on student test scores. Then, as social scientists reminded them, again and again, that the family has far greater influence than the teacher, the Status Quo shifted gears and began saying that teachers were the most important factor inside schools, which is true. Economists say that the family accounts for about 60% of academic outcomes, the teacher about 10-15%. The Status Quo doesn’t like to put those numbers out because it might persuade the public that our society should do more to improve the lives of families, communities, and children. Bit it is so much simpler to complain about teachers. They are an enticing target.
Schneider says, contrary to the conventional wisdom of the Status Quo, that we have a good corps of teachers:
“If assertions about the poor academic preparation of American teachers were accurate, the policy fix would be easy. But such hysteria is generally unfounded. Teachers go to legitimate schools, they get decent grades, and the overwhelming majority of them possess degrees in the subject they teach. More than half possess graduate degrees. Consequently, there’s very little low-hanging fruit to pick.”
Actually, the biggest problem we face is not how to attract Ivy League graduates into teaching (there being no evidence that Ivy League graduates make better teachers than graduates of state universities), but how to stop the relentless attacks on teachers that are driving out so many good veterans. It has been documented many times that a sizable proportion of those who enter teaching–40% or more– will leave within five years because the working conditions are so poor and stresses of the job are so hard. No other profession has this exodus of trained personnel. Far fewer people are entering the profession now than in the recent past, no doubt because of the attacks on teachers that have become commonplace in the media. Teach for America advertises its success as if to prove that five weeks of training is sufficient and that teaching is a stop-gap enroute to one’s real profession, not a career choice.
The biggest problem in teaching today is that the profession has been demeaned for years, especially in the past five years. The Status Quo crowd seems determined to prove that first-year and second-year teachers are best, and to drive away experienced educators, perhaps to save on salaries or pensions.
States and districts should have higher standards for entering teaching. Once people become teachers, districts and schools should give them the support they need to succeed. Incompetent teachers should be removed as quickly as possible, with a fair hearing if they have due process rights.
Schneider shows that teaching as a profession needs the same respect as other professions, the same professional opportunities for growth, the same time to work together and learn from research.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Reblogged this on David R. Taylor-Thoughts on Texas Education.
Well said…this should be the message of all educators across the country.
“the overwhelming majority of them possess degrees in the subject they teach”
Is this accurate? For 20 years I’ve been reading seemingly well-sourced assertions that large numbers of teachers are teaching “out of field.”
More bad information put out there to discredit teachers.
It is quite possible that FLERP!’s information is correct. Is it hard to look up the facts and statistics? Then you bet some people are hiding them in their self-interest.
In my country, the percentage of qualified teachers has dropped from 95% tot below 70%. This means that about 1 in 3 lessons is taught by someone unqualified as a teacher, or qualified but in another discipline, or qualified for a lower level than the level they’re teaching.
our Secretary of State for Education has agreed with the school boards (all of which have been privatized as part of a neolib overhaul, although every school is paid for by public money) that school directors may hire as many unqualified teachers as they want, without giving notice to anyone. Not to the parents and the children, not to the school’s teaching staff, and not to the Education Ministry.
This is a very ‘wide back door’ policy that undermines the (inherent and economical) value of teachers’ qualifications and is meant to break the negotiation position of teacher unions.
The political strategy is very succesful. Teachers have been paying for the economical crisis since day 1, with smaller salaries, bigger classes, and more hours of teaching. Entrance levels to teacher education programmes have been lowered or not taken seriously, in order to establish at least some kind of influx.
Since all political parties have joined the neolib agenda, hardly any party is offering resistance. The fact that 85% of Parliament voted against the publication of the % of qualified teachers per school should speak for itself.
Before you believe that things are better in your country, please try to find out the facts. You’d be surprised by what school boards are allowed to do, and do, when it comes to silently condoning or even stimulating unqualified or underqualified teaching. Don’t forget that these semi-teachers are much easier to bend than the qualified teacher with tenure who is teaching in his/her own field..
Yes.
Its the Faux News trick – repeat a lie or half truth enough times and it becomes “truth”.
Maybe there’s some disagreement about what the term “overwhelming majority” means.
Here’s something written in 1998 on this subject. I don’t know if the “out of field” figures have changed a lot since then.
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/1998/feb/27/education-courses-are-not-enough/
What a find.
“Is it any wonder that today’s children have no idea when the Civil War occurred, what Reconstruction was, what happened during the progressive era, who FDR was, what the Brown decision decided or what Stalin did? Many of their teachers don’t know those things, either.”
“. . . since then. . . .”
Well, that article is from Diane when she was drinking edudeformer (before they were known as such) Kool-Aid.
Got something more recent?
I hear you, DS, but some of the numbers cited in this piece seem ideology proof:
“Last summer [1997], the U.S. Department of Education reported that approximately one-third of the nation’s public school teachers of academic subjects in middle school and high school were teaching “out of field,” which means that they had earned neither an undergraduate major nor a minor in their main teaching field.
“Fully 39.5 percent of science teachers had not studied science as a major or minor; 34 percent of mathematics teachers and 25 percent of English teachers were similarly teaching “out of field.” The problem of unqualified teachers was particularly acute in schools where 40 percent or more of the students were from low-income homes. In these schools, nearly half the teaching staff was teaching “out of field.”
Has there been a significant decrease in the percentage of middle school and high school teachers who are “out of field” since 1998?
NCLB act legislated the requirement for hiring “highly qualified” teachers. probably the one benefit of the act. Your 1998 information is not only dated but is quite inaccurate.
What does it mean to “legislate the requirement for hiring ‘highly qualified’ teachers” in the context of this discussion? Does it mean that all middle school and high school teachers must have a major or minor in the subject areas they teach? Does it mean something else?
Yes. teachers must be certified in the subjects they teach. I believe that in order to maintain some flexibility (especially small districts), a secondary teacher can teach one class outside of their certification. This was past practice, not sure if this is still possible.
But I take it that a teacher doesn’t need to have an academic degree in a subject in order to become certified to teach it, right? Assuming that’s true, then NCLB wouldn’t necessarily make the 1998 information “quite inaccurate,” because it was discussing the number of teachers who lack academic majors or minors in the subject areas they teach. Did more than 60% of today’s science teachers study science as a major or minor? Did more than 66% of today’s math teachers study math as a major or minor? Did more than 75% of today’s English teachers study English as a major or minor?
Here’s what it takes to earn certification in NY to teach biology at the secondary level of course (7 to 12).
Program Requirements:
Required Biology Courses 27 credits
Or equivalents:
BIO 211 Introduction to Cell Biology and Genetics (4)
BIO 212 Introduction to Organismal Biology and Diversity (4)
BIO 213 Introduction to Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior (4)
BIO 303 Genetics (4)
BIO 315 Ecology (4)
BIO 405 Organic Evolution
Select one course from the following:
BIO 308/BIO 309 Human Anatomy and Physiology and Laboratory (4)
BIO 402 Comparative Animal Physiology (4)
Elective Biology Course 3 credits
Any upper-division biology course except BIO 322 or BIO 324
Professional Education Courses 24 credits
EDF 303 Educational Psychology
EDU 416 Teaching Literacy in Middle and Secondary Schools
EXE 372 Foundations of Teaching Adolescents with Disabilities
SCI 445 Literacy for Teaching Science
SED 200 Field Experience in Secondary Science Education
SED 401 Techniques for Teaching Laboratory Activities in the Secondary Science Classroom
SED 405 Methods and Materials for Teaching Secondary School Science
SED 409 Seminar in Secondary Science Education
Student Teaching Courses 12 credits
SED 407 Practice Teaching Science in the Middle School (6)
SED 408 Practice Teaching Science in the High School (6)
Please keep in mind that a Masters degree is also required to teach in New York. The Masters can be in education or in your field of study.
Tim,
No, I don’t think those numbers are ideology proof.
In 1997 I was one of those teachers working out of field one period a day. I would have counted as an English teacher teaching without certification and thus out of field. I was offering a theater elective (theater is considered part of the English department) and I have an excellent professional theater resume…but no certificate/degree in theater.
Hardly a teacher quality crisis.
I know of MANY similar examples from that time period (Pre NCLB).
See my post below.
One can, indeed, obfuscate with numbers.
FLERP,
I know of no teaching “out of field” since NCLB (See TFA exception below)
NCLB required that we all be “highly qualified” to teach each class.
That has meant being certified to teach that subject. While certification requirements vary from state to state, in general (at lease for HS certification) you are required a number of credit hours in the subject (similar to the number for a minor) and to pass a subject test.
(Somehow TFA seems to get around this…I have a former student who majored in Econ and Psych and never took the teacher certification test, but is somehow highly qualified to teach math?)
If a teacher is “out of field” ,thus not highly qualified, the school has to send letters home and earns a lower rating from the state, and other possible sanctions.
In my opinion, those highly publicized “out of field” numbers were generally part of the manufactured crisis.
Prior to NCLB we were able to teach a class or two per day (depending on how many classes total…the majority of your day had to be in field) in something you were not degreed/certified in. The phrase was teaching out of field and it was at the discretion of the principal/ board policy, and frequently used for electives.
It was generally a good thing as it allowed people to offer a class in something that they did not have a degree in, but had some personal expertise with.
For example, I have worked in professional theater since I was a kid, however all my degrees are in Biology. Prior to NCLB, I was able to teach a theater elective (a very popular and successful one, I might add). We had a business teacher who used to be a police officer and he offered the Forensic Science elective. Again a popular, successful class.
NCLB put and end to all that. The drama class went to an english teacher who admitted no experience or interest in theater and the forensic science class to a science teacher with no crime scene experience, who really had to struggle to get up to speed. But, they were considered highly qualified.
Lots of similar examples. A physics teacher who was occasionally called on to offer a math elective and a French teacher who would occasionally pick up a section of Spanish 1. It was actually, very often, a good thing.
The students lost out, IMHO.
I taught high school for 18 years. Most of the teachers I worked with, including myself, had education degrees with specializations such as math, social studies, science, physical education, music, etc. This was the way teacher education was set up. So, in fact, most older veteran teachers do not have a degree in what they are teaching…they have EDUCATION DEGREES with a certain number of hours in their “specialized” field. I guess that’s what they mean by teaching “out of field.”
What kills me is, why are teachers being attacked for being educated in a way their colleges forced them to be educated? It’s not like I could tell the College of Education at my alma mater, “Nope, nope, this is wrong…I need a degree in this area, then I’ll take education classes where I can fit them in.” My degree program was laid out very specifically, and I could deviate only in those few hours called “electives.”
What’s interesting is…
I listened to educated people who said, “Go to college and earn a diploma.”
I then listened to intellectual professors and advisors telling me to, “Follow this program of study as we have laid out for you, and you will earn a diploma.” (I’ve done this two other times as I have my Master’s and within a year of earning my Doctorate).
The state told me to, “Pass this test and you will be a credentialed professional.”
Only to get out into the teaching profession and be told…
Your the problem.
unheardofwriter — that’s exactly the issue. In the NCES surveys from the late 1990s (maybe earlier) to the early 2000s, teaching “out of field” essentially meant having an education rather than an academic degree.
“teaching “out of field” essentially meant having an education rather than an academic degree.”
No.
Not how the term was generally used.
As I said, I was counted as teaching out of field.
It indicated certification for that field or lack there of.
It says nothing about anything else.
Ang — I think you’re referring to something more specific and nuanced than what I was referring to. I defer to you on how the term was “generally used,” and obviously I defer to you on how you were “counted.”
I was thinking in terms of what Dr. Ravitch wrote, namely:
As well as how the NCES framed its surveys in the late 1990s through early 2000s, e.g.:
Versus how the surveys became framed around 2007, e.g.:
See also https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass/tables/sass0708_006_t1n.asp (2007-2008 survey).
Only including one link in order to skirt auto-moderation.
Shared environment such as family influence has little long term effect. Adopted children are much more similar to their biological parents than to their adoptive parents. In fact adopted children as adults no more resemble their adoptive parents in personality or behavior then they resemble other people in their culture. Adoption seems to have no long term effect on people’s personality or behavior.
Roughly about half the variation in human behavior is due to genetics and about half to what is called “non-shared environment”. At this point nobody knows what “non-shared environment” is except that it involves factors not shared between siblings so it does not include family influence or school influence. Steven Pinker has suggested that much of “non-shared environment” is just “statistical noise” in the data. If this is true then genetics accounts for most of the variation in human behavior.
Jim,
Got some sources for that first paragraph?
Your second paragraph would deny any family influence at all. Not likely.
Jim thinks that it all comes back to genetics. The eugenics crowd and the Nazis would love him.
Having a biological child and an adopted child from another “race”, I would have to strongly disagree with you!
You need to back up your claims. But I can tell you from personal anecdotal experience that adoption does vastly influence lives. Nature is an initial condition. Nuture is what makes us thrive.
Neither teachers nor family influence is of much importance in human behavior.
Earth to planet Jim. . . .
That’s clearly true in your case Jim. My guess is that your major life influence comes from the messages embedded in the electromagnetic waves that are attracted to your tin-foil hat.
human behavior is nature or nurture….not a roll of the dice. It either part of your genetics or you are a product of you environment.
Not “either/or” — it’s “and.” The mix is up for debate and probably varies from person to person.
Poorly-performing teachers are “a” problem, they’re just not “the” problem. Virtually every parent/voter recalls one or more poorly-performing teachers from his/her personal experience (or his/her children’s personal experience). These parents/voters similarly recall that those poorly-performing teachers kept teaching year after year — that is, the school systems did a miserable job of identifying/removing those teachers. For parents/voters who attended high-SES-area schools (and who comprise many/most of the current school/govt officials), it’s possible/likely that the poorly-performing teachers were, in fact, the biggest problem — because there were few other problems.
High-stakes testing/teacher-discharge therefore appeals to all these parents/voters as a superficially reasonable solution to what they view — accurately — as a real problem (if not “the” problem). Until/unless we opponents of high-stakes testing/teacher-discharge offer an alternative reform vehicle to identify/remove the poorly-performing teachers, we are destined to continue losing this political battle. Claiming that there are few/no poorly-performing teachers or that the traditional principal-evaluates-and-discharges approach effectively identifies/removes the poorly-performing teachers is a hopeless argument. Probably, the best alternative is something like the “peer-review” approach used successfully for 10+ years in Montgomery County, MD (a large mixed-SES DC suburb); unfortunately, we opponents of high-stakes testing/teacher-discharge have largely ignored the need to offer such an alternative.
Another reason — often overlooked — why today’s teachers are such easy targets for politicians’ attacks is the change that has occurred since say the 1950s in teacher compensation relative to working-class/middle-class white-collar compensation. Before the 1960s, teachers were significantly under-compensated relative to working-class/middle-class white-collar employees. As a result, parents/voters tended to view teachers as “good guys” making personal sacrifices for the benefit of society — similar to the clergy, nurses, and the military. Since then, teachers’ compensation has risen significantly while working-class/middle-class white-collar compensation has been flat or even fallen. Today, when a working-class or middle-class white collar employee looks at a teacher, he/she sees someone earning as much or more as he/she does with better benefits — no more sense that the teacher is making a personal sacrifice for the benefit of society + possibly some $ envy.
Finally, teachers today probably are not — on average — as intellectually sharp or academically credentialed as the teachers of the 1950s/1960s. The obvious reason is the opening up of high-compensation careers to women. Today, most law schools, medical schools, and even MBA programs are at least 50% female; 50 years ago, these programs were almost exclusively male and many/most of the young intellectually sharp/highly-motivated women would have been going into teaching. Similarly, albeit not as significant, is the dramatic increase in compensation for top attorneys, doctors, and MBAs relative to even the increased compensation for teachers; this phenomenon has encouraged many intellectually-sharp/highly-motivated men who might have at least considered teaching 50 years ago to instead focus exclusively on the much more lucrative professions.
“For parents/voters who attended high-SES-area schools (and who comprise many/most of the current school/govt officials), it’s possible/likely that the poorly-performing teachers were, in fact, the biggest problem — because there were few other problems.”
That’s well-put.
Yep — Excellent point.
This is a very good explanation of what has led to teacher bashing and the fact that teacher quality is one of the problems in education. (I tutor a former student who is now in 11th grade, and when I asked him yesterday what he is doing in English, he said that they have been watching Frozen for the past 3 days of class. Econ? “The teacher just talks about stuff.”)
I think it is important to acknowledge the role poor teaching plays, and that is an important discussion to have. Sometimes I get frustrated hearing how it is always someone else’s fault, never ours. But this blog is probably not the place for fixing teacher quality. Keeping us informed of the false reform movement is quite a job for Diane and this blog, and I really appreciate this blog.
He watched Frozen yet did nothing else? He couldn’t tell you what he was doing in Econ? Maybe you should hear the teacher’s side before you assume negative things. Usually there is more to the story.
Agree with Dee Dee.
Students are often very quick to shift blame, responsibility to the teacher.
Check into the teacher’ s side before toy jump on this kids bandwagon .
Don’t blame the really bad teacher, they obviously can’t help themselves. DO blame the really bad administrators who field the parent complaint about Frozen, and do nothing to fix it. There is NO acceptable explanation for showing Frozen to juniors in high school.
Teachers. We can’t live with ;em, and we certainly can’t live without ’em. Maybe just maybe, all of the critics are just chasing their own tails here. Tilting at windmills. Deluded into thinking that all teachers cant be above average. Living in a fantasy world in which a huge pool of uber-talented, superstar teachers are being hidden away or denied their own chance to wow us all. Fooled into thinking that higher pay will attract the best and he brightest, forgetting that we never chose this profession for the money. And if that’s what at attract an applicant, you will have made a big mistake. In reality the knowledge and skill sets that make a teacher exceptional are scarce simply because they are. Teaching seems to be the only profession where outsiders all seem to think they know better; a mind set that is here to stay. Much of the criticism stems from outright jealousy; good pay, nice benefits, summers off.; and its really, really easy, barely have to work. Overpriced babysitters.
For some strange reason you never hear your neighbor decry the incompetence of principals as the people really responsible for the really bad teachers. Unless I’m your neighbor. Just had this discussion with my own daughter. She’s constantly criticizing her teachers yet when put on the spot could not name one that she thought should be terminated. I tried to convince her that the real problem was with management (supervisors, administrators, principals). THEY get 20 resumes which THEY cull down to 5.
THEY hold 5 interviews. THEY speak to previous employers or teacher training supervisors. THEY read letters of recommendation. THEY make the hire. THEY observe for two to three years, a window which allows them to terminate without reason or just cause. THEY listen to feedback on new teachers from multiple, reliable sources: students, parents, other teachers. After all this THEY decide to offer a permanent position with all the due process rights that come with it. THEY fail to support struggling teachers. THEY fail to counsel really bad teachers out of the business. THEY fail to use various means of pressuring teachers into “moving on”. THEY often fail to put the worst teachers in the places where they can do the least harm.
Lazy, incompetent teachers? No lazy and/or incompetent managers. And for all you principals out there who will argue that you are overburdened and overworked, plate’s too full and they keep heaping it on. I say, you are an ineffective manager because you obviously can’t prioritizing your time. Please come to your own defense on this one. I will add that a big part of the problem is that many teachers were hired and tenured “back in the day” in a place and time way before hyper-scrutiny became the in thing.
CAN ( not cant: line #3)
You know youre two tried when you can t even count lines, (#4)
“teachers today probably are not — on average — as intellectually sharp or academically credentialed as the teachers of the 1950s/1960s”
Good thing you put the “probably” in that statement because it would get a big cow pie rating from me. Do you have a source for that info?
Agree, Duane!
That’s def a bunch of baloney. I remember a friend saying her mother was a teacher and she didn’t even finish college.
Only anecdotal evidence — comparing the teachers’ degrees as shown in my 1966 high school yearbook to the teachers’ degrees as shown in my kids’ 1990s high school yearbooks, my 1966 teachers had much stronger academic credentials than my kids’ 1990s teachers (with my high school and my kids’ high school serving comparable high-SES communities). And — common sense/experience strongly supports the conclusion that opening the other professions up to women (starting in say the 1970s) necessarily resulted in fewer intellectually-sharp/highly-motivated women going into teaching. Remember — I’m talking about averages; obviously, there are many teachers today who are very intellectually-sharp/highly motivated just as back in the 1950s there were many teachers who were intellectually-dull/lazy.
I disagree. The certification today for teachers is much more demanding than in the past. Math requires knowledge into analysis, abstract algebra, linear algebra, and non-Euclidean geometry – well beyond even the Calculus most high schools offer. The content tests are not impossible, but no picnic. Teachers today also must deal with more mental health, learning, and legal issues than ever before. I do think we are losing more women AND men to other fields. But there are still many highly qualified teachers who remain. The problem now is that America devalues its teachers. The constant attack and demonization of educators would make anybody exhausted fighting.
Regarding your last paragraph
Don’t suppose it occurred to you that many of us are teachers because we wanted to be, because we were good at it, not because we couldn’t get into law, medical or business school?
Some folks choose a career for satisfaction.
Not everyone is purely money motivated .
Using your logic perhaps the past had fewer really good teachers because so many people, especially women, were there because they had no other choice, not because they wanted to teach or had any talent for teaching.
“Poor performing teachers are “a” problem, they’re just not “the” problem.”
Your are correct! Bingo! You’ve hit the nail on the head. But…when the media in our society report a specific story about one educational situation, but in it they make generalized comments about all teachers, it becomes a message of “the” or “all” teachers.
We all had poor teachers at one time or another. I’ve also had doctors who wouldn’t listen, wouldn’t help, and/or misdiagnosed my symptoms. I had a friend whose dentist accidentally cut her tongue during an exam. I’ve been on planes whose pilots made terribly rough landings although no one was hurt. I’ve seen poorly designed new homes by degreed architects and designers. I’ve only dealt with one attorney in my life, thank heaven, it was my divorce attorney, and he lied to me.
Human behavior is THE problem, in every profession, and every walk of life, and IS NOT exclusive to the teaching profession.
“…the school systems did a miserable job of identifying/removing those teachers.”
Right again!! But wouldn’t this indicate the problem in education was in its ineffective leadership, and not in its teaching profession? As a secondary teacher during the time period when NCLB hit the nation and the school systems, I can tell you for sure “accountability” was only for the teachers. The administrators made darn sure it was about the teachers and not about them, and rest assured….we were under attack!
“…offer an alternative reform vehicle to identify/remove poorly performing teachers…”
It’s there! It’s always been there!! It may be lengthy, but it’s there! I’ve haven’t taught in a school district yet that didn’t have termination procedures in place. The kicker is…administrators do not go through the steps/procedures/process to remove poor teachers. Why? IT”S WORK!! A lot of work, a lot of paper work…kind of like grading papers…it’s tedious and may take their time and attention away from attending football and basketball games.
“…teachers’ compensation has risen significantly while working class/middle-class-white-collar compensation has been flat or even fallen.”
I’m a degreed, credentialed professional. Should I not be compensated equal to other degreed professionals? Which middle-class/white collar professions are you referring to? My college friends who majored in business, health care administration, marketing, accounting, finance and journalism all make a ton more money than I do, yet they don’t have to feel bad about it, or feel they don’t deserve it. I also know quite a few nurses, including my son’s girlfriend (much younger than me) who make more money than I do even though I have a Master’s, 2/3’s of my Doctorate and now teach in higher education.
“…teachers today probably are not-on average-as intellectually sharp or academically credentialed as the teachers of the 1950’s/1960’s.” So you’re assuming those women who are today going into careers that used to be predominantly male, would actually have gone into teaching way back when. Hmmmm….you might be right, but without empirical research backing your claim, it’s hard to say for sure. It’s a good thing you included the word “probably.” Teaching is more than being intellectually or academically sharp or smart in a specific content area. My day’s work, interacting with and motivating students is so much more than my “thinking” self. When we reduce teaching to just an intellectualization of our children, which is what these standardized tests are doing, we in effect become only concerned with one small aspect of the total person.
unheardofwriter — Agree with your points. Please remember that my initial comment was not intended to slam teachers. Rather, it was to intended as an explanation for why the parents/voters so enthusiastically embrace the counterproductive high-stakes testing/teacher-discharge approach to school reform + to argue that we, who oppose high-stakes testing/teacher-discharge, cannot win the political fight until/unless we propose an alternate new approach that promises to identify/remove poorly-performing teachers.
Re your point that administrators should be blamed for poorly-performing teachers — Agree, at least in the sense that administrators are much more to blame than teachers unions. However, speaking from many years advising management in an employer with many unionized white-collar professionals, it’s extremely difficult for a principal to fairly/effectively evaluate/document a poorly-performing teacher — the principal simply does not have sufficient time, opportunity to observe, or (in high schools) subject matter expertise. And, the traditional principal-evaluates-and-discharges system is extremely vulnerable to abuse by biased/insecure principals. To fairly/effectively evaluate a professional, you need a real first-line supervisor, not a second-line manager. The Montgomery County peer-review system provides a first-line supervisor (albeit only for a limited time period and only for teachers likely to be poor performers).
Labor Lawyer – sounds like you’ve had some experience working with school systems and school professionals. I want to comment on one other point you’ve made, because I think its an important area that causes significant issues in schools, and yet is going unaddressed for the most part.
You commented that the evaluation system is vulnerable to the biased/insecurity of administration. I actually did a report and presentation on the emotional competency of educational leadership. There is quite a bit of feedback in the research from administrators on how inadequate they feel in their jobs, especially when faced with the myriad of situations they were never prepared for. (We could actually say the same for teachers). It is adamant that school personnel have a strong, confident, authentic mental toughness to adequately deal with issues in a fair, logical, yet common sense manner. There are relatively few I’ve run into who have fit this description and really, truly believe in their abilities as leaders. The mold I’ve seen more often than not, are frustrated teachers new to the profession who cannot manage their classrooms, and decide to go into administration to salvage their education career. The inadequacy is now at a higher level with more control, and can really wreck havoc on students, teachers, other administrators and parents.
I’ve run across two educators in Canada who are doing research in the area of increasing the emotional competency of educational leaders. I really feel this is an area that deserves more time and attention in the preparation of our nation’s educational leaders.
Women hold about 25% of MBA’s. The percentage has changed little in decades.
Teacher Bashing has gone in for years, but accelerated at a fast clip with Gates’ Billions, mushrooming foundations, good old boys replaced by Billionaires’ clubs and the absolute 100% support of Obama and Duncan to kick Teacher Bashing to heights unknown and profits beyond belief.
Would love to see or hear secret behind closed door planning meetings of billionaires’ conversations. This Master Plan is successful and almost airtight. Kids are providing BigData, RealTeachers are replaced by TFA, pensions disappear, charters popping up like kudzu, universities pressured and funding controlled. Almost a perfect plan. Give them another couple of years, and we will not recognize America.
Well respected university teacher educ programs can’t produce enough qualified teachers to supply the number of fired/pushed out/ harassed/devastated/harmed/exhausted/insulted/outraged….dedicated RealTeachers leaving the profession. Chew them up and spit them out! That’s the idea!
Gates will have a replica of Doc-in-a-Box 5week Quick-forward-teacher prep program at every corner in US, providing a constant feed to doc-in-a-box charters at every corner. Could eventually have giant network of CVS-like charters run by one corporation. Who knows? Wherever my outraged mind takes me with this nightmare of a euthanized teaching profession…it is not good. Not about kids and education. All about $$, and teachers do not care much about $$, because we went into this job for the love of kids.
A couple of years ago this would have sounded radical to me –unfounded conspiracy theorizing. Alas the more I’ve learned, the clearer it is that your description is spot on.
The situation would not be as bad if the deformers would come out and say CVS and Walmart are great models for schooling the 99%. Instead in classic authoritarian fashion, the likes of Bill Gates and Rupert Murdoch and Eli Broad claim they care only about raising standards when, whatever their motivations, the only real effects of their efforts are to rake in millions for testing companies while driving the best teachers out of the schools where they are most desperately needed (or out of the profession altogether). Shame on our society for this utterly disgraceful episode in our national history.
You know the spineless politicians won’t stop it from happening.
“Shame on our society?” Working citizens are tired and they are demoralized. They’ve been robbed of optimism, and even hope, so, they’ve turned to fear. The media offers propaganda, where acronyms and messages mislead them, for example, destroying Social Security, in the guise of making it solvent.
ALEC wines and dines our state congresses. How does society overcome that? 80 U.S. Senators met with Bill Gates, so he could share his vision. How does society overcome that?
The American people are generous and hard-working. The plutocrats are ugly blights on society. The goal has to be to excise them. The question is, what method to use, to destroy the plutocrat’s goal of a divided nation.
I just forwarded this to board members and the superintendent. From what I understand teachers at a school with the majority of children in poverty and second language learners are going to be moved, due to low test scores.
This is very disturbing to me and as stated in this article, teachers are not the the problem.
Marian,
This is going on all over the country. In my district, they are closing or “renewing” so called low performing schools. Teachers have to interview to be rehired for their positions. Most teachers are replaced by novices who are often TFA. Test scores have not risen appreciably and in one particular school scores went down! All of these schools are populated by high poverty students. They may also have large populations of English Language Learners and Special Education students,
Schneider writes:
“If assertions about the poor academic preparation of American teachers were accurate, the policy fix would be easy.”
Is it clear to anyone else (because it’s not clear to me) what the easy policy fix to this problem would be?
Totally true that Ivy League recruiting is not required. Fact is urban education is highly distorted in hiring because the districts needed outside recruiting to stem the ebb — and now are locked in, over the last ten yrs, to a recruiting pattern that cannot do without the altcert path. The churn has just moved.
I heard the best comment the other day…if a teacher is “dead wood” then the administration hired them as dead wood or “killed” them….either way the administration is the gate keeper to hiring and firings.
Administrators hire saplings, and often fail to support and nurture their development and growth. Lack of teaching experience on the part of many administrators is a very real problem which could easily be legislated away.
Agreed. I have seen too many administrators that were only in the classroom for 1-3 years and then elevated to an administrative position because they “know” someone, not because they were good at what they do.
NYTeacher…I wrote something based on your comment about saplings and another blogger comment that referenced trees.
Here it is:
http://davidrtayloreducation.wordpress.com/2014/04/16/your-teachers-are-trees/
There are a segment of public schools (in NYC they’re public anyway) that can demand parent involvement. But most of the readers of this blog would rather swallow their foot than give credit where credit is clearly due.
Many (not all) charters that are successful have become that way by hiring and nurturing great teachers and while demanding parent involvement. All you have to do is open your eyes and your mind and you can start to learn some strategies and tactics that can improve schools.
Amanda that is exactly the point. Most schools give their best effort to hire the best available people to do the best job.
Some of the “deformers” would like us to believe that schools try to hire incompetent, lazy, and uncaring teachers….not true.
This is so true. what administrator in their right mind would want to hire a headache? or sabatoge their staff? Often lost in the discussion is the point that excellence is rare in all fields. Why are baseball hitters so bad at what they do? And why don’t GMs hire players who can all hit over .320?
Because in MLB a 70% failure rate is considered good….lol.
In the NBA a 50% field goal (2pt) shooting percentage is considered good, 33% from behind the 3pt line is considered good.
Yet we hold our students to a standard that might be………..
In all fairness, there are many teachers who are hired because their daddy is friends with the superintendent or because they were in the same sorority as a school board member. Using classrooms for political patronage jobs is not exactly unheard of, either.
That was very true “back in the day” Small districts are filled with teachers who graduated from the same system. As my old college professor taught me many moons ago, there’s nothing at all wrong with nepotism if the candidate is qualified.
I think your cause and effect is a bit muddled. Charters take the students whose parents can be “demanded” to be involved. There are many parents who can’t or won’t be involved. Guess where those parents’ children go?
I’ve worked in two charters. They have low pay, poor benefits, and overall poor treatment of teachers. That is why I don’t believe for one minute that somehow charters are magically better. It is insulting to imply people who work in regular public schools don’t care, etc. and all of the charter people do.
Great article. Bingo! This really sums it all up points well made here…”Economists say that the family accounts for about 60% of academic outcomes, the teacher about 10-15%. The Status Quo doesn’t like to put those numbers out because it might persuade the public that our society should do more to improve the lives of families, communities, and children…”
Right now México is undergoing several major reforms, one is on Labor and many say hidden as an Educative Reform. The Teacher’s official Union SNTE had hold the Education’s control over many aspects, one of them, the hireing of teachers with a life teneure. México became part of the OCDE in1994 but it is until now that the real changes are happening due to this Reform most of veteran teachers are retireing not only from classrooms but from the Supervisions and the Education Secretary itself which is run by teachers since the State conviniently let them run all the Educaton system from inside to the outside. Now teachers will be evaluated and be given 3 chances to fail then if they do so they will be removed from the classrooms and given two choices, to remain as an administrative worker or to voluntarely retire. This issue has a very dark side with side damage such as the one done onto compromised teachers mostly rural who work under low paiment and dangerous conditions.
Sounds like you’ve been hit by the neoliberal global reform garbage.
I regularly beg teachers to stay the course. The truth will out eventually, this climate of scape-goating teachers can’t last. When enough of us parents get a clue about the propaganda and lies emanating from deformers and the politicians they fund, this era will end — like McCarthyism, a similar moment of national hysteria, did.
Wait until they start seeing their public schools damaged by for-profit charters. Maybe then they will finally see the light.
Reblogged this on rjknudsen.