The Albert Shanker Blog posted the findings of a study about the importance of school contexts in retaining teachers and helping improve their practice.
Matthew Di Carlo introduces the scholars:
“Our guest authors today are Matthew A. Kraft and John P. Papay. Kraft is an Assistant Professor of Education at Brown University. Papay is an Assistant Professor of Education and Economics at Brown University. In 2015, they received the American Educational Research Association Palmer O. Johnson Memorial Award for the research discussed in this essay.”
The authors write:
“When you study education policy, the inevitable question about what you do for a living always gets the conversation going. Controversies over teachers unions, charter schools, and standardized testing provide plenty of fodder for lively debates. People often are eager to share their own experiences about individual teachers who profoundly shaped their lives or were less than inspiring.
“A large body of research confirms this common experience – teachers have large effects on students’ learning, and some teachers are far more effective than others. What is largely absent in these conversations, and in the scholarly literature, is a recognition of how these teachers are also supported or constrained by the organizational contexts in which they teach.
“The absence of an organizational perspective on teacher effectiveness leads to narrow dinner conversations and misinformed policy. We tend to ascribe teachers’ career decisions to the students they teach rather than the conditions in which they work. We treat teachers as if their effectiveness is mostly fixed, always portable, and independent of school context. As a result, we rarely complement personnel reforms with organizational reforms that could benefit both teachers and students.
“An emerging body of research now shows that the contexts in which teachers work profoundly shape teachers’ job decisions and their effectiveness. Put simply, teachers who work in supportive contexts stay in the classroom longer, and improve at faster rates, than their peers in less-supportive environments. And, what appear to matter most about the school context are not the traditional working conditions we often think of, such as modern facilities and well-equipped classrooms. Instead, aspects that are difficult to observe and measure seem to be most influential, including the quality of relationships and collaboration among staff, the responsiveness of school administrators, and the academic and behavioral expectations for students…..”

this is a neat study – it makes sense too that those teachers who are nurturing types would care much about the environment surrounding them because they know how much it ultimately affects the kids! from a personal standpoint, I know how much the “powers that be” & their decisions can make my daily classroom experiences a joy or a living hell!
LikeLike
The business world has known this at least since Alfie Kohn wrote PUNISHED BY REWARDS. When managers are surveyed, they always assume that salary is the most important factor for employees. But when employees are surveyed, salary ranks fairly low, well below various working conditions issues, especially autonomy and respect, collaboration and interesting work content.
LikeLike
Compensation is an interesting thing. Companies use the fact salary is not a top factor as justification for cutting pay and minimum wage jobs. But relative salaries are very important. Finding out the CEO’s nephew is being paid twice what others get starts an office civil war. Plus there is a sweet spot on compensation. Some people are never satisfied even with billions. But most people are content when they earn enough for a decent middle class life and security. Pay people too much, and they feel entitled as the 1%ers do.
I do agree there are many factors. Sadly, the view of most conservative leaders is you are either a “job creating industrialist” or a “taker”. If the latter, the idea seems to be that beatings must continue until performance improves. It is the prevailing misanthropic view of teachers by Reformers, rather than a more positive view of human nature and work.
LikeLike
Amen! At last!
LikeLike
Consider the work of: W. Edwards Deming. http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/nov92/vol50/num03/On-Deming-and-School-Quality@-A-Conversation-with-Enid-Brown.aspx
Also read Combs work re: Qualities of an Effective Teacher.
Click to access Manual103.pdf
We have gone BACKWARDS, not forward.
LikeLike
Good to see the affirmation of this common sense observation of many of us university types whose job it has been to visit classrooms and work with practicing teachers. Huzza for Kraft and Papay!
LikeLike
Bad working conditions for teachers–>bad working conditions for students
LikeLike
Gee, where have I heard that before…
LikeLike
Forewarned. This is not a study I love.
Let’s go back to the beginning statement…. “teachers have large effects on students’ learning, and some teachers are far more effective than others.”
What are these “effects?” And who has decided some teachers are better at producing them and therefore are “effective.”
The opening statement sounds a lot like the common circular reasoning where “large effects” are charted in test scores in a few of the subjects for which VAM can be calculated, and then those effects are treated as if they are sufficient to make claims about teacher “effectiveness” on all matters, in all subjects, and for a lifetime.
If I am impatient with the opening it is because this language is repeated over and over again in the absence of any fresh look at how “effectiveness” is defined.
Not long ago I got a hand-written letter from fifty-year old architect who was looking for his fifth grade teacher—deceased. He wanted to thank for her for making a life changing difference in what she had taught him about the difference between legal proof and social justice. Where is the test that measures that “effect?”
How about a high school teacher who has won a stack of professional awards from peers, but who teaches a subject and grade level for which there are not a bunch of standardized tests and VAM?
Bottom line. I think the doctrine of accountability in education and quest for “best practices” has been built around intentionally misleading language, with meanings regarded as self-evident—terms that cannot withstand critical scrutiny. That habit of mind makes for a lot of junk science. It also makes for really weird notions about teachers who “improve at faster rates” than others at at higher percentage rates than others. Thus, Figure 2 is explained: “We found that teachers working in schools with strong professional environments improved, over 10 years, 38 percent more than teachers in schools with weak professional environments.”
What does improvement mean beyond plotting the trajectory of the almighty test score over time? Do I get an upgrade in my running shoes if exceed some expected rate of improvement?
All of this posturing about “effectiveness” seems to come from crunching available scores from standardized tests. The easy-to-find data sets are for math, ELA, occasionally science, rarely social studies, so in effect, no one looks at or cares about what else may be worthy of study and whether the absence of those studies might be important. Figure 2 is graphed with math scores only, but the generalizations are sweeping. Why are math scores regarded as a good-enough proxy for generalizations about the work of all teachers of all subjects, and as if nothing in ten years or more of work experience or school policies had really changed?
The easy-to-find and easy-to-crunch test scores tend to be treated as if they are both necessary and sufficient for outrageous claims about teacher effectiveness. This is educational research on the cheap, made easy with handy numbers to crunch, not full spectrum inquiry. The more compelling part of this study comes from looking at teacher turnover as a function of working conditions (even if the researchers inexplicably choose to exclude the physical environment of the school and the neighborhood in which it is located).
The researchers developed six measures of a “professional” work environment drawn from teacher surveys. The key conditions defining professional working conditions are: consistent order and discipline; opportunities for peer collaboration; supportive principal leadership; effective professional development; a school culture characterized by trust; and a fair teacher evaluation process providing meaningful feedback. These qualities matter (are said to predict) teacher retention rates (Figure 1).
But then the researchers jump to another conclusion: that “the high rates of teacher turnover we observe in schools that serve large populations of low-income and minority students are largely explained by the poor working conditions in these schools – not the students they serve.
This inferential leap is made by possible by not saying what “largely explained” means. Schools with a high proportion of low-income and minority students may also be schools in unsafe neighborhoods. If these students have chronically poor test scores they are likely to be placed in classrooms where teachers are subject to high levels of surveillance and micromanagement in addition to receiving “trainings” and interventions (and so on) to raise test scores. The ethos is one of distrust and mandates to do X, Y, and Z. And by the way, you will be stack rated on these (invalid, unreliable measures) of “effectiveness.” Collaborate accordingly.
Personnel management strategies that apply to business have been forced into schools as if school improvement is not much more than a managerial and personnel problem. There is too little regard for the communal character of the school as an institution and the parent-like duties brought into play with “clients” who are not yet of age. There are also degrees of freedom in rule-formation for governance and self-governance not determined entirely by roles, as seen in top-down-mandates galore, gone wild, and with principals caught in a maze of these mandates along with teachers.
For these reasons I question the opinion voiced by these researchers that “Hiring principals who have the ability to identify organizational weaknesses, establish school-wide systems to support teachers and students, and galvanize the collective buy-in and involvement of all teachers is a central lever for improving the teaching and learning environment.”
The “collective buy-in” language offends me and I suspect other teachers. Teacher “involvement” may simply mean agree with the principal or else. I am still thinking about the meaning of galvanizing, and how a central lever works to improve teaching and learning.
It is probably true that facilities and resources will not seem to matter if your research is about personnel management and workforce turnover. But I think that nothing is more demoralizing for teachers, students, and the community than to imply that the condition of a building and availability of needed supplies and equipment are NOT on the same level of importance as mutually supportive social and professional relationships.
After muddling through the language in this research report I am wondering if the bottom line is not just another version of saying “Just hire the right “talent” to get teachers and students in line“ or another version of “throwing more money at schools won’t improve them.”
LikeLike
Excellent and I agree with you!
LikeLike
And comments from people like you, Laura, are another reason why I love this blog! You just brought up all kinds of points I didn’t even consider – thank you!
LikeLike
Laura H. Chapman: yes, examining assumptions and definitions is always critical, if for no other reason than to be sure that one can correctly interpret what is being asserted.
And then consider how questionable or unproven ideas and practices can be slipped in—Trojan Horse-style—by employing certain phrases and terms.
As I see it… One of the pillars of self-proclaimed “education rheephorm” is giving people rheetorical poison pills that are touted as necessary for healthy living. Example: “if you’re going to teach to the test, make sure it’s a test worth teaching to.” But they don’t mean “the tests your teachers make up and personalize and adapt to each student and/or class”—they mean the standardized kind that Pearson et al. make that guarantees $tudent $ucce$$ for a few adults and THEIR OWN CHILDREN at the expense of OTHER PEOPLE’S CHILDREN and their parents and communities. Of course, they consciously fail to make clear that they don’t mean anything like what the majority of people will interpret their words to mean.
And then there’s the “soft bigotry of low expectations”—which the rheephormsters use to viciously bludgeon public school staff but which more aptly describes (in only one of many cases of psychological projection) what the self-appointed leaders of the “new civil rights movement of our time” think of public school staffs and students and parents and their associated communities. If it’s a public school (you know, not a “public charter”) then it’s automatically a “factory of failure” and a “drop out factory” and for some of the biggest heavyweights in the corporate education reform “big gubmint monopoly schools” that need to be displaced and replaced and eliminated.
I thank you and others on this thread for their comments.
😎
LikeLike
Laura Chapman,
I have the same reaction to the “effectiveness” literature
LikeLike
Agreed that such number scrunching should be backed up by “soft data.” Interview and survey representative samples of participants. Use detailed observational records. Certainly the study should be replicated and perhaps refined although I don’t see anyone throwing money at peer reviewed, educational research.
LikeLike
How about showing up for work and finding out you are suddenly unemployed and your employer has stolen your pay that you asked them to save for summer income? Yet another charter scandal in Florida.
Talk about working conditions affecting teachers and students!
http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2015-05-25/story/after-duval-charter-school-closes-many-ask-wheres-money
LikeLike
Hmm… I cannot think of anything that would affect my working conditions/job satisfaction more than they students I teach. Supplies and physical conditions would come second to that.
LikeLike
my students are always #1, but when administration targets fellow colleagues unfairly that certainly affects the working conditions for all, teachers & students! I worked under a superintendent that upset one teacher so much that individual crashed his car & died; another one had a long drawn-out legal battle that she won… thank heavens the union supported her the entire way – this was an excellent outspoken veteran teacher who had to defend herself against trumped up b.s. – in addition, the super hired private investigators to follow teachers – that “witch hunt” was unbelievable! ALL positions were in jeopardy under that reign of terror…
LikeLike
Oh, I do see your point. I had a breakdown in the fall of 2011 because of what my principal had been doing to me for the past 3 years, with the support of the assistant superintendent and head of guidance. But the main thing he was doing was denying me the classes I worked best with. So in the end, it really did come down the the students in the classroom. And anyway, my statement regarded only me, as I cand all of us really have only our own experience from which to speak.
Your reign of terror sound like ours from 2009 – 2013; it isn’t at ALL unbelievable to me. It’s just that my breaking point came when I saw the students who should be heading into my room going in another direction.
I am glad we are both in at least somewhat better circumstances today.
LikeLike
Here is a great video on the state of education given by Dr. Carol Burris:www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-o6bYClIok Share on your facebook page!
LikeLike
Reblogged this on David R. Taylor-Thoughts on Texas Education.
LikeLike
“It is probably true that facilities and resources will not seem to matter if your research is about personnel management and workforce turnover. But I think that nothing is more demoralizing for teachers, students, and the community than to imply that the condition of a building and availability of needed supplies and equipment are NOT on the same level of importance as mutually supportive social and professional relationships.”
Really? Think about it. Those relationships are key. State of the art facilities are not going to keep me in a place if the culture is not socially and professionally supportive. People will work together under pretty poor conditions for an organization that places value on them as individuals and as professionals through the way they treat employees and the way they encourage employees to treat each other. Now if an organization shows disrespect for their employees by diverting funding to their own uses, that is something different.
LikeLike
Does the possibility of bricks falling on your head count as part of working conditions?
See the LATIMES for an opinion piece by Steve Lopez that reminds me of Bob Herbert’s LOSING OUR WAY (2014)—
Link: http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-0607-lopez-fallingapart-20150606-column.html
😎
LikeLike
Yeah, KTA, a sympathetic colleague cradling my bleeding head would probably not make up for the fact that dodging bricks was part of the daily work ritual. My husband gave up on engineering years ago as engineering firms reduced and closed departments devoted to nonexistent infrastructure projects. Perhaps the Soviets were lucky that we outspent them in the superpower race. They would do well to let us spend ourselves into oblivion trying to “make the world safe for democracy.” Right now all we seem to be doing is making it profitable for the military-industrial complex and their associated plutocrats.
LikeLike
Yes. And heat in winter. Although the school was in L. A., It was uncomfortable for two years wearing a coat while teaching while being told the heating system would be ready soon. But hey, the district gave the school an award for saving energy!
LikeLike
Here’s a tweet from the Edushyster, at a Boston Teachers Union workshop on Saturday:
“The Boston high school of the future will have heat and no mice. #dreams”
followed by
“I missed the dreamers who requested potable water!”
Yes, it really is that bad.
LikeLike
I was a student of Professor Papay, and I wanted to note here that he was an incredible teacher. Even though he was well published and very busy with research, he put huge amounts of energy and care into teaching. From my understanding, this report can help combat the idea that teacher turnover is a “secret sauce” solution to failing schools- what we need is an environment that supports teachers- including resources for Students, trust among colleagues, and responsiveness from administrators.
LikeLike
This study is trying to reach people who won’t listen.
The so-called reformers don’t care about effective teaching, unless by that you mean increased tests scores, and they have no interest whatsoever in retaining teachers. On the contrary, they want nothing more than a minimally-prepared, constantly-churned, temporary, at-will work force in the schools.
Look no further than their precious charter schools, with their 50%-plus teacher turnover rates per year, for proof of that.,
LikeLike