Myra Blackmon, a regular education columnist for Online Athens (Georgia), “almost choked” when she read that Governor Nathan Deal’s education advisor said about the governor’s “reform” commission, “if the group doesn’t recommend doing away with paying for training and experience, then I’m not sure that we’re going to change anything about the way business is done.”
Blackmon pointed out quite correctly that experience matters in teaching as it does in every other important job or profession. So do advanced degrees, as they represent greater knowledge for the teacher of what he or she is teaching. She asks: “Who do we want teaching our children”?
She writes, with more commonsense and knowledge that either Governor Deal or his “expert” education advisor:
First, the assumption that standardized test scores are the sole measure of student achievement is wrong. Standardized tests do a lousy job of measuring in-depth learning. It is very difficult for such tests to assess how well a student understands concepts, applies them across subjects and integrates them into other learning and into everyday life.
It’s easy to assess how well students can spell and define vocabulary words, but standardized tests don’t measure how a student uses those words in conversation, helps others understand what they mean or uses them in an essay in another course.
Second is the assumption that teachers are all that matter in a child’s learning, and that if a child has trouble learning, absent diagnosed disabilities that prevent it, that is all because of the teacher. If you believe that, you know little about the realities of poor children’s lives or the decades of research and documentation about how they learn.
Everything I’ve read says that socioeconomic status is the single largest contributing factor to a child’s academic performance. Poor children start school behind in vocabulary, basic readiness measures and the social skills that kids need to learn in a classroom setting.
My own experience in public schools and my conversations with dozens of teachers in many states confirms what the researchers tell us. A child entering pre-school who has had learning-oriented day care, been read to extensively and had enriching life experiences like travel, is already way ahead of the one who doesn’t know colors, or even how to hold a book. I have seen these children struggle from the first day. It is heartbreaking.
The third assumption is that teaching is simply a technical skill that can be learned by anyone in a relatively short period of time. It is not. Teaching is a complex process that requires understanding of the different ways in which children learn, how to apply multiple teaching methods based on individual needs, how to accurately assess learning and how to respond to the needs of 20 or more children at the same time.
I reject those assumptions, so I reject the premise that we don’t really need to compensate teachers for advanced degrees or years of experience.
Do you want your child taught by the teen next door? By someone who dropped out of high school? By someone who never taught before? Or would you prefer to have an experienced and credentialed teacher?

This is another example of the irresponsible ignorance of those leading our country. They will have to find out the hard way that they have mismanaged the education of future voters.
LikeLike
This has nothing to do with our country; this is about Georgia and this attempt to further hurt Georgia’s students is being led by the Governor.
LikeLike
Well if experience and education don’t matter why do we make doctors and lawyers go through the years of training? This has got to be one of the dumbest things I’ve heard during the “reform” years.
LikeLike
This is a feature not a bug. Ideally they want children on monitors at home so they do not have to spend moneyi on education. With automation there will be fewer jobs so less education will be needed. The wealthy will have private schools, the rest will have the largesse of the wealthy and will be told to shut up and be happy.
LikeLike
Do you want your child taught by the teen next door? By someone who dropped out of high school? By someone who never taught before? Or would you prefer to have an experienced and credentialed teacher?
Here’s a big part of our problem. Everyone wants an experienced, effective teacher for his/her children. But only a very small percentage of Americans care about the quality of schools attended by other people’s children. This is especially so when reinforced by the various dividing factors: race, income, region, etc. Sure, when a pollster asked them if they care, they do say they care. But when you look at what they do, how they vote, the only reasonable inference is that Americans only care about their own.
LikeLike
Public school districts, particularly in large cities, have an astonishingly low regard for both teachers and parents. They clearly think we’re both idiots: http://windycityteachers.blogspot.com/2015/08/cpss-opinion-of-parents-and-teachers.html
LikeLike
Years of experience and advanced degrees mean nothing in teaching anymore. Veteran teachers, like myself, are no longer respected. We are viewed as an expensive entity which can be replaced by two much better younger teachers. Like I’ve said many times, everyone, sooner or later, will turn 40 years old. Teaching is the only career which is disgusted by its older staff. Many states, like Ohio, have made older staff feel that they are lazy, do not work hard, do not know effective strategies in teaching, and are “lucky” to have a job until retirement. We all know that just the opposite is true. Older teachers, like myself, are some of the last teachers to turn off the lights and leave the building in the evenings. Veteran teachers, like myself, retire with low self esteem. It is all sad, because it was not always like this.
LikeLike
This is not at all surprising. The whole deform movement is predicated on the notion that teachers do not matter. The fundamental “disruptive idea” is that students can be educated and their progress tracked via computer, and from this it follows that one can hire a few aides to walk around and make sure that the kids are bent over their screens and save a lot of money.
What’s missed in all this, of course, is that education has always been a transaction between human beings, one in which experienced people transmit their culture to inexperienced, younger people via personal interactions. Mr. Gates is fond of “deep history.” Well, personal transaction is the way we’ve been doing education for 250,000 years now–from the paleolithic forager telling the younger ones when to gather the pine nuts or showing them where to find the morels to the professor walking her seminar students through the dense thicket that is Heidegger.
One meddles with these ancient paradigms, tempered over millennia in the crucible of human experience, at great peril.
Disruptive? Yes. Like Mt. Tambora in 1815. Like the plague.
LikeLike
I just retired after 40 years of teaching in Georgia. I am deeply saddened at the prospect of being replaced by … umm, NO ONE. Who in his/her right mind would want to enter a field where energy, creativity, intellect, experience, and a love of humans is not respected? Why would anyone want to be subjected to the whimsical comings and goings that accompany the literal purchase of our public education system? Our ship is sinking and none of our young passengers have been allowed to learn to swim except via their computers.
LikeLike
Of course, education pundits and school districts are partly responsible for creating a situation in which this disregard for older teachers is commonplace, for they have, for many decades now, emphasized trainings in the latest strategies over knowledge of the subject one is to teach. So, people have started thinking of the teacher not as someone with more or less accumulated knowledge of American history, Earth science, American literature, or whatever, but, rather, as someone with more or less knowledge of how to implement jigsaw in the classroom. If it’s all about who knows the latest strategies—Great Grates and Grit and whatever else is hot on the education midway this carnival season—and not at all about the teacher’s accumulated knowledge and understanding of her subject, then of course that older teacher who has spent a lifetime learning about ancient history because, duh, she teaches ancient history is not going to be valued.
Respect for the older teacher with an accumulated lifetime of learning now seems as out-of-date and as rare as manual typewriters and rotary telephones.
When was the last time you heard of a school district giving a “training” for English teachers on, say, transcendentalist literature or the precursors of Romanticism or prosody or structures of the novel or new models of syntactic structure or about ANYTHING having to do with the subject English teachers are purportedly teaching? These two phenomena—the devaluing of older teachers and the de-emphasis on the transmission of knowledge in the classroom—are connected.
LikeLike
The TFA fans don’t care about experience, just your GPA, how you do in power interview and whether you will sign on to a contract as a temp. This devaluating has been aided by economists and statisticians who do some data-mining on the background of teachers and then run some algorithms with test scores produced by the students of the teachers.
A recent article in Educational Research defines teacher quality through a big batch of indicators–experience (as credited for pay in the current district), licensure exam score, and you guessed it, VAM– student scores in math and reading in grades 3 10. Then we learn that the the sample for analysis was limited to teachers in grade 4 and early career teachers “because it is well-known that teachers become more effective over the first few years of their career.”
The research and references show that the construct “teacher quality” has pretty much been defined by economists and statisticians who are preoccupied with treating teachers as more or less productive of test scores and players in a labor market. They seem to be surprised that teachers gravitate to some jobs because they are perceived to be or are actually “better” than others.
This study was funded b the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, an “anonymous foundation,” and a program of the American Institutes for Research (CALDER).
I think savvy readers will ask why a study funded by “an anonymous foundation” should be taken at face value. There is also a credibility issue given the known eagerness of the Gates Foundation to be the “definer in chief” of teacher quality. And there is real integrity issue with studies from economists who continue to use the discredited VAM as a key indicator of teacher quality.
I have concluded that studies of this kind proliferate because they are intended to demean the work of teachers, undermine collective bargaining, and they can be done on the cheap in terms of effort, without a single face-to-face conversation with anyone actually engaged in teaching or responsible for recruiting and mentoring teachers.
See Uneven Playing Field? Assessing the Teacher Quality Gap Between Advantaged and Disadvantaged Students. Goldhaber, D., Lavery, Theobauld, T. (2015).Educational Researcher, 48(5). pp.293-207.
LikeLike
Utterly ridiculous. This is a move that can only be promoted by a Person/group wanting to do away with the public school system….then they can say “look. See. Public education doesn’t work.” Even though it is those same people who messed it up in the first place. They’d like nothing more than to see the privatization of education rather than putting in place the common sense necessities that would make education effective. Quit taking away money, resulting in larger class sizes, lower teacher morale, etc. the whole “well my mommy was a teacher so I care” excuse doesn’t cut it anymore. Politicians making education decisions is the most idiotic thing I’ve ever seen. Please let those who know into the discussion.
LikeLike
Folks, wake up. Deal and his buddies in the legislature care nothing about public education. ALL of their children and grandchildren attend private schools. They are out to cut taxes and cheapen public education. At the same time, they covertly divert money to private schools. Until ALL of them are voted out, we will continue to travel down this road.
LikeLike
Diane/Myra, I would like my children to the taught by a TFA reject!. You see TFA only accepts 10% of its applicants. But if you look at this summary of an updated UNC study (see here for the full report), you can see that TFA teachers beat all other teachers in every category. They are about 5-6 years younger on average but completely blow away the other cohorts.
UNC also found that aptitude matters. They conducted research with the NCTQ to determine if the standards generated by NCTQ helped identify which schools had better outcomes. Results: no effect. However, they found the schools that had higher aptitude applicants (cutoffs were higher) produced teachers with more effective outcomes. Bottom line: higher SATs indicate a better chance of being an effective teacher (no guarantee but a definitely signal).
Any questions?
(Duane/Mamie/Dienee, I realize you don’t believe in science or at least any science that disagrees with your perspective. Maybe you should write to UNC to critique their findings from a scientific perspective.)
LikeLike
Virginiasgp, did you read Julian Vasquez Heilig’s review of the research on TFA? It is far more comprehensive than the one study from UNC. Perhaps you like the fact that the NC legislature abolished the successful 5-year program for NC Teaching Fellows, future teachers committed to teach in NC as a career, and gave its funding to TFA, whose members make only a two-year commitment, then leave?
LikeLike
Diane, it seems from Mr. Heilig’s post on your blog and other writings that he is most upset that many TFA teachers are white. I’m not sure what the color of one’s skin has to do with how well one can teach. In fact, last time I checked, we wanted the best and brightest of all backgrounds to volunteer to teach in urban schools – one of the missions of TFA. I guess Mr. Heilig would like the white teachers to “stay with their own” for some unknown reason.
I often have a conversation with my friends and young students about “scholarships”. Many believe that if you get good grades you “should get” a scholarship. Say what?! Scholarships are issued mostly because the issuer receives something in return. A state school might want to keep its best and brightest at home (and away from those Ivies) to increase its stats (SATs) or hopefully have a future benefactor (when they strike it rich). But schools don’t just give scholarships out of the kindness of their hearts. It’s even worse in sports where the students actually work for that money (don’t get me started on the NCAA). The Ivies and MIT even got caught by the feds colluding so that they wouldn’t have to compete for academically gifted students in the 1990’s. In any case, scholarships can be viewed as marketing or recruitment costs to attract top level talent.
So how does that apply to the NC Teaching Fellows. 1) Do the Fellows represent a superior candidate to the general applicant to NC K-12 schools. Once again, the UNC-based study says no. So now we are left to ask what did it cost to recruit more teachers who did not represent a superior candidate. 2) The cost of recruiting each NC Fellow was the cost of their 4-year scholarship up to $26k. Based on the salary of teachers, I don’t think that is an exorbitant amount but when the other teachers provide similar results, I can understand legislators questioning the wisdom of offering such scholarships.
It appears there are about 100k teachers in K-12 education in NC. Assuming a 30-yr career, that equates to about 3000 teachers per year. The NC Teaching Fellows program supported 500 teachers per year or approximately 16% of the total. I can see an argument that the Fellows program encouraged a greater supply of teachers to enter and represented a non-trivial percentage of the whole. I’m not saying it should be eliminated but I can understand why legislators might not think it was critical when its graduates were not superior teachers.
Diane, the question really comes down to whether you want to promote effective teachers (however you want to measure that) or all folks who want to teach. There are lots of people who would like to play in the NFL, be an astronaut, serve on a submarine, work in finance, or be a doctor. Surely you don’t suggest that just because somebody wants to perform a job that they should be rewarded even if they are not effective at that job, correct? Otherwise, every Johnny, Mike and Tom would be taking turns playing NFL quarterback position simply because they enjoyed it.
Note that I am not against scholarships. The military effectively recruits nearly all its officers on a scholarship basis. The ROTC scholarships pay all tuition and books (not board). And the military academies are even more expensive since they pay for everything. However, such is the cost of recruiting our military’s officers. The federal gov’t does much the same thing when it offers its civilian employees to get graduate degrees on Uncle Sam’s nickel. It’s always a question of whether the education is necessary for the job or just a piece of paper to justify higher pay.
LikeLike
The question, Virginiasgp, is whether you consider teaching to be a profession, whose practitioners receive extensive preparation and intend to make it their career, or whether teaching is a job for temps. If you believe teaching is a job for temps, go with TFA. If you want to build a stable profession with deep experience, avoid TFA and develop programs like the 5-year North Carolina Teaching Fellows. As you know, the NC legislature abolished the career program and replaced it with the temps, to the tune of $5-6 million annually for a revolving door.
LikeLike