The National Center for Research on Education Access and Choice (REACH), formerly known as the Education Research Alliance, released its first report after having been funded by Betsy DeVos with $10 million to study the effects of choice in schools. REACH used value-added methodology (judging teachers by the test score gains of their students to determine that those who got the highest VAM scores were likeliest to stay. It is safe to assume that these teachers were in the highest-scoring charter schools. On the other hand, the teachers with the lowest scores (no doubt, in the lowest-performing schools) were turning over at a high rate. The study’s conclusion is that (some) charters are keeping their best teachers (those with the highest VAM ratings) but (some) charters are not, which since they don’t get high VAM scores, is not a big deal.
We are excited to announce the release of the first study from the National Center for Research on Education Access and Choice (REACH). Naturally, the subject of this study is one that’s considered the most important factor in school success: teachers.
New Orleans is the first all-charter school district in the country. This makes the city the first where schools are held strictly accountable for performance, where many employers in close proximity compete for teachers, and where schools have the ability to respond to these pressures with almost complete autonomy over school personnel. If school reform advocates are right, we would expect these policy changes to produce major change in the teacher labor market. Did this happen?
To answer this question, researchers Nathan Barrett, Deven Carlson, Douglas N. Harris, and Jane Arnold Lincove compared New Orleans to similar neighboring districts from 2010 to 2015, using student test score growth to measure teacher performance. They drew the following conclusions:
Teacher retention is more closely related to teacher performance in New Orleans than in traditional public school districts. Lower performing teachers in New Orleans are 2.5 times more likely to leave their school than high-performing teachers, compared with only 1.9 times in similar neighboring districts.
The stronger link between retention and performance might imply that teacher quality would improve faster in New Orleans than in similar districts. However, this is not the case. The difference in average teacher performance between New Orleans and comparison districts remained essentially unchanged between 2010 and 2015. This is apparently because of the larger share of new teachers in New Orleans, whose lower quality roughly offsets the city’s advantages in retaining higher performing teachers.
The stronger retention-performance link in New Orleans is somewhat related to financial rewards, though not in a way that is likely to increase the overall quality of teaching. We find that higher performing teachers only receive pay increases when they switch schools, which may increase teacher turnover. High-performing teachers do not receive raises for performance when they stay in the same school.
These findings highlight the complexities of policies intended to increase the quality of teaching. Future studies will build on this work by examining how performance-based school closures affect the teacher labor market.
Read the policy brief here or the full technical report here.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Since this study is based on VAM, and VAM is based on tests, and the tests (such as they are) are based on standards, and standards are based on vague opinions, it would appear that the house is built on the sand.
I can tell you without study, that successful teachers end up teaching the best students, whether I charters or elsewhere. Nobody wants to confront constant failure, so students who are difficult to teach go through a lot of teachers. We do not need a study to know that. Nor do we need a study to know that the teachers who stick it out and try to teach the hard-to-reach deserve a thanks from all of us.
“…and standards are based on vague opinions…” THERE IT IS.
This just in:
Among other things, teachers who are fired because of low VAM scores are least likely to stay and those who are not fired (because they have high VAM scores) are more likely to stay.
“This is apparently because of the larger share of new teachers in New Orleans, whose lower quality roughly offsets the city’s advantages in retaining higher performing teachers.”
That’s quite an admission by ed reformers, that experience matters. But doesn’t it fly in the face of everything they’ve been claiming for 20 years?
VAM. Ugh. Bad memories of the 2009 financial crash.
We’ll know more going into this next virus-related financial collapse. We’ll be wise to attempts to impose the ed reform agenda under the guise of “assistance” for public schools this time around. Schools should not accept funding assistance that comes with ed reform conditions on vouchers, charters, or teacher measurements.
Learn a lesson. Don’t make the same mistakes again. The same echo chamber ed reformer members are still in power and they’ll use the upcoming economic hardships as an excuse to impose The Agenda, NONE of which will benefit public school students. Don’t fall for it again. Tell them thanks but no thanks. Parents and students will be grateful.
Before we accept the conclusions of this report, expert researchers should go over the “study” with a fine tooth comb. We have seen so many similar claims from proponents of charters melt away when researchers analyzed the results. Some of the deficiencies have been false assumptions or conclusions, confusion between correlation and causation and too small samples, to name just a few. Any claims of VAM should be scrutinized carefully as VAM itself has been shown to not have a solid foundation in science, and a New York judge has declared this so-called science as capricious. As Diane points out in her title, the “best” teachers tend to stay in the “best” charters where most of the city’s affluent children attend. Another title could be “It Is Easier to Retain Teachers When There Is No Competition from a Unionized Labor Force.”
The title of this anti-union, anti certification promotional piece for charters and Teach for Awile amateurs, and market-based education is:
“When the Walls Come Down: Evidence on Charter Schools’ Ability to Keep Their Best Teachers Without Unions and Certification Rules.”
I don’t think you need to read the rest of the report. There are 103 references to value-added metrics (VAM), known to be invalid. Teacher “quality” is reduced to an average of test scores in four subjects (reading, math, science, and social studies) in grades 4-8.
The most depressing thing about this worthless biased study is that we paid for it.
“This report is a project of the National Center for Research on Education Access and Choice (REACH), which is fully funded by the Institute of Education Sciences at the U.S. Department of Education under grant R305C180025.”
Now the Department of Education is promoting fake research to promote privatization, which is both sad, misleading and unprofessional.
“Paid for”…Douglas Harris’ education center received funding from John Arnold’s Foundation as did Michigan State’s education center
(both received REACH grants).
Well, two can play at this game. Want to use test scores and standardized tests to rank teachers? Ok…
US NEWS revered yet dreaded rankings are based on standardized tests and other standard measures and graduation. (see below)
NCES – National Center for Education Statistics – uses multiple measures to assess rigor and quality of standards included the revered yet dreaded NAEP comparison. (see below)
So which state comes in LAST in ranking based on these comparisons? Wait for it…
LOUISIANA
So sure, the REACH study can tout that teachers whose kids get better test scores are better teachers and they stay in their schools longer than others.
Nothing against the teachers – most are probably dedicated and care about kids – – however, playing their statistical game, they’re saying the best of the worst stayed longer in teaching than the worst of the worst.
And, assuming that many of these teachers are not “worst” – if they were allowed to be creative, innovative, and project-based – to use readers/writers workshop, dialogue, problem-solving / making meaning methods – to building on prior knowledge and closing those conceptual gaps – and infusing standards (nothing wrong with standards) rather than isolating chunks of basics – – – they might even move out those bottom categoires.
,
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings/education
USNEWS Best States for Education based on standardized measures and graduation rates with sub-categories. BRINGING UP THE BOTTOM at#48…LOUISIANA
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings/education
States that had standards that were below the NAEP BASIC Level. Of 47 States, 4 still had standards below NAEP Basic. And, coming in last of all states’ rigor and still below basic NAEP… LOUISIANA at #48
Click to access 2018159.pdf
The COO for Eric Schmidt’s think tank, New America, was active in New Orleans during the privatization campaign. (Schmidt is Google)
There won’t be school for a while. Talk more about learning at home,
I read your posts daily and fully your support you position, but this one is insulting to all the Academic researchers who work tirelessly to help us figure out the best way to teach reading. All good quality research is Science. We can’t become Science deniers because we don’t like the outcome of any particular study. Research into education is vast and complicated, but I hope done without bias. We should be able to use good quality research to teach in the most effective ways keeping in mind that all children are different. The best way to teach any child to read is to have that child have a good relationship with a good teacher. Good teachers read research. Good research is Science. Research on reading is Reading Science and shouldn’t be politcized.
Here’s the rub: You seem to accept implicit definitions without question. When you write “All good quality research is Science”, who determines what good quality is and if it is valid through peer review. Do I become a “denier” when a research conclusion is drawn into question because of flawed methodology, tainted processes, or ideology based on belief and/or money? I would argue “the best way to teach any child to read” is also just a plain wrong statement. Teaching is the easy part. Understanding, interpreting, internalizing, appreciating, putting into context, having access to good books. Those are the the things a good reader must have. A teacher may or may not have influence on this, but a teacher can’t do it alone or based on some formula. Teachers have to get to know their students and figure out what’s best for them, but they’re one part of a larger cosmos. Anecdotally, that’s pretty much how I and every good reader I know “learned” how to read. But when it comes to “Science” and reading, you can get there in more ways than you can from here to Timbuktu. We shouldn’t mistake one size fits some for one size fits all.
I have a strongly favorable opinion of phonics. I have written many articles favoring phonics instruction. But many children learn to read without any phonics instruction. I think that advocates of phonics, among whom I usually include myself but not in this instance, have usurped the term “science” to delegitimate those who don’t agree with them. My own view: all reading teachers need a toolbox of methods so they can reach every child. Phonics should be one of those tools, but not the only one.
I don’t believe there is a science of teaching history, a science of teaching math, or a science of teaching any discipline or study.
“done without bias”, underpinned by your hope-
Prior to the decision by Gates, Walton heirs and Arnold et al to self-appoint and spend billions to reform education, did they share your lofty view, Beth?
Check out Gates-funded SETDA, how does that impact Main Street vs. Wall Street?
There is a cottage industry for faculty plotting correlation research to affirm a point that they and/or their funders want to make.
Read Philanthropy Roundtable’s, “Don’t Surrender the Academy”, co-written by Frederic Hess and a manager of a Gates-funded ed organization. Hess claims that reformers wanted to “blow up” ed schools and he recommended, as an alternative, donor funding for schools of education. Also in Philanthropy Roundtable, the founder of 4 ed organizations funded by Gates, stated the goal of charter organizations was “…brands on a large scale”.
A university researcher who takes a plutocrat’s money, especially from a wealthy person who has an agenda, devalues him/herself and the mission of the college. The faculty member should be transparent in listing grants and amounts, deserves to be under a magnifying glass and, to be viewed with suspicion/disdain- IMO.
Off topic- I recommend the research of UnKochMyCampus.org.
The primary finder of education policy and research at the American Enterprise Institute is the Dick and Betsy DeVos Foundation.
Of course it is.