Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums GT Research Ignore ACT Reading and Science scores?

A new paper finds that the Reading and Science sections of the ACT have no predictive validity for college grades -- only the English and Mathematics sections do. The ACT is used as a talent search test for 7th graders, and its "younger brother", the EXPLORE, which has the same four sections, is used for students in lower grades. Programs such as Davidson Young Scholars should study if a composite using only the English and Math scores is better for selection purposes.

http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/devin.pope/research/pdf/Final%20AEJ%20Paper.pdf
Improving College Performance and Retention
the Easy Way: Unpacking the ACT Exam
Eric P. Bettinger
Stanford University and NBER
Brent Evans
Stanford University
Devin G. Pope
University of Chicago and NBER
May 2011
Abstract
Improving college performance and retention can be difficult. We propose a simple and low-cost change in the way colleges use the ACT exam in their admission decisions that can greatly increase their ability to identify students at a high risk of under-performing and dropping out. Specifically, we show that only two of the four sub tests of the ACT, English and Mathematics, can effectively predict outcomes in college. This result is robust across various samples, specifications and outcome measures. We demonstrate that by eliminating the noise associated with the two non-predictive sub tests, student-college matches can be significantly improved.

My dd got almost the same score on reading and english, so I guess that I don't need to worry about the reading part not being predictive for her. She usually gets a slightly higher score on English (EXPLORE, ACT) than reading anyway. In fact, I think that her English scores have always been a bit higher.

I find it interesting that the parts of the test that rely more on the ability to apply standard rules and algorithms correlate more highly with college success than the parts that require analysis and interpretation.

Of course, weaknesses in either mathematics or standard written English would have a disproportionate effect on college performance, as mathematics problems solving and writing are the two primary outputs used to evaluate mastery of the curriculum in college courses.

Along the lines of standardized tests, I've been learning about the GRE recently. Did anyone here know that it's impossible to get a GRE score that's three standard deviations from the mean (general and subject tests alike)? That is, except on math, where a perfect score of 800 is at the 94th percentile and therefore isn't even two SDs above the mean. Likewise, you can't go 3 SDs below the mean without going under the lowest possible score of 200.

This document is produced annually by ETS (the folks who write the tests). It shows average GRE scores and standard deviations. For the general Verbal test, the average is 462 and an SD is 119. The 3rd SD would be 819.

This information, which is from a published paper, discusses how many SDs you need to discriminate between strong and weak students (a lot more than two-ish.).

Do most graduate schools in the US rely on GRE scores? It seems to me that the test is terribly watered down and mostly a tool for measuring averageness. This is what we're looking for in graduate students? Averageness?

I don't get it. Well, I do but I don't want to, so I'm blocking.

Val

When I went to graduate school in one of the natural sciences, schools did require the GRE General and the relevant subject test http://www.ets.org/gre/subject/about . I don't think that has changed.

However, the 94th percentile on the GRE isn't the same as the 94th percentile in the general population or even as compared to undergrad students b/c it is a select group that takes the GRE. That group is, presumably, well above average in terms of achievement at least in that they are planning to obtain at least a Masters degree. Being in the top 6% or higher amongst that group is likely indicative of pretty high achievement.

But the point of the test isn't to measure achievement in comparison to the general population. The GRE is supposed to measure achievement among people who are high achievers already: people who did well enough in college to continue on to grad school.

The math section has nothing harder than basic high school geometry: there are no questions about statistics, no trigonometry, and no calculus. Most of the questions are straightforward, with only a few slightly tricky ones.

My feeling is that the GRE fails as a measure of talent or achievement among people who are supposed to be talented high-achievers. It measures averageness. And the quantitative section measures this on junior high and high school math, no less. Verbal is not much better, and the subject tests don't discriminate well either.

If you look at the average scores of people who major in education... well, the numbers are pretty depressing. The results are saying that people who want to become teachers can't do basic algebra and geometry questions, after supposedly having studied these subjects for this test.

Overall, I don't think the scores reported by ETS say much that's good about the aptitude and/or study habits of the majority of test-takers. Plus, even if the super-smart super-high-achievers can only score inside 2 or 3 SDs of the mean, what does that say about the level of cynicism among the people who wrote the test?

I'd agree in regard to the math level of graduate education students but based on a limited sample. I got my Masters in Public Health and took a few graduate classes in the Statistics & Research Methods dept with people who were getting Masters degrees in Education.

When I took the GRE it had three sections: math, verbal, and analytical. I got a nearly perfect score on analytical, close to that on verbal and high on math but not near perfect. In other words, I'm above average in math but not fantastic at it. I clearly recall one of the stats classes where all of the people in the class save for me and one other person couldn't seem to understand the concept of doing the parts of the equation that were within the parenthesis first (PEMDAS -- order of operations). I and the other person who got it spent nearly the entire period going around helping the other students figure out where they needed to start on some rather simple equations.

These people were nearly all Masters in Education students.

Well, you're above average at GRE math! The GRE doesn't measure your ability to find creative new solutions to math problems by thinking slowly and carefully (my other major complaint about the GRE and other standardized tests). It only measures how fast you can crunch a standard set of basic calculations. I understand that this skill is important for some things, but it's not all-important by a long shot.

I found an old document from 1996 that shows that score percentiles have shifted only slightly since then. It says an 800 was the 98th percentile but also says that +2 SD wasn't possible on the test, so interpret as you please there.

Again, even 15 years ago, education majors still scored at the bottom. They had the lowest scores for analytical and quantitative, and were only 3 points higher than the lowest score in verbal (business students scored the lowest there). Not too impressive.

With respect to GRE math, most graduate programs in mathematics require the GRE subject test in math, which is much more challenging and covers all of the material one would go through for a BS in math (calculus, topology, real analysis, set theory...). I'm not sure what other subject exams are given, but it might be that the GRE general exam is used to show competence, and that the subject exam is to differentiate ability.

I'm also a bit dismayed that the education students score so low and are assessing children on abilities in these areas...

Sadly, no. The average score on the mathematics subject test is in the low- to mid-600s, with a standard deviation in the low- to mid-100s. So this year (2011), the average was 650 and the SD was 134. A score of 790 would be about the 84th percentile. For non-US people: the scores range from 200-800.

Some subject tests are even worse: the average score on the chemistry subject test is 700, with an SD of 115. In physics, the average was 692 with an SD of 157 (!). So no score on either of these tests is above average. But you can score -4 SD on chemistry and -3 SD on physics!

It seems wrong to me that you can't be above average on a test, but your poor performance can be in the range 1:10,000. Worse, the scores look like this every year. If they wanted to change things, they would have done so in, say, 1995.


So am I. But it explains a lot.

My bad. I didn't know that the math and physics subject exams had changed from a ceiling of 990 to a ceiling of 800.

Argh! No, I was wrong. They go to 990. My bad.

But you still can't get to a third SD above the mean on most of the subject tests (and you can't even get to +2 SD on physics), which is still not great.

The GRE is pretty much a repeat of the SAT, minus the new writing section, plus the analytical section, which is basically logic games. I needed to take the GRE for admittance into an Economics PhD program, and the school wanted close to perfect scores on the quantitative and analytical and didn't care at all about the verbal. Luckily, I got 800 on both the important sections:) There was an Economics subject GRE, but only a few schools wanted to see scores. Really, I think most graduate programs use the GRE as cross-check of whether the applicant has decent reasoning abilities. They take a much closer look at your grades and the courses you've completed. Graduate programs aren't necessarily looking for students who are more than 2 standard deviations above the mean - they just need people who are smart enough for the work.

Coincidentally, I am currently enrolled in an M.Ed. program for secondary math, and yes it is true that the typical students in education programs do not have stellar scores on the GRE. But, if you consider that teaching is one of the lowest-paid careers that someone would need a master's for, it becomes a little more understandable that the scores would be on the low end. Remember that only college grads who are pursuing higher degrees take the GRE, so that is typically a smart group. If you want to see higher average GRE scores among educators, you are going to have to start treating teachers as professionals. (Not singling anyone out, just the USA in general!)

That was what the GRE looked like when I took it as well and it, like the older version of the SAT, was considered to correlate reasonably well with IQ. The analytical section is now gone and, like the SAT since reformatting, is now considered a straight achievement test not an aptitude test.

Yes, the math subject test is usually only taken by students (BS or MS in mathematics) intending to pursue an MS or PhD in math and is used as a screening for proficiency, as everyone applying did well as an undergraduate/master's program in math. The 2+ sd scores I know of were foreign students whose bachelor's programs covered US MS or PhD courses. I'm not sure what that says about math education in the US...

I have to disagree with you here (for many reasons). I know that there are many very bright and capable teachers out there, but there are too many teachers who aren't like this, plus many good ones get fed up and leave the job.

Note that I'm speaking primarily of teachers in public schools here.

A Master's in Education is a far cry from say, a Master's in biology, history, or physics. An M.Ed. is far less demanding than any of these other three degrees and tends to emphasize fluffy subjects like diversity, social justice, and critical thinking skills. Plus, math and science requirements tend to center on low-end introductory courses. It's not surprising that M.Ed. degrees tend to attract less-than-stellar students. Yet they get the degree and too many seem to expect that the rest of society should defer to them because they have a master's degree. Lots of people have a master's degree. I have a one! But I don't expect anyone to defer to me or even see me as "professional" because of it. My results at work are what make me a professional.

Then there's the problem of pay increases being tied only to seniority. Teaching is one of the few jobs where you can't be rewarded because you're good at your job. Why would a talented, energetic person with other options stay in a job where even the idea of merit pay is controversial?

Teachers as a group also resist the idea of being evaluated or judged on performance. And once a teacher is tenured, that's it. If there are layoffs, a bad tenured teacher with more seniority will displace a good one with less seniority.

Sorry, but I just don't like that system, and I think it attracts (and retains) people who tend toward mediocrity. Surely, you must see some of this stuff among your fellow students.

I am...

And...there aren't mediocre members of every profession? The command of math and science needed to get into med school does not prevent mediocrity in that profession does it? Or do you feel all physicians within a given specialty are equally good at what they do?


First of all, many Masters degrees in education are specialized: reading; technology; math; etc. The types of courses you reference are more likely to be in initial certification coursework (although I've never heard of a social justice requirement). Are they fluff? They can be if not done well, but the reality is that until our college campuses (and teacher ed programs) are demographically much more like our society, they are more important than you might imagine. Perhaps this is less of an issue on the coasts, but in the midwest, there are an awful lot of people who arrive on college campuses from towns where everyone is white, christian and born in the U.S.A. On college campuses they are likely to meet people from other backgrounds, but the people they meet will be educated and most likely from at least a solid middle class background. Television sitcoms, dramas and news shows are poor preparation to work respectfully or effectively with children and families from other backgrounds.


Really? Because with all due respect, you have just deemed some masters degrees less worthy than others and you have written about teachers as if you are in a position to judge the worthiness of a large number of people. I have a hard time believing that you only expect to be seen as a professional based on your results at work (as opposed to your training and preparation). Are your individual results that visible and understandable to people outside of your immediate work environment that they can judge whether or not you are a professional? Or do you only expect to be seen as a professional by your co-workers? I don't know what your field is, but if you aren't a public employee, the question as to whether or not you are a professional probably never even comes up.


A talented, energetic person with other options would stay in a job where the idea of merit pay is controversial because:

She (or he) believes that what she is doing is important, or...

She is good at it and values results more than a bump in pay, or...

She knows that teachers competing against one another is not going to improve results because this is a profession that NEEDS a collaborative spirit. Or...

She does not believe that there are good enough/fair enough ways to measure "merit" and does not want to see teachers penalized for taking on the tough assignments or sticking with the struggling learners.

Or maybe, because when it comes right down to it, she knows that good administrators either bring their teachers up to speed or take effective steps to end their employment; and that if an administrator is not able to observe a teacher often enough to document performance problems, then an administrator also cannot observe each individual teacher often enough to accurately judge who the best teachers really are.


I completely disagree with your assertion that teachers resist being evaluated or judged on performance. Many of us seek evaluative feedback from our supervisors or peers in order to improve our practice. What "peformance" criteria will you use? I guarantee you that my colleague at the school across town, with its 5% poverty rate and homogenous population will look great based on test scores compared to my colleague down the hall in a school with a poverty rate above 80%, a population comprised of four significant racial/ethnic groups, and with 40% of students speaking english as their second language.

Then again, what do I know? I'm just someone who has chosen to be part of a mediocre group of people. Obviously if I had any real intelligence I would abandon my students and go get a real job.

I'd just like to say that getting angry doesn't help discussions of difficult subjects.


Of course there are. I never said there weren't.

The low test scores among future teachers indicate that knowledge of basic number skills, algebra, geometry, vocabulary and other things measured on the GRE and SAT are low average to below average among teachers as a group. Some individuals (e.g. LilMick) may get high scores, but most don't. The same just isn't true for future doctors, scientists, engineers, economists, historians, etc.


I didn't say anything about requirements. I said too much emphasis. Here are some social justice-related education programs around the country (out of 18 million search results for "social justice education"):

Social Justice in Education at UMASS

Teachers for Social Justice (Chicago)

Teaching and Social Justice M.A. in San Francisco

List of courses at Stanford (page 1) Note descriptions.

Social justice is the philosophy that has brought us ideas like "closing the achievement gap" which sounds great, but in practice, means paying lots of attention to struggling students while forcing bright students to stagnate.

Social justice is a political philosophy, and as such, has no place in a K-12 classroom.


None of this is relevant to the discussion.


Yes, I have. I don't believe that all degrees or ideas have equal merit.


I'm not judging anyone's worthiness as a person. Please don't introduce distracting emotional segues into this discussion.


No one in my profession (research science) gets taken seriously if they try to put more value on their training than on the quality of what they get done at work. The same is true of my husband's (software development). No one.

I know self-taught developers who dropped out of college or never went. Yet they get good jobs. I know community college grads with only an AS who do very well at work because they get stuff done, and they do it well. Etc. etc. If training is more valued in public school teaching, then you've just reinforced my position.


I've no doubt that this is true for individual teachers. But it's short-sighted to force everyone to give up recognition for excellence in favor of ideas that appeal to some.

As for no "fair" ways to measure merit, I disagree, as do many others. Knowledge of subject matter (e.g. math, science, grammar) would be a good place to start. People everywhere, in every type of job have to be evaluated. No system is perfect, but teachers (as a GROUP) resist external objective evaluation (say, of the types that medical professionals, electricians, military personnel, lawyers, and scientists face). Being reviewed by people you know isn't the same.


I realize that some of the stuff I've written is controversial, but replying in anger and accusing me of calling teaching not a "real job" is a distracting tactic that blocks honest debate. I am genuinely interested in other opinions, but I want nothing to do with shouting matches.

I believe that teaching is a critically important job and this is why I get so passionate about this stuff.

But what I'm saying is that if teaching was regarded more as a profession, then better people would go into teaching. And let's not judge the value of an educator (especially for the primary/elementary grades) simply by their smarts! Intelligence is important, but certainly not the only thing! When I write of treating educators as professionals, it's really not all about pay. Teachers are notoriously under the thumb of controlling administrators and forced to comply with school rules regarding what and how subjects are taught. They are treated as if their opinions do not matter.

Okay, my MEd. program does not have any of these "fluffy" requirements. If I had to describe my program is would be that it is "easy but a lot of work", meaning that good grades are not hard to come by, but everyone must put a lot of effort into it. It's not busy work - it's very thoughtful work. For instance, I wrote about 150 pages of papers for 3 classes last semester (one was a 40-pager that was set up just like a traditional Master's thesis without the carrying out of the research), plus had 2 math classes that had demanding assignments regularly. And don't forget that as I future high school math teacher, I am required to already have my Bachelor's in Math before entering this program. The purpose of the MEd. is to provide ALL of my teacher training.

I personally don't think that merit pay is the answer. I think that administrators need to step up and actually DO the evaluations that they are supposed to be doing, and go through the steps to fire truly bad teachers. I think that what we would find if a MEANINGFUL evaluation system was ever put into place if that we have generally great teachers and very few poor ones. This is why we will probably never have a meaningful evaluation system - because then we would have to find someone else to blame for our educational failings.

This IS relevant to the discussion when you describe classes in diversity, and to some extent, even social justice, as fluff. When teachers don't understand the lives of their students, they can't teach them effectively. Period. Only in a very homogenous, well educated community can a teacher effectively meet the needs of students without some solid understanding of cultural relevance and social barriers to acheivement. I completely agree that it is neither appropriate nor acceptable to close the acheivement gap by allowing gifted students and other high achievers to stagnate. However, I also think that gifted students from low socio-economic backgrounds (particularly when they are also second language language learners or students of color) get routinely overlooked, dismissed and/or mid-identified as students with ADHD or EBD issues *because* white, middle class teachers too often view students through the filter or their own cultural expectations and experiences. I find that underidentification and misidentification horrifying, and as much a product of a cultural differences between staff and students as of the actual barriers these students might bring with them to school.
And I would argue that it is short-sighted to sacrifice collaboration and mentoring of new teachers for an idea that appeals to some. Teaching is a non-profit, tax-payer funded profession. When you start talking about merit-pay you are talking about making teachers compete for a very limited piece of the pie--a pie that will not increase no matter how hard everyone works. There is no additional profit to generate if everyone works harder, there are no billable hours, there is no client base to expand. Finding what works in our classrooms is not about subject knowledge, it is about figuring out how to effectively instruct students from many different backgrounds and experiences in subject knowledge. Collaboration and idea sharing is critical to the progress we are able to make. In the last couple of years I've worked hard to develop a more effective way to meet the needs of students with strong literacy skills. Should I have kept those innovations to myself to make sure that I get the "credit"? I didn't. I love to share ideas with my colleagues. Not only do I find it exciting to have someone else react positively to something I have developed, but I also appreciate the opportunity to improve and refine my work based on their feedback and reactions.
I have worked with adults who carefully guard their successes and who put their name on everything they generate. Often, what they have generated is a refinement of an idea shaped by multiple people in the field, but they are quite willing to claim credit for themselves. Most likely they are the people who will be "rewarded" in a merit system, but often they are not the best teachers, just the best at marketing themselves.
Yes, there needs to be a certain level of competency and knowledge in the classroom, but there is a big difference between knowing and teaching. I've always found the old adage that "those who can't do, teach" to be absurd at the K-8 level. While very strong subject knowledge may be almost enough at the highschool level, and fully enough when teaching high ability, motivated students, my history degree means very little when I am trying to teach a student how to be a learner at the K-5 level.
Neither brilliance nor subject mastery equate to an ability to teach. In the program I went through, students had to have a top GPA to be admitted. While it allowed me into sail into the program, I have found it to be a poor tool for selecting effective teaching candidates at the elementary and early middle level. I am not suggesting that teachers don't need a base level of intelligence and subject knowledge, but I do not find it at all alarming that they aren't top scorers on GREs. There has been a lot of sifting and winnowing before adults even get to a point where they would take a GRE, and I doubt very much that overall GRE scores would be a strong indicator of teacher effectiveness, at least at the K-8 level. The GRE does not measure many of the skills that make a teacher great.
Actually, I had posted in response to that earlier in the thread, but somehow my response vanished into the ether (I hate that). I would say this:
For most students, a teacher at the K-8 level with reasonable but not stellar GRE scores is not going to create a problem. However, I do believe that we often have the wrong people assessing students for giftedness in specific subjects, and I believe that when it comes to recognizing early giftedness in specific areas, we need to find a way to bring subject masters into the process--not master educators necessarily, but people who understand the subject with the kind of depth that allows them to recognize brilliance even where there are "gaps". I believe that it takes someone with enough understanding of the subject to really get at the depth of a student's thinking, especially since that thinking is likely to be somewhere outside of the box. I'm not sure how that would work in practice, but I am not impressed with our current assessment methods and think that most educators are better equipped/trained to recognize bright high achievers than they are to recognize gifted learners.

It�s not that what you�ve said is controversial. I will acknowledge that my response was emotional, but it was also based in my beliefs and experiences, and I stand by what I've said. While your response suggests that you were looking for meaningful debate, your initial post did not raise questions for discussion. Instead, it contained a number of blanket statements that maligned teachers "as a group" as being not intelligent enough for their jobs; as being afraid of evaluation; and of demanding something you feel they do not deserve.
If you are looking for honest discussion and debate about our education system, I am more than willing to have that discussion. I am both a fierce advocate and a fierce critic of K-12 education in this country, and I do not shy away from discussions that challenge educational systems, methods or practices. Both in and out of my workplace, I am frequently one of the people raising those challenges (which nets me more than my fair share of both positive responses and eye rolls when my hand goes up at a staff or committee meeting). I will, however, acknowledge that my final comment was unnecessarily snarky. For that I apologize.

I, too, want to apologize if my earlier comment about the level of MEd candidates in the grad school I attended was offensive. Maybe it was a slow bunch !

I totally agree with the above comment, on another topic. I've generally found that this is where high intelligence in teachers is relevant. Yes, I've seen some very good teachers who are not likely well, well above average in terms of intelligence. It doesn't take genius to understand elementary school subjects, as you said, and someone of average intelligence should be able to understand with enough depth at least elementary work to be able to teach it. Having a knack for teaching and an average IQ is probably better for most kids in terms of a teacher than a brilliant person who doesn't have a real touch for teaching.

However, when dealing with gifted kids, having a very intelligent teacher increases the odds of the child being more accurately ided and understood, at least from what I've seen. Perhaps those who are seeking MEds in gifted education ought to be held to a higher standard in terms of grad school admission so they can truly understand their future students. I, too, have seen artistry overlooked in favor of technicians when the average teacher is trying to determine who is gifted or who is really good at a subject.

Not sure what you mean here.

If mean that mentoring and collaboration are substitutes for objective assessment, I disagree. They have their place, but not in assessment. And I never said that mentoring and collaboration should be disallowed.

I agree that merit pay shouldn't be based only on test scores. If a teacher does an incredible job on some random project, s/he should get some kind of appropriate bonus. If a teacher consistently takes on extra work and does it well, s/he should be rewarded (such as with a promotion to a higher pay grade). I don't understand why there's so much resistance to this idea.


People in the military are rewarded for doing their jobs well. So are people at the FBI, the forest service, scientists at federally funded labs, tenure-track scientists and technicians at state-funded universities...the list goes on. Why is this practice okay in these places but not okay for teachers?

Banning merit-based bonuses, promotions, and other rewards is extremist and protects mediocre people while providing disincentives for going beyond the call of duty. When there's no reward for doing a really good job, many talented people will seek employers who recognize their talents --- just like the parents of many gifted kids opt out of public schools in favor of educational environments that recognize the talents of their children.

There's nothing wrong with wanting to be recognized for doing good work. Appropriate recognition is healthy. Yet you implied that the only two choices are taking no credit or narcissism. This is close to a straw man argument, as I never said anything like this.


"Aren't top scorers?" They're the bottom scorers! That bothers me. And given that the GRE is measuring pretty basic stuff, it really bothers me that they don't know this stuff.


So you're using this as an excuse for not knowing subject matter? It's wonderful if Miss Smith relates well to her 8th graders, but if they don't learn much from her because she doesn't really understand algebra, what's the point?

I get frustrated when discussions about teachers are framed along the lines of "it's better to have someone who's good at teaching than a subject matter expert."

Teachers don't have to be experts, but they have to be competent. A person simply cannot teach something effectively without knowing how to do it very well. The average GRE and SAT results among future teachers are too low to imply competence.

Anyone teaching fourth grade math and up should know algebra and geometry very well (and both are tested on both the SAT and GRE). Really, they all should. You have to know a lot more than your students in order to really understand their mistakes.

(Note that I have teaching experience and am not just making all this up based on some theory I have).

I sent you a PM, Dottie

I agree, but instead of expecting all elementary school teachers to be generalists who can teach all subjects well, I think there ought to be some specialization, as there is in middle school and high school. Hire math teachers for elementary schools (maybe they could teach science as well), and pay them more than other teachers if necessary. The teachers' unions would oppose this, which is yet another reason they are part of the problem.

There is a lot of talk about "diversity" and "role models" in education, but almost all elementary school teachers are female. Emphasizing math skills in math teachers and paying them well could attract more men to K-6 teaching. This would be a side benefit. (I'm not saying that all or even most such math teachers would be male, just that a higher fraction of math specialists rather than generalists would likely be male.)

Yes, I agree on both counts. You make good points.

My younger son will have a male teacher next year in 4th grade. He will be his first male teacher ever.

Val

I wasn't suggesting that mentoring and collaboration are a substitute, or that they would be disallowed, more that I think merit pay in a field like education would discourage collaboration and mentoring, which I think would be a significant loss. I'm glad to hear that you don't see test scores as an adequate measure. Specifically, what do you see as good measures?


I agree that there is nothing wrong with wanting to be recognized for doing good work, I just don't see merit pay as the way to do that. Promotions are something I could support, although I don't have a clear picture in my head as to how that would work. One of the problems I see in the field currently is that the only "promotion" opportunities involve leaving the classroom to become a teacher leader or an administrator. Every time a particularly talented colleague leaves the classroom to lead other adults I think that more has been lost than gained.

I did not intend to imply that the only possibilities when it comes to recognition are no recognition or narcissism. In fact, I wasn't implying narcissism at all. I do not, however, think that it is necessarily the "best" who get top recognition. Yes, they are usually noticed in some way, but I too often see people who are good at self-promotion getting far more credit than appropriate, and ending up in positions they shouldn't be in at all.




Do I think it's ok for Miss Smith who is teaching 8th grade not to have command of algebra? Of course not, and that's not what I said. However, I believe in a generalist model in elementary school and would not want to see it go to a middle or highschool model. I'm pretty sure that in my previous post I distinguished between what an elementary vs. a middle or high school instructor needs. I agree that a math teacher at middle/high school should have a solid command of their subject, but I do not think that a fourth grade math teacher needs to have that same level of proficiency. If they are teaching students who are working on algebra, then yes. However, that speaks to how staff are assigned which is a somewhat different topic.

I wonder about the GRE scores you mention. The lowest compared to math and science masters? Or also compared to english, language, fine arts, etc. masters? I would expect math and science masters to have higher scores because they would be consistently making use of that math either in practice or--as is often the case--because they have just finished their undergraduate degrees and classes are fresh in their minds. While some teachers combine certification and masters to begin with, or do their masters fresh on the tail of their BA or BS, in my neck of the woods it is far more common for people to do masters work after a few years of teaching. Math seems to be a "use it or lose it" subject for many people, so I would expect that to impact scores as well. I guess what I'm wondering is, what happens when the data is disaggregated by criteria other than type of masters--e.g. amount of time between undergraduate degree and GRE; relationship of major to skills on the GRE; time spent preparing to take the GRE; etc.

Look, I have no objection to filling schools with teachers who can earn top GRE scores in every subject as long as they have the other requisite skills to teach effectively across the learning spectrum. I don't think districts would turn these teachers away either. However, I highly doubt that the American public is anywhere near paying teachers enough to compete with what other fields would offer these same people. I also don't believe that lack of opportunities to be promoted is what drives most teachers from the field. In my experience, most teachers leave the field either due to burnout or because their idea of what teaching would be was not a match for the reality of what teaching is. Increasingly, teachers are also leaving because the costs are beginning to outweigh the benefits: the heated rhetoric has made them feel dumped on and unappreciated; they are being expected to do significantly more with significantly less; and the love they have for teaching is being overshadowed by the stress of that combination.

I do believe that children on the "tails" need a more specialized type of instruction and I have no objection to separate or additional requirements to teach or co-teach those students. However, I would point out that not all gifted children are gifted in math and science; and not all adults with great math and science skills have the love of writing and literature that children who are gifted in those areas need, so I would want to be careful in overemphasizing one type of knowledge over another for an entire profession or subset of a profession.

I support merit pay and oppose tenure, but the systems used reward and terminate teachers should be realistic. An NYT story about the Washington D.C. public schools describes a system that appears unrealistic in some respects.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/28/education/28evals.html
Teacher Grades: Pass or Be Fired
By SAM DILLON
June 27, 2011

'But some educators say it is better at sorting and firing teachers than at helping struggling ones; they note that the system does not consider socioeconomic factors in most cases and that last year 35 percent of the teachers in the city�s wealthiest area, Ward 3, were rated highly effective, compared with 5 percent in Ward 8, the poorest.

�Teachers have to be parents, priests, lawyers, clothes washers, babysitters and a bunch of other things� if they work with low-income children, said Nathan Saunders, president of the Washington Teachers Union. �Impact takes none of those roles into account, so it can penalize you just for teaching in a high-needs school.�

Jason Kamras, the architect of the system, said �it�s too early to answer� whether Impact makes it easier for teachers in well-off neighborhoods to do well, but pointed out that Washington�s compensation system offers bigger bonuses ($25,000 versus $12,500) and salary enhancements in high-poverty schools.

�We take very seriously the distribution of high-quality teachers across the system,� he said.'

<end of excerpt>

The notion that the achievement gap will be closed by having only great teachers in poor schools is unrealistic. There will be average teachers, just as there are average people in other professions.

To make sure we're talking about the same idea, by "merit pay," I mean a reward for a job well done. This approach is used in most organizations employing merit pay. It doesn't typically inhibit collaboration. In fact, it often encourages teamwork --- most organizations put a premium on the ability to work in a team.

Examples of meritorious work that should earn someone a bonus, a raise, or a promotion:

• Taking on extra work and doing a good job of it. Someone could help ensure that the way stuff in the storeroom is organized meets OSHA regulations, or could help assess a new reading program.
• Lead an effort to assess some program at school, such as PE (e.g. examine programs elsewhere with the program at home.
• Increase test scores in a target group. Test scores shouldn't be the only measure, but they're still a valid measure.
• Implement a new program, such as a way to provide acceleration.
• Get some grant money.
• Etc. Just use your imagination.

As for promotions: a while back, the software industry realized that some people who deserved promotions didn't want to be managers and were far more valuable doing technical work anyway. So the companies changed their systems. At many companies nowadays, management isn't the only road of promotion. Many people can now climb very high in the corporate hierarchy without having to become line managers.

Schools could (should) establish a hierarchy of teaching ranks. Titles could include, for example, Teacher I, Teacher II, Teacher III, Senior Teacher, etc. etc. Just look to industry for how to do this kind of thing. And people should get promoted based on merit, not on seniority.

At the same time, I also think it's important for some of those very talented people to be setting policies. They can have a greater positive effect when they influence the system instead of just a single classroom.

Bottom line: the schools are going to have to change.


Compared to everybody. See Table 2.


Why? What's better about it?

At least in MA, the generalist model in elementary school is usually accompanied by heterogenous grouping. There may be three teachers in each grade, and each teacher is supposed to get a similar mix of students. Based on our teacher's frequent communications, the idea is that each class is like a family or community, the class largely progresses together, and during the year she gets to know each student. Being cynical/realistic, this model is not a disaster because the affluent MA towns restrict land use, keep home prices high, and attract mostly affluent parents, most of whose kids have IQ >= 100. As I mentioned earlier, I support a specialist model with less emphasis on community and more emphasis on each student learning at his/her level in all subjects.
If there were ability grouping and teacher specialization in elementary school as in high school, the parents of the children in the bottom group might be unhappy. The heterogenous model is easier politically for principals and conforms to their philosophy, so it is entrenched.

Not necessarily. I know parents of slower learners who are unhappy for the same reason that people here are: the pace is wrong for their kids and their kids don't learn. Recall the debate in the 70s and 80s, when parents of disabled kids and slower learners got very loud about their dissatisfaction with the schools. They were unhappy that the needs of their kids were being ignored.

My cynical opinion is that lockstep teaching is easier for teachers and administrators (even when enhanced by IEPs). It probably also reflects the romantic idea that everyone can learn at the same pace if we just give them a chance.

Why? What's better about it?
[/quote]

I love the elementary school climate and community and while I strongly support homogenous grouping for targeted academic work, I believe in the value of a diverse and heterogeneous classroom community. I realize that there are many places where this is not done well, which makes me sad. However, there are also places where it is done well, and my hope is to see more schools beginning to move toward team models of teaching. My building uses an instructional team model in which 3 teachers work with 30-34 students (in K,1 or 2/3 classroom) or with 45-52 students (in a 4/5 classroom). We are able to create much tighter instructional groups under this arrangement than would be true in three stand alone classrooms, without sacrificing the opportunity for kids of vastly different backgrounds and abilities to get to know and appreciate one another.

With a few exceptions, students are with us all day, and we get to know them extremely well. Especially in high poverty schools like the one I work in, that makes a huge difference. I don't think this community is only important in high poverty schools, however. I have strong, mostly positive memories of my own elementary classrooms and classroom teachers (save for a horrendous fourth grade teacher), vs. the fragmented memories I have of my middle and high school teachers and classmates. DD11, who is on the shy side, bonded strongly with her classroom teachers in elementary school. It took a long time for her to be comfortable even in those environments--she barely spoke in other classes (P.E., music, etc.) and it often took a long time even with that steady classroom teacher for a teacher to "see" her. If she'd been shuffled from teacher to teacher she not only would have been miserable, I believe she would have been nearly invisible.

Her transition to middle school was an unhappy one. She felt that none of her teachers knew her well, and I would tend to agree with her. When teachers specialize, they are likely to work with 120+ students at a time, and I think it is very difficult to really know that many students well enough to program well for them. By middle and high school we expect our children to be self-sufficient, to advocate for themselves, and to be more adult-independent. Those skills are cultivated in a smaller elementary environment, especially when they aren't well cultivated at home, or when with kids like my DD, they are shy and sensitive to criticism. It is difficult to learn to take constructive criticism (especially for our perfectionists) and I believe that it is an easier skill to learn when there is opportunity to build a strong, trusting relationship with a teacher and peer group.

Again, I acknowledge that children at the "tails" need some variations in approach and grouping. They may also need different things out of their elementary years then most children do. However, they don't all need the same things, and just as it is inappropriate to force children at the tails into the structures and instruction that meets the needs of a larger group of children, it I believe that it is also inappropriate to sacrifice the needs of the larger group because some children at the tails don't have the same needs.

I want elementary school to meet every child at their next level of challenge, but I also want it to be fun, and I believe a generalist model lends itself more easily to creating a fun overall experience.

True...but my point was that teachers need to be competent in the subjects they teach, not necessarily the brightest.

But the GRE is not a subject competency test. Similar to the SAT, it is more of a test of aptitude or even intelligence. Teachers take Praxis tests to prove competency in the areas they are going to teach. Now I wouldn't fault you for criticizing the Praxis system (the math test is a JOKE), but you are talking GRE. Also, please remember that the only people who take the GRE are those who are planning on attending graduate school. This is not a snapshot of the general population, so these scores don't mean that teachers have below-average intelligence.

Not these days. High-IQ organizations like MENSA don't accept GRE scores. Example: MENSA won't accept post-2001 GRE scores (check their website). The math section of the GRE is primarily a test of algebra, geometry, and arithmetic. The verbal section is primarily a vocabulary test, and there are dozens (at least) of sources that can be used to study for the test. I agree that there's a cognitive element there, but it's all junior high and high school-level.


Praxis is used in Connecticut. The authorities there lowered the passing score in math several years ago from 141 to 137. Before they lowered the standards, only 51% of teachers could pass it the first time and only 70% passed it eventually ( see link ).

I also found some numbers for Pennsylvania. Just under 79% passed math on the first attempt (test code 5730, which is the one I reference below). This is better than Connecticut, but given the low standards of the math exam, those numbers should be higher. Overall, the numbers in the spreadsheets weren't encouraging.

Here are some sample questions from the Praxis. They include, "Which of the following numbers is equal to a quarter of a million?" and "Which of the following fractions is the least?" The values of all but one of the fractions were greater than one.

What does all this say about the people taking a test you've described as a "joke?"

Val,

I don't think that the Praxis is rigorous enough to determine competency. It's not really the type of questions on the test, but rather the scores required to pass. For example, the Math Praxis does test a wide breadth of math knowledge. I needed to review trigonometry, geometry, and matrix algebra before taking the test, because it had been many years since I had studied any of those subjects (I had continued using calculus and statistics in my job). Even after reviewing, I knew that there would be a few questions that I would not be able to figure out. However, I came to discover that I only needed to answer about 50% of the questions right to pass. I think that this is absolutely ridiculous, and that it does a real disservice to secondary math teachers. BUT, if passing scores were too high, we would not have enough teachers to go around! Teaching is not a profession that is very popular with our best and brightest citizens, who can sometimes have much more rewarding careers in other fields.

I think that there is a big difference between wanting teachers to have higher Praxis scores (which would demonstrate knowledge of the actual subjects that they will be teaching) and higher GRE scores. I know that there are people out there who "study" for tests like the GRE and SAT, and I think that the trend of preparation programs has decreased the validity of these as IQ tests. This is why these two tests are no longer accepted for IQ - not because they suddenly are testing achievement instead of aptitude. Why can intelligent kids do well on tests like the SAT before actually learning the information in high school? Because they purposefully pick subjects that don't have to be formally learned to test. Smart kids can figure out questions about geometry without going through a course of formal proofs, and they can figure out questions involving algebra without using formulas that we learned in school.

Education programs typically have low GRE score requirements (and don't base entrance decisions on them), and so there isn't usually a big incentive to prepare for the exam like there might be for more competitive programs. If you want to get into top-tier PhD programs, you need top scores.

I'm sorry - I'm sure it seems like I'm "beating a dead horse" here, but I think that teachers already get such a bad rap and we don't need any more attacks on our intelligence and competency. If you want smarter, more qualified teachers, you have to make the profession more appealing to smarter people. I think what we could stand to have is a little MORE respect for our teachers. It is hard for teachers to do their jobs when the students get the idea that they are unintelligent and/or incompetent. In my day (and I am not that old) it was the parent's responsibility to keep their kids on track and the student's responsibility to do the work. The teacher was merely a guide on the journey. These days, it seems like we blame the teacher first without even asking if the students and parents are putting in the slightest effort. It's kind of like blaming doctors for their patients' unhealthy habits. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink!

I just noticed that the Praxis you're talking about is Praxis I, which is required by all educators, but I am talking about the Praxis II Mathematics: Content Knowledge that is required for secondary math teachers. It has algebra I and II, geometry, matrix algebra, trigonometry, calculus, and statistics on it.

This is what bothers me so much --- that so many people can't pass a very basic test on the first attempt. Then add in all the borderline and near-borderline ones. That's a lot of people who teach math (and tell us that our kids don't need acceleration) who aren't really competent in the subject, even at a very low grade level. If they can't pass this test, how can they teach math --- even elementary math?




I'll send a reply to this tomorrow afternoon; I actually have to go teach right now. And then I have a deadline tomorrow.

I'm not trying to dump on people and I may have sounded too aggressive (that's the argument-dissecting scientist in me). But the reality is that people who can't pass a very basic math test like the Praxis I (as well as the borderline cases) are simply not competent.

I looked at the higher level math test and agree that it has real meat in it. But I'm not talking about people who take that test. People who do well on it know stuff. I'm talking about the ones who barely pass the basic tests. I honestly don't think they should be teaching (especially because according to a paper I found, they tend to end up in lower-income schools). Just because some teachers get criticized wrongly doesn't mean that all criticism is wrong. Honesty is important on both sides: teachers do an important job and often don't get credit for the challenges they face. But this doesn't detract from the fact that some of them lack sufficient knowledge to teach even lower-elementary classes.

I'll pull that paper up tomorrow.

Val,

I agree with most of maybe even all of what you're saying. The reason I jumped into this conversation in the first place and started defending teachers is that WAY back at the beginning there was some serious bashing of teachers as a group because their GRE scores were the lowest out of the categories on that one table. It really bothered me to see teachers portrayed that way to the very people from whom they need the most respect.

Part of the reason that the "talent" of the country tends to shy away from teaching is the way that the people think that old motto: If you can't do, teach. It's kind of a dangerous circle where the brightest people are choosing NOT to teach, because there is this idea that teachers are stupid and are not respected, so teacher prep programs actually have to keep digging more and more to the bottom of the barrel. The only way to stop this cycle is to fundamentally change the way that teachers are recruited and somehow make it a more respectful profession, and yes that has to mean tougher requirements for teachers, but at the same time you must increase the benefits of the job or you will not get nearly enough people applying!

It's a tough issue, and one that won't be solved overnight.

Do principals look for high Praxis test scores when hiring teachers, or do they ignore the actual scores as long as the candidates pass? In general I wonder how much emphasis schools give to academic achievement when hiring teachers.

Hi Kerripat,

Their scores were lowest on every table I've found. Check these reports from 2010, 2006, 2005, and 2002. Plus I have an old paper report from 1996. Click around on this site for detailed data on scores by major (ETS data). Add in the appalling Praxis tests and high failure rates on other pre-licensing tests, and there's an obvious lack of knowledge. It bothers me that people who state this fact get accused of picking on teachers. It's just a fact.


Yes, I agree --- but there are systemic problems that drive talented, knowledgeable people away from teaching. A big one is that no one is allowed to be promoted or given a pay raise or bonus because of excellent performance (see my earlier post). Good employees want to be recognized and rewarded for doing good work, and they'll leave a system that doesn't recognize their talents. If schools treat talented people with respect, they'll get better teachers.

Look at this data on math and science teachers from the NSF website:



Note that point about private schools: they attract the highest scorers. Yet they don't offer tenure, pensions are not as great, their classes are only two students smaller on average, and they don't pay as much (see this link at the Dept. of Education). If money is so critical (as has been suggested here and elsewhere), why is this? Also, private school teachers don't get criticized the way that public school teachers do. Why is this?

Just food for thought.

I doubt that reform is possible and suggest instead that education majors be abolished and that future teachers should have real majors (English, history, math, physics etc.) and a few courses in pedagogy. Thanks for the paper reference -- the abstract is below.

Grading Standards in Education Departments at Universities
Cory Koedel
University of Missouri
June 2011
Students who take classes in education departments at universities receive significantly higher grades than students who take classes in other academic departments. The higher grades awarded by education departments cannot be explained by differences in student quality or by structural differences across departments (i.e., differences in class sizes). The remaining explanation is that the higher grades are the result of lower grading standards. This paper formally documents the grading-standards problem in education departments using administrative grade data from the 2007-2008 academic year. Because a large fraction of the teachers in K-12 schools receive training in education departments, I briefly discuss several possible consequences of the low grading standards for teacher quality in K-12 schools.

This seems like data that would need to be broken down a bit farther. I have to wonder if most of the high scorers are working in prep schools, gifted academies, etc. My understanding is that private school salaries are less in parochial schools, but not necessarily in other types of private schools. Which private schools are attracting those high scorers?

As to why private schools might be able to attract teachers without offering high pay and good benefits.... I can think of several reasons; here are a few:

1) Many private schools don't require a teaching certification, so it is a teaching opportunity that is open to some who would have to go back to school in order to teach in a public school.

2) In urban and semi-urban communities, it is easier and less stressful to work in an environment where students and families toe the line or get kicked out. I'm sure there are many people who are willing to work for less pay, job security, benefits, etc. in order to avoid the challenges of working in a public school. It does not follow that you can attract people to public school for private school pay, because you are often asking significantly more of the staff members when they are working in a public school environment than in that lower paying private environment (note: I am comparing lower paying private to public; not all private to public).

3) People who want to teach particular types of learners are more likely to be attracted to private than to public. It seems likely to me that people with top subject expertise are more likely to choose private than public for exactly this reason. I've seen many teachers leave public education because they imagined college students in elementary bodies--not in ability, but in engagement. The variation in engagement in college setting, prep school setting, or other select setting is much less varied than in a public school setting. A teacher can focus much more fully on the content of what they teach vs. the method they use to teach. I think about the range of teaching styles I encountered in college. Some held me on the edge of my seat and I loved every lecture; some bored me to tears. I may have preferred one class to the other, but I accepted that the responsibility for learning was on me, regardless of whether or not I liked my professor. Except for in very unusual cases, no one would have dreamed of holding the professor responsible for my grades. Yet in a public school, lack of effort, engagement or preparedness is laid squarely at the feet of the classroom teacher.

I think that the primary reasons you don't hear the same complaints about private school teachers as you do public school teachers are pretty obvious:

1) Private schools aren't tax payer funded, so only the people who use the specific schools care about what happens there. By contrast, many tax payers see themselves as the direct employers of all public employees and will comment on their performance whether they have firsthand knowledge or not, and whether they have a child in the public schools or not.

2) Private schools are able to control for many (if not most) of the conditions that impact outcomes, whereas public schools are not able to control those conditions. It is easier to blame the teachers than it is to blame the conditions (which would be extremely expensive to fully address, if they could be fully addressed at all). In other words, many of conditions that people complain about in the public schools are attributed to teachers and private school teachers are protected from those conditions in the first place.

3) Test scores provide ammunition to use against public school teachers but are not reported for private schools unless the private school chooses to be part of the testing. Private schools who are struggling in any way are highly unlikely to make that public. Why would they?

I doubt very much that people who choose private school teaching over public school teaching are doing it because they don't want good pay and benefits or union protection. I suspect it has much more to do with the conditions under which they will be teaching, and I agree with previous posters that this is not going to change until the conditions become more attractive and/or both the compensation for the current conditions and the attitude of the general public changes significantly. I mean really, who wants to rush towards work conditions in which pay and benefits are getting worse, conditions are getting worse, and public bashing has become an art form?

I am not suggesting, by the way, that all critiques are bashing; just that it is a very difficult time to be a teacher given the near daily thrashing the profession has been taking in the media.

This could be a myth (look at this information about Kansas). Private schools can't operate without revenue, and can't just expel students for any reason. If you have evidence for overall lower expulsion rates at public schools, I'd be interested in seeing it.


You can hold a professor responsible for poor learning if s/he lacks knowledge about the subject s/he's teaching. That NSF paper, the SAT & GRE, the Praxis I, and other test scores show pretty clearly that many teachers in public schools lack knowledge (especially in mathematics).


This is a pretty sweeping statement with nothing to back it up.


Here's a comparison between SAT scores in public and private schools in northern California. The scores are higher at the private schools. So, no ammunition against the private schools there.

I found this information in 2-3 minutes. There has to be more out there. When I make a claim about something, I try to support it with evidence as best as I can.


1. Evidence please.
2. Much of what I've written here concerns the harm that union policies do. Specifically, pay raises are based strictly on seniority. Doing a great job at work is not a factor in pay raises. An environment that refuses to reward talent is toxic to many (or most) talented people. When possible, talented people who aren't recognized tend to leave the public schools, be they students or teachers.

With respect, all of the points you've made in this thread have been based on your own experience (making them anecdotal) or on your opinions. I've been trying very hard to support what I say with evidence.

It bothers me that honest criticism of schools and teachers is characterized as "bashing." It seems to me that this accusation is a way of deflecting attention from valid criticisms.

Criticism is necessary in any system. People criticize the government, politicians, civil servants, Microsoft, airline pilots, McDonald's etc. etc. all the time. Those critics are aren't accused of "bashing" with the frequency that critics of education policies are accused of it (e.g. "teacher bashing" turned up 5.4 million Google results; everything else was in the thousands).

I think that teachers (and school boards and administrators) need to ask, very honestly, why people criticize them. Yet I'm cynical about the prospects of this ever happening.

Val-
Jumping in late and without quotes but I wanted to say that I very much appreciate your analysis in this thread.

I am a school administrator and a former teacher. I also spent 3 years training new teachers. I have never worked in a union school, as all of my 12 years have been in a charter school. That means: no tenure, no seniority, no merit pay. Our pay scale is 4% lower than the neighboring district but because we do not pay union dues, it is nearly a wash. People often say that charter teachers work for less. That's simply not true in CA anyway. My teachers work hard to keep their jobs every year. We accept applications yearly and hire the best new candidates and let go of those that don't meet our standards.

Now- the teacher testing is abysmal. My anecdotal evidence- I have a BA in Foreign Languages from a private university outside of the state. Due to backwards credentialing rules, California would not "honor" this as subject matter competency in Spanish and Russian and allow me to teach, without two more years of undergrad at a CA university. Since I had a few courses in US history, I decided to take the SSAT and Praxis for a Social Studies credential instead.

At my test, more than half of the room was taking the exam for their THIRD time. Stories filled the lunch conversation about those who had also failed the basic skills test repeatedly. You can't even sign up without a BA or a BS- yet these potential teachers couldn't pass the basic skills test! Unfortunately, many of these teachers were already multiple subject (elementary) teachers looking to add an authorization to their credentials. They were already working with little kids!

I passed the first time and scored very highly (not tooting my own horn). I find this also absurd. I have many courses in US history and political theory. That's all- but the state says I'm fully qualified to teach Psychology, Economics, World History, Ancient History and Sociology and Anthropology. The only economics I remember is guns and butter in high school. I would destroy any class of students expecting an education in that!

I have since also passed two other state exams without prepping or studying but by mere educated guessing. I've learned that the testmakers are not brilliant either and they do not check for duplicity in the questions. So if you have a remotely decent short term memory, you just flip back two pages and find the definition of the multiple choice question you're trying to answer.

What's all this say about me? I'm a very good teacher, an excellent administrator and all of this is due to my own reading, researching, personal education and goals.

What's this say about teacher testing and credentialing? That it's basically a joke. There's no reason that you should be able to guess your way through a competency exam and score high enough (50-65% depending on the test, I believe) to pass.

Some criticism of public schools is warranted, but they are also being criticized for not preparing all students to go to college, which is a completely unrealistic goal, because lots of people are not smart enough to study at the college level. A quote from the NYT is an example of this lack of realism:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/04/n...t-to-these-students-at-jamaica-high.html
A Failing School? Not to These Students
By MICHAEL WINERIP
New York Times
July 3, 2011

...

Of course, it is possible that such seniors are the exceptions. As James S. Liebman, the Columbia law professor who developed the city report card, wrote in an e-mail: �Good high schools aren�t satisfied when just a few kids get into strong colleges. They aim for all kids to do so.� Education Department officials point out that the graduation rate at Jamaica has stayed at about 50 percent for years.

But it is also possible that the deck has been stacked against Jamaica High, that the 15 �worst� high schools have been packed with the students with the worst problems. According to an analysis by the city�s Independent Budget Office, these schools have more poor children (63 percent versus 52 percent citywide), more homeless students (6 percent versus 4 percent), more special-education students (18 versus 12). For 24 percent of Jamaica High students, English is a foreign language, compared with 11 percent citywide.

The �worst� high schools are sent the eighth graders who are the furthest behind: their average proficiency score on state tests is 2.6 out of 4, compared with 2.9 citywide, and more of these students (9 percent versus 4 percent) are over age, suggesting they have had to repeat grades.

This is such a good point and one I had not read or thought of.

As for the idea that merit pay is standard in all taxpayer-funded jobs outside of teaching--this is incorrect. My husband works for our city government and I just confirmed with him that while he does receive evaluations, they have no relationship to his pay and never have. When he gets a raise, it's because the city has determined that the market rate for his skills has increased, or because his union fought for it, or because of increasing seniority. He could be disciplined or fired for poor evaluations, but he does not get paid more for outstanding ones.

FTR, my husband's GRE scores were 790/790/790 (though it looks like that's not as rare as I thought, which actually makes sense to me). He is damn smart, but he stays in his relatively low-paid public position for a variety of reasons. It's very family-friendly (he's an extremely involved dad) and he derives personal satisfaction from the altruistic nature of the position. I guess the fact that I didn't even know if he could get a performance-based raise goes to show how much we focus on externally judged "performance" here. He judges himself (harshly, sometimes); some random superior's evaluation is secondary. I'm the same way. I don't rely on other people or even on money to tell me I'm making a difference or performing well.

He could presumably still stay in his job if he was receiving raises based on excellence. Plus, you're speaking anecdotally about one person and extending his experience to everyone else.

My point has been, and remains, that basing teacher pay raises on seniority and nothing else drives many talented people away from teaching while retaining mediocre ones. Just because some talented people stay doesn't mean that driving away the other ones and is a good idea. Nor is creating a system with incentives for mediocre (and worse) people to stay.

I never said that merit raises are "standard" outside teaching. Please don't try to manipulate what I say. I said that they exist in places like the US military, public universities (e.g. the tenure system), and the FBI. These organizations all suffer under the same constraints that the schools do, but promotions are merit-based.

Again, I can't understand resistance to rewarding people for doing their jobs well. Why is this so horrible?

Hi Again Val and Everyone,

Back from vacation! Here is a very interesting and entertaining youtube video about what motivates us at work. It's not about teaching per se, just business in general.



I also looked up my university's M.Ed. admission requirements. I found that the minimum GRE score required for all secondary content majors is 1000 combined verbal + quantitative, plus Math and Science must have a quantitative score more than 550 and English and Social Studies must have verbal greater than 550. These scores are slightly above the average score on the GRE for education, and so I'm thinking perhaps that many of those low scorers don't actually get into the programs and become our future teachers. I know that these score requirements still aren't very high, though.

Kerri-
Most states do not require a masters for teaching elementary school. You simply need a Bachelor's degree and a subject matter competency (either by your BA/BS or by exam). So many teachers do not even go to graduate school.

I�ve been off camping for a bit�nice to get away for a bit�..


First, yes, my contributions to this discussion are my experiences and opinions. As this is a forum where many of us come to share our experiences or to react to information, I don't apologize for that. I have been trying to continue to participate in what I think is an important discussion, but we keep falling into a pattern that feels like win/lose rather than what I would hope it would be furthering understanding on both sides.

I recognize that there is a limit to how far my experiences go, but I do think that they have value. I don't believe that I, my schools, colleagues or community are particularly unusual, and I have spent a lot of time thinking about these issues based on my experiences and observations.

I'd like to clarify a couple of comments from my previous post.

First, I wasn't suggesting that private schools have high expulsion rates. Rather, I think that private schools less frequently have to deal with expulsion-worthy behavior. I suspect that parents hold their children more accountable for their behavior when they have taken the steps to enroll their children in a private school, that students in private schools have family support (or would be unlikely to end up in private school) and that the poverty and special education rates in private schools are significantly lower (poverty and certain special education eligibility areas are disproportionately represented in expulsion data in my district.)

When I talked about being able to get students to toe-the-line, I was referring primarily to the advantage of being able to hold students and families accountable for their behavior. When someone knows they can actually be kicked out of the school (for less than it takes to expel a student from a public school) that is itself a deterrent to high levels of behavior.

Contrast that with the situation in my (public) school where we have certain parents who don't come in for "required" re-entrance conferences after a suspension. They know that they can't be compelled to do so and that we can't refuse to allow the child to re-enter. That ties the hands of public schools in a way that I can't imagine occurring in a private school setting. I don't expect that private schools are kicking kids out willy-nilly, but I do expect that they are using the tools available to them to prevent the kind of disruptions that public schools have to endure. The context of my comments in this area was that it impacts the teaching environment and the appeal of each environment to particular teachers.


Re: teacher accountability. I agree that I can hold the college professor accountable if they don't know their subject, but only if that is the case. In a public school the teacher is blamed regardless of what the student does or does not bring to the table. I agree--as I believe I stated in an earlier post--that teachers need to be competent to teach the subjects they teach. My intention here was to speak to the differences in attitude that students and families are likely to bring to each environment. I am working under an assumption that in general, a student who is in a private school has a family invested enough in their education to actively choose (and probably transport to) a specific school. Whereas public schools, while they will have engaged and active families and students, will also have students without that family support. This has a big impact on the teaching conditions, and therefore the job experience. My intent was to respond to your specific question about why someone would teach in a private school, and to point out that someone might choose to work for less compensation in order to work with groups in which most students and families take some responsibility for the students' achievement level.

As far as testing comparisons: I was thinking elementary/middle when I posted. I am admittedly much less knowledgeable about the high school comparisons. In my state, private voucher schools took the NCLB state test for the first time this year. The private voucher schools didn't do quite as well as the public schools, which I think surprised everyone. To my thinking, the scores should be significantly higher since they represent only the scores of students whose families are involved enough to enroll them in a private school. The response that are pro-voucher legislature and governor have had to the test scores has been to remove the testing requirement from private voucher schools again. Thus, public schools will be held up to public scrutiny (as they should be) but private schools will only be held up if they want to be. Again, high school is not my area, so I�m out of my depth on this issue. In our area however, private school participation drops off in high school and the band of students attending these schools narrows considerably (there are multiple private elementary and middle schools; two private high schools�one of which is a very expensive IB program). That said, to my mind, the most notable part of the data in the SAT links you gave has to do with tuition and per pupil spending. It appeared that most per child tuition costs significantly exceeded most per pupil spending in public schools. Unfortunately, the two charts don�t contain the same information, so it is impossible to compare teacher salary or class size. However, I would be shocked if the public school student: teacher ratios looked anything like the private school ones. Even the highest ratios in the private school chart are 8-10 students better than the regular education class sizes in our local high schools�and most of the ratios are significantly below even our elementary school class sizes.

Re: bashing. I was actually trying to separate the discussion here from what is happening in the media, and again my intent was to consider what it would take to attract the kind of candidates you mention to a career in public education. I do consider it bashing, and not honest criticism, when I read diatribe after diatribe about how teachers are greedy-lazy-stupid-selfish etc... Those words are not critiques: they are personal, insulting statements and too often accompanied by statements that reveal a real lack of understanding about what teachers do. It does not make teaching an attractive profession and will not help to attract bright adults who have other options.

I realize that people trash talk other professions as well, but it has become constant when it comes to teaching, and it is not a well compensated enough profession to expect people to just keep taking it on the chin. Ironically, I think that it hurts the best teachers the most. For the record, I dislike personal attacks directed at any profession. I do not only feel this way when it comes to education.

Finally, I think anecdotal contributions are important. Studies are funded to ask specific questions, and too often, by people with specific agendas. They do not ask every question, thus do not provide a complete picture. Test scores tell only part of any story and need to be fleshed out with the real experiences that people have had. I don�t see the difference between individuals stating on this forum that merit pay would not enhance their professional experience or motivation, and the assertion that �many� talented people don�t go into teaching because of lack of merit pay. Personally, I don�t see merit pay making a difference in test scores or overall outcomes.

The major point I've been making here is that test scores, including failure rates on the incredibly easy Praxis I, are strong evidence that many teachers don't know much about what they're teaching.


I googled the term "greedy teachers" and one of the top hits was a piece called Teachers: A Greedy and Selfish Lot, says the Wall Street Journal. The "greedy" spin was added by the blog writer and it distorted what the paper wrote. A lot of the first 30 hits had exactly that same type of spin. Actual accusations of greed were thrown at the unions, but I didn't find any aimed at teachers.

I'm coming to the conclusion that accusing people or the media of "teacher bashing" is primarily a tactic used to deflect attention from honest criticism. That Wall Street Journal piece is a case in point.


Anecdotes are nice for telling stories, but they only give a tiny slice of reality. As for your next comment, are you saying that we should just abandon studies because researchers have "agendas?"

I presented evidence showing that knowledgeable/talented people leave the public schools or just don't go there.

Again, I fail to understand the opposition to merit pay. The seniority-only system protects mediocrities and creates disincentives for going the extra mile. Public schools also drive away capable people (both students and teachers) by failing to recognize talent.

That's a distinction without a difference IMO. Teachers unions represent teachers, and if teachers did not like how they were represented they would elect new leaders. Attacks on teachers unions are effectively attacks on teachers, and I think those attacks are merited, for a reason you have documented in this thread. Teachers are on average intellectually mediocre compared to other college graduates -- they are not of the same caliber as say electrical engineers. Considering their average intellectual level, I think their compensation should be cut -- there are lots of people with teaching credentials who would be willing do their jobs for less, and I think there are lots of people without teaching credentials but with B.A.'s could also do their jobs (as Teach for America has demonstrated).

Yes, if we paid teachers more we could have better ones -- but we would need to terminate many of the current teachers. Paying both current and prospective teachers more would be very expensive and inefficient.

I disagree. There's a difference between criticizing a union policy ("We oppose merit pay") and criticizing teachers themselves. From what I've seen, a lot of "teacher bashing" is really "criticizing the unions."

The Wall Street Journal piece is a case in point. The blogger lied/twisted the piece and accused the WSJ of calling teachers "greedy and selfish."

In fact, the piece made no accusations like that whatsoever. It just criticized two union policies. One policy created financial difficulties for a charter school that it didn't create for the regular public schools. The other one banned the use of non-union teacher's aides using money raised by parents.

Whether or not anyone reading this message agrees with the WSJ piece, it was clearly NOT calling teachers "selfish and greedy." It was criticizing union policies.

I'm definitely not suggesting that we abandon studies--I'm only saying that they are a part of the picture and that I wouldn't be so quick to discount the experiences that people have in the field. I believe that understanding the experiences of individuals is necessary to having a complete picture, and that collectively those experiences represent more than a tiny slice of reality. Generally, I would argue that in the hard sciences studies are more reliable because there is more control over the variables. What can be proven to be true in one setting can often be replicated in another setting. I would argue that this is less the case in social sciences because it is very hard to produce identical conditions�which is probably one of the reasons that such attention has been given test scores. Unfortunately, test scores fail to provide an accurate overall picture of instructional practice. On a side note, we will be working with MAP testing for the first time this year and I am anxious to see firsthand how students respond to it. I cautiously think that adaptive testing holds some real promise in accurately assessing response to instruction.

re: the question of bashing.... I may not have been clear about this, but when I am referring to media, I am including the public responses posted to newspaper articles as well as the comments made on televised news shows. Those comments are read nearly as widely as the articles themselves, so they have a significant impact on public perception and teacher morale. Again, my point goes to the climate in which educators are trying to work and the likelihood of education attracting candidates that have the background you are recommending.

I do believe that attacking teachers� unions is akin to attacking teachers. While I have definitely parted company with my union on some issues, on most issues I am grateful for their efforts, especially in the current climate. I see the union the way I see my government�even when the party of my choice is in power, we don�t agree on everything, but I generally feel that they represent my position better than alternative parties would.


Don�t worry, we are not paid the same as electrical engineers either.

college degrees with the best salaries

Cutting salaries is not going to improve education. As far as merit pay: I might be able to support it if the base wage for teaching was better than it is. Of course, that is assuming that anyone can come up with a fair and reasonable way to assign merit pay. Currently the way to move beyond a low base wage is years of experience and increased educational acquisition. I can't imagine many teachers staying in the field if they are stuck with that base wage for years on end. I think that experience counts for a lot in education and do not see a revolving door of young, inexperienced teachers bringing us anywhere positive.

Re: Teach for America. I am generally supportive of the program when TFA teachers are meeting a need that exists. I also think it may play an important role in the future of education for people from diverse fields to have firsthand experiences in high poverty schools and a better understanding of what it takes to instruct unprepared students. However, I would disagree with your conclusion about what it has shown.

Washington Post--A New Look At Teach For America

I recommend following the link contained within the column, but the column does summarize some of the key points.
An excerpt from the conclusions portion of the study:

��.TFA teachers appear less effective in both reading and mathematics than fully prepared entrants teaching similar students, at least until the TFA teachers become prepared and certified themselves. While the small number who stay this long are sometimes found to be more effective in mathematics than other teachers, their attrition rate of more than
80 percent means that few students receive the benefit of this greater effectiveness, while districts pay the costs of high attrition.�

On the one hand this supports Val�s contention that math instruction done by teachers who are near the top of their college classes is a desirable outcome, on the other hand, it suggests that becoming a quality teacher is not as simple as just being a top college student. Either way, it is unlikely that lowering pay is going to attract the 80% who do their two years and then move on to something else.

I mentioned compensation, which includes pensions that few in the private sector have. Money saved by cutting hourly compensation can be used reduce budget deficits and to reduce class sizes, as described in a recent article on the Kaukauna school district of Wisconsin:

http://jewishworldreview.com/0711/york.php3
Jewish World Review
July 12, 2011
Controversial budget law begins to pay off
By Byron York

...

In the past, Kaukauna's agreement with the teachers union required the school district to purchase health-insurance coverage from something called WEA Trust -- a company created by the Wisconsin teachers union. "It was in the collective-bargaining agreement that we could negotiate only with them," says Arnoldussen. "Well, you know what happens when you can negotiate with only one vendor." This year, WEA Trust told Kaukauna that it would face a significant increase in premiums.

Now the collective-bargaining agreement is gone, and the school district is free to shop around for coverage. And all of a sudden, WEA Trust has changed its position. "With these changes, the schools could go out for bids, and, lo and behold, WEA Trust said, 'We can match the lowest bid,'" says Republican state Rep. Jim Steineke, who represents the area and supports the Walker changes. At least for the moment, Kaukauna is staying with WEA Trust but saving substantial amounts of money.

Then there are work rules. "In the collective-bargaining agreement, high-school teachers had to teach only five periods a day out of seven," says Arnoldussen. "Now they're going to teach six." In addition, the collective-bargaining agreement specified that teachers had to be in the school 37-1/2 hours a week. Now it will be 40 hours.

The changes mean Kaukauna can reduce the size of its classes -- from 31 students to 26 students in high school and from 26 students to 23 students in elementary school. In addition, there will be more teacher time for one-on-one sessions with troubled students. Those changes would not have been possible without the much-maligned changes in collective bargaining.

Teachers' salaries will stay "relatively the same," Arnoldussen says, except for higher pension and health care payments. (The top salary is about $80,000 per year, with about $35,000 in additional benefits, for 184 days of work per year -- summers off.) Finally, the money saved will be used to hire a few more teachers and institute merit pay.

It is impossible to overstate how bitter and ugly the Wisconsin fight has been, and that bitterness and ugliness continues to this day with efforts to recall senators and an unseemly battle inside the state Supreme Court. But the new law is now a reality, and Gov. Walker recently told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that the measure would gain acceptance "with every day, week and month that goes by that the world doesn't fall apart."

In the Kaukauna schools, the world is definitely not falling apart -- it's getting better.

I'm having a difficult time replying to this without getting into a long political/economic tangent. My brief thoughts in response would be that in my experience, people in well paid jobs typically also have decent vacation and sick leave allowances. Unfortunately, I was not able to find a comprehensive look at paid vacation levels relative to salary. Based on the lifestyles of professionals around here, well paid white collar work seems to come with many weeks of paid vacation and many paid holidays. I mention that only because it factors into length of work year, although I would acknowledge that teachers work a shorter year.

That said, under current common pay structures, I think talking about "average salaries" is misleading. An employee who has made an average of $50-60,000 per year from the very beginning has been compensated overall at a much higher cumulative level than the employee who started at $30000 and earned $1000-$1500 more each year until they reached that average salary. After 15 years, there is around $150,000 difference in cumulative pay, (and that assumes no forward movement by the employee who started at $50,000). Kaukana, by the way, has (or had) one of the highest salary averages in the state in 2009-10, which is the most recent year with reliable data, so that $80,000 in the article, which is significantly above average, is also being paid in a district that is outside of the norm in Wisconsin.

I would also recommend looking at:

State and Local Workers Earn Less than Private Sector Workers, Even Factoring in Benefits

As far as the changes in Kaukauna...reduction in class size is always nice, but but doing it by increasing the number of periods that teachers teach, while raising the overall numbers of students they see, is not good for students. Being well prepared to teach 6 periods per day, and keeping up in any kind of meaningful way on the work of 130 students is not doable with an hour of prep time per day. Anyone who has ever given a presentation knows the work that goes into being well prepared--imagine doing that daily for 6 periods a day (even if some hours are same material to different sections of students), never mind trying to do that while differentiating and grading the assignments. Rigorous instruction is not delivered through seat of your pants teaching. Strong subject knowledge and strong instructional skills still require adequate preparation and follow up time.

I'm going to leave aside commenting on the insurance issues since my views on that are bound up in a much broader political analysis.

I would agree with the article's contention that the fight in Wisconsin has been bitter and ugly. I would add disturbing and frightening, but that's another story....

The vast majority of jobs in industry give you two weeks out of twelve to start with, maybe moving up to four if you work at the company for a long time. Many companies combine sick leave with vacation, and you get some random number of days that's usually below 20. If you get really sick or need surgery, chances are you won't get any vacation that year. Do a search; this is the industry standard.

Contractors (and there are a lot of them) often get no time off, no sick pay, no insurance...nothing but their hourly wage.

Sorry, but sometimes I get the impression that many teachers aren't aware of how things are in other workplaces.

At a minimum, teachers get the following vacations in addition to sick pay:

• Two weeks at Christmas (10 days)
• A week in the winter (5 days)
• A week in April (5 days)

These three vacations alone make four weeks of time off out of a ten-month work year. So when complaining that a teachers "only" gets a salary of $60,000, remember that this number is for part-time work (~75%).

Here's a site showing average teacher salaries in California. The overall average teacher salary (excluding benefits) in the state is ~$68K for ten months of work. This sounds pretty good to me, at least in California.

Interestingly, the site says that average salaries have gone up recently because many junior, lower-paid teachers got laid off. So: it doesn't matter if they were better teachers than the more senior ones. They got sacked because they were junior. There have to be poor teachers in the senior group --- and the system has preserved them, at a higher cost, while jettisoning better (but junior) teachers.

I don't know what you mean about average salaries. Average is average. Roughly half are below an average and half are above. What's your point?


The school day goes from 8:30-2:30 and there is an hour allotted for prep time and correcting. Fine. But what about the time after 2:30? Most people work until 5 or 6 (many professionals work even later). You're saying that teachers stop working at 2:30? If so, this brings your time commitment from ~75% down to ~50%.

Wow, I'm working in the wrong school district. I get one week off at Christmas and we have a very limited spring break. Granted, I only work 10 months a year (roughly), but I only get paid for 10 months a year as well. I didn't start at $68K either. Is it really typical for schools to give a week off in winter and in April? Or are you referring to something I'm missing? <summer brain> My school day starts at 7:00 and runs until 3:30 with 30 minutes for lunch.

1. I didn't say anything about starting salaries. I quoted average salaries. Don't twist words!

2. A school year typically lasts 180 days. So if you don't get two one-week breaks in February and April, you probably get more than two months off in the summer. Example, Miami schools start in mid-August but are out before Memorial Day because they only take a week in March. Cambridge (MA) schools start right after Labor Day and end in Mid-June because of a vacation in February and a vacation in April. The numbers are still the same.

(Year-round schools still keep the 180 day rule, as far as I know. They have lots of short breaks throughout the year.)

The school district may not pay you in the summer, but you're free to find other work during that time. Everyone choosing to teach knows this going in.

3. Sounds like a long day; the schools I looked at and most or all the public schools where I live run between 8 and 3 (most start later and end earlier).

But how much of that time are you actually teaching?

Argh, no! I don't want to fight. I just feel obliged to make my points in a clear way. A contentious subject like this one is prone to all kinds of misunderstandings, so what may appear as truculence is really an attempt at clarity. It's also an unfortunate fact that words and meanings get manipulated in the debate throughout the country at large.

I'm not politically motivated in any way here; I simply try to find facts about the system and analyze/report them. It's unfortunate that there are some discomfiting facts in the world of education.



Val

I started drafting a response and then stopped. I come to this forum because I am interested in what people have to say on a variety of topics related to giftedness. It's something I enjoy. While I feel that there is more to be said, I'm realizing that this doesn't feel like a discussion to me and I am just not interested in having a long, draining argument. Bottom line, you are not going to convince me that teachers are overpaid, underworked and incompetent and I am clearly not going to convince you of the opposite. I had hoped that there would be some room for us to build shared understanding and some level of consensus, in part because I see that as the only viable path to improving anything, and I do believe that we need to continue to improve our education system. However, I'm realizing that this is feeling too much to me like the partisan back and forth that I find so discouraging in our political system, and in my area the political situation is already taking up my energy for that type of discourse. I do appreciate the time you've taken to try and clearly express your views. I'm sorry that we couldn't find a bridge to stand on here.
Peace,
Tam

I suppose the thing that frustrates me the most about conversations like this is the high level of misrepresentation or misunderstanding...I never said that teachers are overpaid; at most I said that average California salaries seemed "pretty good." Etc. etc. etc. I get very tired of having to refute incorrect points that having an undermining effect. This gets in the way of trying to define problems and find solutions.

Problem: Many teachers lack subject knowledge, especially in mathematics.

Problem: The US public school system has huge disincentives to maximizing knowledgeable talented people among the teaching ranks.

Solutions: Suggestions noted in the thread.

I understand that you're feeling frustrated, as I'm sure others are. But I am too. I'm very frustrated with the national education debate being driven by misinformation, an unwillingness to examine uncomfortable truths objectively, and an unwillingness to implement real, meaningful changes.

I'm not saying that you, personally are unwilling to, say, implement meaningful changes. I'm just saying that this is a national problem. But it is very frustrating when I write "A" and the reply is an criticism implying that I said "B," like the quote above.

K. �I'll butt in. �Only been reading this thread for two days. �I didn't wanna interrupt because it's two of the good thinkers here talking. �I'll throw in my out of the blue, um, creative thinking. �I see the problem as the strain the job appears to be creating for the teachers is because the public who employs them doesn't really understand their job. �The stress, the pressure that wilts even engaging efficient teachers over time is because they are a public employee and the public doesn't know what it wants from teachers. �
When I was a kid I liked almost all the teachers, I like everybody, but I really loved the occasional teacher that knew their subject. �The passion shows differently than a passion for teaching. �IIRC. �Anyway, is school only a weeding out process? �Do the better kids just get further in their education? �Then, is the goal to get the folks who graduate from the far end of education to improve the quality of the world? �Is the goal to improve the kids so that more of them get to the far side of education? �That's two different guesses. �There must be some value to mass education since it's mandatory and publicly funded. �If the consuming public could concretely outline the value being sold by the school system would it help teachers deal with the strain your job appears to create for you? �I would think it was stressful to work for a boss you can't please even when you do exactly what you think they said.

I have been only vaguely following this, I as an ex-teacher I have seen the view from both sides, but I think the problem is that both views are right. There are amazing committed teachers who work hard and stay in. There are amazing teachers who quit in frustration. Burnout rates can be very high. There are teachers who, quite frankly, I wouldn't inflict on any child.

And that's why I opted out, both as a teacher and a parent.

Hmm; I'm not sure what you want, then. There are serious problems in our education system, and they won't be solved if everyone makes sure that no teachers don't feel offended or unwelcome. And of course, we're going down that same path of distracting attention away from problems and potential solutions by accusing a critic of current policies as being "unwelcoming."

So I'll repeat:

Problem: Many teachers lack subject knowledge, especially in mathematics. I like Bostonian's idea of hiring specialists in math and science in the lower grades. I remember having art and music teachers as early as kindergarten. They came to our classroom until 3rd grade, when we started going to the music room (7th for art).

Problem: The US public school system has huge disincentives to maximizing knowledgeable, talented people among the teaching ranks. As noted, bonuses, pay raises, and promotions (e.g. "Teacher I" to "Teacher II") could address these problems.

I'll also add that the current system shortchanges gifted kids and slower learners by not allowing them to learn at appropriate paces. Suggestion: ability grouping, acceleration and...umm... deceleration (?).

In that regard, I was thinking about swimming lessons. The first thing the teachers do around here is to test everyone and ability group them. My six-year-old has a ten-year-old in her class, for example. My eleven-year-old swam with kids aged 10-~14. It works, and it doesn't cost extra money.

Thoughts and suggestions welcome.

GeoMama,

Thank you for expressing this so clearly.

Pennsylvania is starting to do this soon, with a new 4th-8th grade certification (preK-3rd is the new elementary ed certification). They are requiring that teachers specialize in one area (math, science, social studies, reading). They will need 30 credits in their chosen area, plus 15 credits in each of the other areas. I think it's a good idea, BUT you have to realize that this is going to have to be somewhat at the expense of education classes and electives - this is 75 credits of subjects! As a comparison, you only need 39 credits of math at Pitt to get a B.S. in Math, so the 4th grade math specialist would only be 3 classes away.

Did you happen to watch the video I posted previously about whether money actually motivates people to perform better on the job? It's very interesting! In PA, a new teacher starts with an Instructional I certificate for his/her first 3 years. They are probational (not covered by tenure) at this time, and they need to have 6 evaluations (2 per year). It is the school district's job to weed out the bad apples while they are Instructional I. If all of the evaluations are good, they move to Instructional II, get tenure, etc. I understand that some teachers give up trying and become bad teachers after those first 3 years, but I think that most of the bad apples could probably have been picked out during that time. Administrations need to do a better job of weeding out.

The reason that so many people dislike the idea of merit pay is that clearly the objective is to make this merit pay based on standardized test scores rather than any subjective measures. Merit pay based on standardized test scores will create a few negative incentives. First, teachers will get as far away as they can from the lower students and schools plagued by poverty and low scores. Second, even fewer resources will be devoted to students who are already proficient or above average. Everyone will want to teach them, but that doesn't mean that they will get the best teachers. For example, if Mr. Principal's niece is a teacher, he may give her a big group of gifted kids and no special ed or learning disabilities - she will get a big bonus for twiddling her thumbs. If Mrs. Great-Teacher ruffles some feathers by challenging the district on something, she may get all of the learning support kids next year - she will not be getting a bonus.

NCLB has been horrible for the upper half of our kids, putting all of the focus on the kids who aren't achieving. IMO, this is exactly the opposite of what our system should be doing. I wish we could have more of a European system, where kids are tracked into different types of school/career paths based on aptitude and achievement when they hit middle or high school. The kids who are either very smart or who are willing to work to have great achievement are the ones who really need to be prepared to go on to college and grad school - they are the ones who could be curing cancer or solving the debt crisis, etc!

I don't think that there are any easy solutions to solving our educational problems. I think that, as is typical in the US, no one wants to take responsibility. It definitely comes from both sides, but it is naive to think that a teacher can completely turn around a student's education without parent support. At the same time, a truly devoted family can ABSOLUTELY guarantee that their children get a good education in our country. When most of us grew up, it was our job to be good students, get our work done, and behave in school. I had a few good teachers, but most of them were just mediocre. Today, I have seen firsthand the way the parents can completely undermine the authority of the teachers and school, letting their kids get away with everything under the sun.

Wow, yes. That video was completely cool and got lost in the discussion.

It got me thinking about a lot of things. I remember doing a management course at work around 12 years ago; the guy teaching it was very good. One of the things he mentioned was that some of the happiest employees were train drivers, in large part because they had a lot of autonomy while they were driving the trains. I like the whole purpose-driven work environment idea a lot. In fact, I think that great leaders get this idea completely: they really involve people in the idea that we're all in it together and we're really going to do something great!


I also think that merit pay should be based many things and should be at the discretion of the principal rather than codified into a contract (there's that autonomy thing). It could be awarded for helping to find a new math curriculum or starting/running a successful after-school club.

But tests are important too (though I'd redesign them first). I'd structure things around the fact that kids learn at different rates and they shouldn't all be expected to take the same test at the same age. Ahh, there's an idea for a program that should earn some serious merit pay if successfully implemented.

I'm definitely no fan of industrial multiple choice testing. I do see some benefits of it, but think we rely on this type of test too heavily. (Danger: philosophy alert!) One of our great strengths as a nation is that we try to do big things in a big way (e.g. moon shots; iPhones). The downside of this philosophy is that it gets over-applied in the wrong places (e.g. testing mania). Europeans and other nations use tests that have to be graded individually by humans. This approach gives room for depth over superficiality. But it's slower and old-fashioned, so maybe Americans don't like it so much.

Double amen to everthing you wrote there.


Agreed. I'd also add that the student needs to eventually dig deep and put in huge effort. In this area, I really have a lot of sympathy for what teachers have to deal with. I'm sure it's hard in an immediate way in the classroom and extremely demoralizing over the longer term.