Harvard: Good Teachers Worth The Cost

[PoliticalChic]

1. WASHINGTON — Elementary- and middle-school teachers who help raise their students’ standardized-test scores seem to have a wide-ranging, lasting positive effect on those students’ lives beyond academics, including lower teenage-pregnancy rates and greater college matriculation and adult earnings, according to a new study that tracked 2.5 million students over 20 years.

2. ...allowing for a deeper look at how much the quality of individual teachers matters over the long term.

3. “That test scores help you get more education, and that more education has an earnings effect — that makes sense to a lot of people,”...differences in teachers mean differences in earnings.”

4. ...“value-added ratings,” which measure the impact individual teachers have on student test scores. It is likely to influence the roiling national debates about the importance of quality teachers and how best to measure that quality.

5. Many school districts, including those in Washington and Houston, have begun to use value-added metrics to influence decisions on hiring, pay and even firing.

6. Detractors, most notably a number of teachers unions, say that isolating the effect of a given teacher is harder than it seems, and might unfairly penalize some instructors.

7. Critics particularly point to the high margin of error with many value-added ratings, noting that they tend to bounce around for a given teacher from year to year and class to class. But looking at an individual’s value-added score for three or four classes, the researchers found that some consistently outperformed their peers.

8. The average effect of one teacher on a single student is modest. All else equal, a student with one excellent teacher for one year between fourth and eighth grade would gain $4,600 in lifetime income, compared to a student of similar demographics who has an average teacher. The student with the excellent teacher would also be 0.5 percent more likely to attend college.

9. Replacing a poor teacher with an average one would raise a single classroom’s lifetime earnings by about $266,000, the economists estimate. Multiply that by a career’s worth of classrooms.

10. “If you leave a low value-added teacher in your school for 10 years, rather than replacing him with an average teacher, you are hypothetically talking about $2.5 million in lost income,” said Professor Friedman, one of the coauthors."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/06/e...achers-to-lasting-gain.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1


And this: "...even if imperfect, well-calculated value-added scores are an important part of evaluating teachers." Ibid.

Data informs policy, as it should.

 

[editec]

STandardized testing plays an important role in informing us how well our educational systems are doing.

That said, teaching to the standarized tests is counterproductive to real education.

 

[PoliticalChic]

STandardized testing plays an important role in informing us how well our educational systems are doing.

That said, teaching to the standarized tests is counterproductive to real education.

Not at all.

The reason that the unions don't want the results of their teaching made public, or used in evaluations, is because said data is dispositive.

 

[FurthurBB]

STandardized testing plays an important role in informing us how well our educational systems are doing.

That said, teaching to the standarized tests is counterproductive to real education.

True, standardized tests are an important way to see how well the system is doing, but too much, as can be seen by the mess in Florida, leaves children with an inability to actually learn how to think.

 

[PoliticalChic]

STandardized testing plays an important role in informing us how well our educational systems are doing.

That said, teaching to the standarized tests is counterproductive to real education.

True, standardized tests are an important way to see how well the system is doing, but too much, as can be seen by the mess in Florida, leaves children with an inability to actually learn how to think.

I would be interested in seeing the basis of this post, if you have same.

 

[SayMyName]

Good teachers will come regardless of how little or how much we spend.

The focus must be on the families with children and how they view education in the country. When education is valued, and order restored in the majority of our schools, academic progress will soar.

Socrates did say, "When the student is ready, the teacher will appear."

 

[bripat9643]

STandardized testing plays an important role in informing us how well our educational systems are doing.

That said, teaching to the standarized tests is counterproductive to real education.

Not teaching to the test doesn't seem to produce a "real education" either, so we'll settle for teaching to the test. At least kids will have some facts in their heads instead of a load of liberal mush.

 

[bripat9643]

STandardized testing plays an important role in informing us how well our educational systems are doing.

That said, teaching to the standarized tests is counterproductive to real education.

True, standardized tests are an important way to see how well the system is doing, but too much, as can be seen by the mess in Florida, leaves children with an inability to actually learn how to think.

What "mess in Florida" are you referring to?

 

[PoliticalChic]

STandardized testing plays an important role in informing us how well our educational systems are doing.

That said, teaching to the standarized tests is counterproductive to real education.

True, standardized tests are an important way to see how well the system is doing, but too much, as can be seen by the mess in Florida, leaves children with an inability to actually learn how to think.

What "mess in Florida" are you referring to?

Our friend BB seems to have misplaced the data that both of us asked for...

but might be interested in this about content-rich currucula...

1. "The “Massachusetts miracle,” in which Bay State students’ soaring test scores broke records, was the direct consequence of the state legislature’s passage of the 1993 Education Reform Act, which established knowledge-based standards for all grades and a rigorous testing system linked to the new standards. And those standards, Massachusetts reformers have acknowledged, are Hirsch’s legacy.

2. In the new millennium, Massachusetts students have surged upward on the biennial National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)—“the nation’s report card,” as education scholars call it. On the 2005 NAEP tests, Massachusetts ranked first in the nation in fourth- and eighth-grade reading and fourth- and eighth-grade math. It then repeated the feat in 2007. No state had ever scored first in both grades and both subjects in a single year—let alone for two consecutive test cycles. On another reliable test, the Trends in International Math and Science Studies, the state’s fourth-graders last year ranked second globally in science and third in math, while the eighth-graders tied for first in science and placed sixth in math. (States can volunteer, as Massachusetts did, to have their students compared with national averages.) The United States as a whole finished tenth.

3. Hirsch was also convinced that the problem of inadequate background knowledge began in the early grades. Elementary school teachers thus had to be more explicit about imparting such knowledge to students—indeed, this was even more important than teaching the “skills” of reading and writing, Hirsch believed. Hirsch’s insight contravened the conventional wisdom in the nation’s education schools: that teaching facts was unimportant, and that students instead should learn “how to” skills. …expanded the argument in a 1983 article, titled “Cultural Literacy,” in The American Scholar."
E. D. Hirsch’s Curriculum for Democracy by Sol Stern, City Journal Autumn 2009

Proof of the failure of progressive education.

 

[Swagger]

Meanwhile, in the UK:

By Angela Harrison
Education correspondent, BBC News

"Plans to make it easier for head teachers in England to sack underperforming staff are to go ahead from September, the government says. It says poor teachers could be removed within a term instead of a year, which can be the case at present. The Education Secretary, Michael Gove, says schools have been "tangled in red tape" for too long when dealing with struggling staff."

Poor Teachers Face Tougher System Under Shake-up - BBC

 

[PoliticalChic]

Meanwhile, in the UK:

By Angela Harrison
Education correspondent, BBC News

"Plans to make it easier for head teachers in England to sack underperforming staff are to go ahead from September, the government says. It says poor teachers could be removed within a term instead of a year, which can be the case at present. The Education Secretary, Michael Gove, says schools have been "tangled in red tape" for too long when dealing with struggling staff."

Poor Teachers Face Tougher System Under Shake-up - BBC

Just a comment that may not have any actual moment in this thread, but I believe that the problem is less with bad teachers, than with bad curriculum, i.e., post #9 above.

Why did teachers do so much better job a couple of generations back? Were they really so much better....or was there another factor at play?

 

[Swagger]

Meanwhile, in the UK:

By Angela Harrison
Education correspondent, BBC News

"Plans to make it easier for head teachers in England to sack underperforming staff are to go ahead from September, the government says. It says poor teachers could be removed within a term instead of a year, which can be the case at present. The Education Secretary, Michael Gove, says schools have been "tangled in red tape" for too long when dealing with struggling staff."

Poor Teachers Face Tougher System Under Shake-up - BBC

Just a comment that may not have any actual moment in this thread, but I believe that the problem is less with bad teachers, than with bad curriculum, i.e., post #9 above.

Why did teachers do so much better job a couple of generations back? Were they really so much better....or was there another factor at play?

Personally speaking (though I concede that I've raised this before with mixed results), my teachers - or masters, as I was obliged to call them - ruled by the cane i.e - you were punished severely for any indiscretion that a) disrupted the lesson, or b) undermined the teacher's authority. Parents would nearly always side with a teacher over their children, too, which established an ultimate benchmark of authority.

Another point that I'd like to raise is that teachers were always employed on a permanent basis. They were entirely secure in their job (with a guaranteed pension), thus less inclined to be distracted by anxiety over their job security or likely to repay their anxiety over their shaky prospects with a lacklustre standard of teaching.

 

[IanC]

Meanwhile, in the UK:

By Angela Harrison
Education correspondent, BBC News

"Plans to make it easier for head teachers in England to sack underperforming staff are to go ahead from September, the government says. It says poor teachers could be removed within a term instead of a year, which can be the case at present. The Education Secretary, Michael Gove, says schools have been "tangled in red tape" for too long when dealing with struggling staff."

Poor Teachers Face Tougher System Under Shake-up - BBC

Just a comment that may not have any actual moment in this thread, but I believe that the problem is less with bad teachers, than with bad curriculum, i.e., post #9 above.

Why did teachers do so much better job a couple of generations back? Were they really so much better....or was there another factor at play?

A few generations back there was a societal expectation that women would gravitate to teaching and nursing as professions. the gain in other professions by attracting smart women has been matched by the loss in education where the drop in top quality teachers has been very noticable. I'm not suggesting that we go backwards in women's rights, I'm just pointing out the inevitable effect of giving more options and changing societal expectations has had on education. skimming off many of the best and brightest for other fields not only drops the overall average ability of teachers but it also decreases the peer evaluated standard of what makes a 'good' teacher.

 

[editec]

STandardized testing plays an important role in informing us how well our educational systems are doing.

That said, teaching to the standarized tests is counterproductive to real education.

Not at all.

The reason that the unions don't want the results of their teaching made public, or used in evaluations, is because said data is dispositive.

PC, schools have always had standardized testing. EVery other year of my k-12 education (1955 -1969) we were given standardized tests to note our progress.

So kid? You really don't lnow what the fuck you're talking about.

 

[jillian]

STandardized testing plays an important role in informing us how well our educational systems are doing.

That said, teaching to the standarized tests is counterproductive to real education.

Not at all.

The reason that the unions don't want the results of their teaching made public, or used in evaluations, is because said data is dispositive.

PC, schools have always had standardized testing. EVery other year of my k-12 education (1955 -1969) we were given standardized tests to note our progress.

So kid? You really don't lnow what the fuck you're talking about.

she actually doesn't know anything about public schools except what she reads from sources that confirm her biases. that's what happens when you home school.

 

[spectrumc01]

Standarized testing is good for some things like evaluating where the student is actually at and how the school over all is doing. However to tie a teacher to these tests is wrong on so many levels.

If a child fails, and the teacher recomends that the student repeat the grade, that is all it is... a recomendation. The parents have the final word, not the school or the teacher.

The school board sets the cirriculum and how it is taught, not the teacher. The teacher can recomend changes but that is all...recomend.

The school gets the child for less than eight hours a day, and the individual teacher gets the child for even less time than that. The parents and the out side world get the child for the rest of the time. How much do you really expect a teacher to do with less than an hour and several hundred children a day to influence, and teach?

For the vast majority of people who pay school taxes, it isn't how good the teacher is, or how the school is doing. They don't even care if the student passes or fails. What bothers them is how much money the teacher is making. It is this issue that is driving this particular debate, and if standardized testing can be used to not pay terachers than so be it. For these people all teachers are making too much money, good and bad.

Now comes the reality of Mitt Romney and what his election will mean. How will venture capitalism affect our school system? Not a happy place to be for administrators, teachers, parents, and especially for the students.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Standarized testing is good for some things like evaluating where the student is actually at and how the school over all is doing. However to tie a teacher to these tests is wrong on so many levels.

If a child fails, and the teacher recomends that the student repeat the grade, that is all it is... a recomendation. The parents have the final word, not the school or the teacher.

The school board sets the cirriculum and how it is taught, not the teacher. The teacher can recomend changes but that is all...recomend.

The school gets the child for less than eight hours a day, and the individual teacher gets the child for even less time than that. The parents and the out side world get the child for the rest of the time. How much do you really expect a teacher to do with less than an hour and several hundred children a day to influence, and teach?

For the vast majority of people who pay school taxes, it isn't how good the teacher is, or how the school is doing. They don't even care if the student passes or fails. What bothers them is how much money the teacher is making. It is this issue that is driving this particular debate, and if standardized testing can be used to not pay terachers than so be it. For these people all teachers are making too much money, good and bad.

Now comes the reality of Mitt Romney and what his election will mean. How will venture capitalism affect our school system? Not a happy place to be for administrators, teachers, parents, and especially for the students.

The following is from “Troublemaker,” by Chester E. Finn, Jr. Former Assistant Secretary of Education under President Reagan:

“Teaching to the test” is deplored in education circles, although that complaint is easily answered: if the test faithfully mirrors the skills and knowledge set out in the standards, then preparing one’s pupils to ace such a test is an honorable mission!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Not at all.

The reason that the unions don't want the results of their teaching made public, or used in evaluations, is because said data is dispositive.

PC, schools have always had standardized testing. EVery other year of my k-12 education (1955 -1969) we were given standardized tests to note our progress.

So kid? You really don't lnow what the fuck you're talking about.

she actually doesn't know anything about public schools except what she reads from sources that confirm her biases. that's what happens when you home school.

Hmmmm......

.....do I detect a bit of resentment because you didn't homeschool?

 

[chanel]

Anyone have any stats on drop out rates from the 60s til now? How about retention rates? I remember kids being held back and many dropping out if they couldn't cut it. It wasn't too long ago that slow kids were sent to separate schools. We're not comparing apples to apples. Add that to the breakdown of the family and the entitlement generation and that's what you get.

I would have no problem with "value added assessments" if they were done the right way. But they won't be. My special ed kids with 5th grade reading levels are given an 11th grade test and guaranteed a diploma whether or not they pass. Will that be changed? (Rhetorical question of course) NO ONE would dare go there.

 

[PoliticalChic]

STandardized testing plays an important role in informing us how well our educational systems are doing.

That said, teaching to the standarized tests is counterproductive to real education.

Not at all.

The reason that the unions don't want the results of their teaching made public, or used in evaluations, is because said data is dispositive.

PC, schools have always had standardized testing. EVery other year of my k-12 education (1955 -1969) we were given standardized tests to note our progress.

So kid? You really don't lnow what the fuck you're talking about.

I'm going to eschew your particular use of language,...

...but simply question the point you think you're making.

Further, you might like to meditate on the reason industry invests in quality control rather than allowing employees to decide if their work is good enough.

In short, your post is severely lacking in several aspect.