Posts
One study concluded that having a highly effective teacher rather than a teacher of average effectiveness would result in two additional months of academic achievement for a student.
source:
Sanders, W., Rivers, J.C. (1996). Cumulative and Residual Effects of Teachers on Students’ Future Achievement. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Value-Added Research Center)
cited by:
Teachers Matter: Evidence from Value-Added Assessments
Research Points Summer 2004 Vol. 2, Issue 2
bad teachers lower scores
Summary of Findings
- Differences in student achievement of 50 percentile points were observed as a result of teacher sequence after only three years.
- The effects of teachers on student achievement are both additive and cumulative with little evidence of compensatory effects.
- As teacher effectiveness increases, lower achieving students are the first to benefit. The top quintile of teachers facilitate appropriate to excellent gains for students of all achievement levels.
- Students of different ethnicities respond equivalently within the same quintile of teacher effectiveness.
"additive and cumulative":
"According to this new study ... bad teachers lower the test scores of their students, and this lowered achievement carries over into higher grades even if the students are subsequently given good teachers." Heartland Institute
In Sanders' words:
[I]t was possible to determine whether teachers from previous grades affected current year scores....[T]he teacher effects are cumulative and additive with very little, if any, suggestion of compensatory effects. An effective teacher receiving students from a relatively ineffective teacher can facilitate excellent academic gain for his/her students during the school year. Yet these analyses suggest that the residual effects of relatively ineffective teachers - from prior years can be measured in subsequent student achievement scores.
Elsewhere Sanders shows that novice teachers aren't as good as experienced teachers.
(surprise!)
Especially in math. (t/k)
Irvington is hiring novice teachers.
Novice math teachers, lots of them.
I'm now hearing that it's not just the Phase 4 kids being tutored.*
It's the Phase 3 kids, too.
These are bright kids who shouldn't be in Phase 3 to begin with; they belong in Phase 4.
They're getting tutored in Phase 3.
I heard this weekend that the legendary middle school math teacher, who retired at the end of last year thus dooming C. and his cohort to a second year in a row with a teacher who'd failed to teach them effectively in their first year of "accelerated" math, is now tutoring Phase 3 kids.
Fee?
One hundred bucks an hour.
So I'm told.
So instead of offering this teacher a bonus to stay on the job, we sent her off into retirement, hired brand-new novice teachers at greatly-reduced salaries, and threw them into the classroom with no one on hand to mentor, train, or evaluate them.
Et voila.
I'm going into my 3rd summer in a row teaching math at home.
On the other hand, seeing as how I'm entering my Happy Spring phase, part of me is thinking: wow!
This is a kid who has now had 3 years of extremely "ineffective" math teaching (in the 4th, 6th, and 7th grades) and he's still in the game. It's not unusual for him to correct me on a concept or calculation when we're working together; when this happens, typically he's right and I'm wrong.
Next year C. is almost certain to have one of the district's best math teachers. It's entirely possible he's going to show up for class well-prepared.
It's going to be interesting.
* Phase 4: "accelerated math" (algebra in 8th grad); Phase 3: "regular" math
**We are reliably told that the middle school teachers like the new principal because he "leaves them alone." I'm sure this is true; we've witnessed firsthand astonishingly insubordinate behavior on the part of teachers towards the principal.
16 comments:
It's not surprising that good teachers and bad teachers have significant impact. Teaching is too complex a job to be done by idiots.
The incredible thing is that this is only being established now -- established quantitatively, that is.
The entire country believes that teachers don't really matter.
We say they do, but at least since the Coleman report we've believed that the students make the school.
I'll post a link to the Carnegie article on this.
Administrators here absolutely believe that SES & number of books in the home are what counts.
I learned tonight that in fact Ms. K is not reliably going over the homework in class, as I believe she was doing at the beginning of the year.
Instead the kids sit in groups and go over it together.
Or so C. says.
Unfortunately, not only do I not know function notation, the answers never, ever, come home to me so I can check C's homework since Ms. K does not.
So now I'm Googling function notation explanations and worksheets so I can teach myself so I can teach Christopher.
I have SO had it.
Smaller classes result in small gains in achievement in the early grades and no provable advantages in later grades. Good teachers provide significant advantages at every level.
Smaller classes require many more teachers, which is quite expensive. Since money is being spent to fill more jobs, that money is not available to increase compensation for good teachers. Good teachers are more likely to be able to get a job outside of teaching, in a job where their relative quality can be compensated fairly, more likely to understand their market value, and thus arguably more likely to leave teaching.
When you need to fill the increased number of teacher positions created by "smaller classrooms" initiatives, you normally have to accept lower quality employees. This is not a feature unique to teaching positions, the same is true of engineering positions, lawyer positions, or fry cook positions. Since the hardest positions to fill are those for teachers teaching children with the greatest needs, this problem is exacerbated in the most vulnerable populations.
Increase class sizes, pay better teachers more, and pay a premium to teachers teaching the most problematic students. Do this now.
You have to be careful about the "All we need are better teachers." mentality. I've heard it before, usually in the context of reducing the importance of curriculum or grade-level standards.
Like talk of balance, how can one argue against better teachers? But then again, how sensitive is teacher quality to teaching pedagogy and curriculum? I have had many converstations with parents who say that eveything depends on which teacher you get. This often means that it takes a good teacher to deal with a bad curriculum and low expectations.
If you don't just focus on "the one thing", then you might find that you don't need a dreamworld of perfect teachers (or parents).
When you need to fill the increased number of teacher positions created by "smaller classrooms" initiatives, you normally have to accept lower quality employees. This is not a feature unique to teaching positions, the same is true of engineering positions, lawyer positions, or fry cook positions.
yup
Like talk of balance, how can one argue against better teachers? But then again, how sensitive is teacher quality to teaching pedagogy and curriculum? I have had many converstations with parents who say that eveything depends on which teacher you get.
I agree. The new value-added research on the importance of teachers is incredibly useful in terms of beating back the Good Students Make Good Schools meme we've been living with for so long. (Since Coleman's report, I gather.)
Coleman found that (nearly) nothing about the school mattered, only the parents. His report led to busing. (I've forgotten why exactly now.)
I wouldn't be surprised to find that this new research is overemphasizing the importance of teachers, because curriculum can't really be measured by value-added research since most of our curricula are so bad.
Still, the very fact that value-added research shows the teacher to be more important to year-to-year "growth" than parents or income is a big help.
I love the concept of value-added assessment. The reality is a little fuzzier. Here in PA (mentioned in the article as one of the states implementing it), it is based SOLELY on the PSSAs, our state's NCLB test. That's it. I'm not sure if they use the actual number score that's given, I believe they may just go by the BB/B/P/Advanced scale.
I find it worrisome that there is a ceiling, basically. If a kid is scoring advanced, there's no way of telling if they are getting a year's worth of learning the next year or just coasting on their "advancedness" of the year before.
I'd really like to see a *national, normed* test which was continuous and overlapping. Uh, that's my own terminology to describe one really big test, that goes from say 2nd grade on... You'd need some sort of double format, so that you weren't answering the same questions, but the same type from year to year.
If your child scored at grade level 4.2 at the end of say, grade 3, then you'd want them to score at 5.2 or higher by the end of the next year. They'd begin the exam "later" and thus have a different exam than the child who started 4th grade at a 3.5 score. Each child would start the test just below the level they had achieved the year before, for instance at 3.4 for the latter example above. They'd all be given enough "extra test" that they could demonstrate beyond one year gains, as well.
This way, you would actually see the growth over the year of every child and have a real standard by which to assess "value added"
Of course, I'm assuming that every kid comes in ready to take the test on the days given. No one's grandma just died, they don't have an ear infection...you know, the perfect world.
So -- Jen (thanks so much for leaving a comment) -- in PA they are STILL imposing a ceiling?
That's appalling.
That's exactly what value-added is supposed to circumvent.
Every student is supposed to be measured from his or her "baseline" or starting point.
CHARTERS
VOUCHERS
NOW NOW NOW!!!
I'd really like to see a *national, normed* test which was continuous and overlapping.
I've been saying this for at least 2 years now.
The one drawback is that normed tests aren't as good at testing a curriculum as criterion-referenced tests.
I don't care.
I want one.
These days, of course, I'm "rolling my own." I'm going to be giving C. the ITBS every November from now on.
I gave him his first ITBS last November.
Of course, I'm assuming that every kid comes in ready to take the test on the days given. No one's grandma just died, they don't have an ear infection...you know, the perfect world.
I don't think you need the perfect world to have a very good value-added assessment system in place.
Value-added, when it's working properly, will tell you whether a particular teacher is producing at least a year's worth of gains in her/his students.
If your child is sick on the day of the test, but everyone else's children show up and do well you can probably assume your child also made good progress.
I had an interesting call from a parent this morning and the topic was choosing a fourth grade teacher.
"Who are the good teachers and how do we get them?" It is common knowledge that those who volunteer daily get a choice of teachers. I think that is wrong.
I am left feeling as though I am not sure if it would even matter if my son had the "best" teacher. I would still be printing out math worksheets and drilling him in science,social studies and every other subject.
I, too, have SO had it.
Who are the good teachers and how do we get them?" It is common knowledge that those who volunteer daily get a choice of teachers. I think that is wrong.
That's awful!
Definitely worth getting the good teachers, though, if you can.
The funny thing is, parents have ALWAYS known this. (Administrators, too.)
Actually, I am thinking of trying to transfer to another school. I'm not sure if I can, but it's worth a try.
Actually, I am thinking of trying to transfer to another school. I'm not sure if I can, but it's worth a try.
I should start keeping count how many parents I know who are trying to figure some way out of their school!
It's a lot.
Post a Comment