I had a dream about Brian Leiter last week. I was standing in a big empty room, explaining to an empty chair (!) why he was an idiot.
Forgive me for blurting things out, but goddamn was Diane Rehm's show on the Chicago teacher's strike infuriating frustrating this morning. It amounted to a war of conflicting facts:
"Chicago public school teachers often have classes with 40 or more students. Trust me, I taught there for years."
"No, the fact is, Chicago schools have a student/teacher ratio of 16/1."
"Teacher unions essentially run the system, and look at the result, all this poor performance."
"Actually, states without teacher unions perform even worse, so collective bargaining has nothing to do with student performance." (this from Diane Ravitch, hero)
One concludes that people are really confused about the facts.
The balloon just post is peculiar. At one point he admits that teachers don't matter:
People believe that we are suffering from a lack of talent and drive in our teacher ranks. As you all know, I don't agree, and I find the empirical evidence far, far more indicative of student-side demographic effects causing poor educational performance. ...
which would mean that paying teachers well is a waste of money (from the point of view of increasing student performance). But he then goes on an extended rant about how opposing high pay for teachers means you are anti-education.
The problem for the teacher advocates is that they want to simultaneously argue that it is important to pay well to attract good teachers and that it is impossible to identify and dismiss bad teachers.
We should definitely just pay teachers minimum wage, with no benefits.
3.2 is also consistent with bad teachers being much rarer than bad circumstances.
James makes some good points in 3. I think he is right that many, many teachers advocates simultaneously claim that "it is important to pay well to attract good teachers and that it is impossible to identify and dismiss bad teachers."
It is also very hard to identify the effect that a "good teacher" has on "education outcomes." This is mostly because both ideas are so heavily contested, so there is no agreed on forms of measurement. This is the biggest problem with education politics. We can all agree education is important, but we can't agree what it is for.
For my part, I am entirely in favor of teacher evaluation, if done properly. And I think the first rule for doing things properly is that you need at least five years worth of data before making any judgement based on test scores. Evaluating teachers on a yearly basis using student test scores subjects teachers to too much random variation in the students they are given.
If the proposal the CTA is rejecting involves this kind of commitment to quality measurement, I will rethink my support for the teachers. But nothing I have heard so far says it does.
And I think the first rule for doing things properly is that you need at least five years worth of data before making any judgement based on test scores.
It's been observed that only 30% of teachers actually teach subjects that are tested. I'm afraid I don't have a cite (which would be handy in this case), but if you think about it, yeah. What's tested? Math and science and, what, literacy? I actually don't know what's tested in, say, first grade, then fourth grade. Is there some measure for, say, critical thinking skills? Which teacher is responsible for that?
I believe the point of such considerations is that teaching in the earlier grades especially is a collective endeavor on the part of the faculty and school environment as a whole, not to mention the home environment. These things may or may not be objectively measured, but you surely can't blame a single person (a teacher) for a failure.
6
It is also very hard to identify the effect that a "good teacher" has on "education outcomes." This is mostly because both ideas are so heavily contested, so there is no agreed on forms of measurement. This is the biggest problem with education politics. We can all agree education is important, but we can't agree what it is for.
I think the biggest reason it is difficult to identify "good" teachers is that differences between teachers (within the range commonly found in the US) don't account for much of the differences between student outcomes. So to measure the effects of individual teachers on student performance you have to adjust for the factors that are much more important which is difficult to do reliably.
Another problem is it is easier to measure short term effects but what you really care about is long term effects.
For my part, I am entirely in favor of teacher evaluation, if done properly. And I think the first rule for doing things properly is that you need at least five years worth of data before making any judgement based on test scores. Evaluating teachers on a yearly basis using student test scores subjects teachers to too much random variation in the students they are given.
Gathering more data just reduces statistical error, there are many other problems with typical test driven evaluation schemes. As mentioned above test scores are an imperfect measurement for what you are really trying to optimize. This is a problem if it is easier to raise test scores by changing those factors that affect test scores but that don't affect long term performance. Even accepting that the goal is just to raise test scores you also have to worry about model errors. Individual teachers typically don't teach a random cross section of the district's students so in comparing them you have to adjust for differences between their students. The evaluation models are likely to have systematic errors in how they do this.
Another problem with using tests to evaluate teachers is the strong incentives it provides to game the evaluation system or outright cheat. It is obviously crazy to base teacher evalutions on the results of tests that they administer themselves but this seems to be common practice with predictable results.
Demanding five years of data also has the problem that you really want tests that will exclude bad teachers early in the process. It is easier on people if you don't hire them in the first place than if you dismiss them after they have invested five years (or more) in a teaching career. This problem is made worse by teacher pay schemes which are extremely backloaded making teachers justifiably paranoid that districts are looking for ways to get rid of experienced teachers at the point they have finally started to earn good money. Also five years is a lot of time to inflict a bad teacher on children.
I don't think test driven evaluation schemes are likely worth (in terms of improving educational outcomes) the trouble. But there is no excuse for the fact that is typically very difficult to dismiss even obviously bad teachers.
8
I believe the point of such considerations is that teaching in the earlier grades especially is a collective endeavor on the part of the faculty and school environment as a whole, not to mention the home environment. These things may or may not be objectively measured, but you surely can't blame a single person (a teacher) for a failure.
I don't know what this means. Teachers want the credit for students that succeed but not the blame for students that fail. Either teachers are important or they aren't.
Either teachers are important or they aren't.
Someone else will have to speak to the problem with this either/or framing of the debate.
many teachers advocates simultaneously claim that "it is important to pay well to attract good teachers and that it is impossible to identify and dismiss bad teachers."
Hold the fuck on, it tends (at least around here) to be a bit more nuanced than that. Paying well is about retention because experience makes a big difference. And it's not that it's impossible to identify bad teachers but that inevitably people want to use standardized test scores to argue things like class size and teacher effectiveness and it makes people like my wife who are teaching classes of 30+ low income ESL kids want to give said people a swift kick to the groin.
12
... Paying well is about retention because experience makes a big difference. ...
Experience makes a difference for the first few years but after 3 years or so it doesn't much matter (at least as far as test scores go).
... And it's not that it's impossible to identify bad teachers but that inevitably people want to use standardized test scores to argue things like class size and teacher effectiveness and it makes people like my wife who are teaching classes of 30+ low income ESL kids want to give said people a swift kick to the groin.
The teacher evaluation methods (value added) being proposed supposedly adjust for class composition. So in theory your wife would be judged on how she does relative to other teachers in teaching low income ESL kids. There are reasons to doubt how accurate these adjustments are but they aren't just looking at the raw results.
11
Someone else will have to speak to the problem with this either/or framing of the debate.
Ok make it a continuum of possibilities from very important to moderately important to not very important. My point remains, teachers want to argue they should be paid well because they are important but don't want to accept any responsibility for their student's results.
but after 3 years or so it doesn't much matter
I don't know why anyone would even remotely buy this number. Pretty much anyone working a reasonably complex job knows people aren't at their peak after only three years. I might buy it for a toll booth collector but for a teacher it's absurd on its face.
You can't buy toll booth collectors.
Sure, not here but I hear Southeast Asia is a whole 'nother ball game.
Well do people respond to James? That's a serious question, by the way. I'm genuinely curious why people respond to someone who's one part petty bully, two parts scientific racist, and the rest resentful white dude who got fired and now devotes his free time to trolling a not-even-very-lefty blog. And yet, people reply to him all the time. It's odd.
I think he got fired and then hired again, but I get confused.
No, all I've got is this lousy kingdom.
15
I don't know why anyone would even remotely buy this number ...
That is what most of the studies show. A few find effects for greater amounts of experience. See here :
... The preponderance of evidence suggests, however, that teacher experience matters most during the first several years of a teacher's career.
... A number of other studies also conclude that teacher experience effects are largely concentrated in the early years (see additional references in Hanushek & Rivkin, 2007, including Rockoff, 2004; Rivkin, Hanushek, & Kain, 2005; Boyd et al., 2005)
In contrast, a small number of studies suggest that teacher experience effects may be evident for a longer period of time. ...
Well do people respond to James?
I generally don't but I've got a few drinks in me.
Anyway, we had a pony named Tarzan. He was basically as old as I am now when dad bought him and who knows how old when he finally was turned into glue/dog food/outsider art. I really hope that my early grade-school self was nice to you. There haven't been many animals that can tell the different between an Oreo and Hydrox that easily.
Moby's probably got a few drinks in him as well. He's not even in the right thread.
Because he'd throw you into the dirt if you gave him a Hydrox.
I'm in the right thread. The threads are in the wrong places.
When it gets to this time of night, "right thread" is a hard concept to define.
I only started reading this one when Moby started commenting on it. I still haven't read the parsimon/Shearer part at the beginning and don't intend to.
Ponies it is. In our little suburban L.A. menagerie was a couple ponies. One was pregnant and had a foal which once it grew a bit taught me not to stand behind it by kicking the crap out of me. Another old one, "Spice" had been retired from Santa's Village and apparently years of being on one of those circular kiddie rides made him tend to drift off to that same direction when you'd ride him.
When I was a little kid out at the trading post there were horses around, along with various other kinds of livestock. The animal I remember most was a donkey that we used to feed carrots. I don't know whose donkey it was; it only showed up from time to time, I guess when its owner came to the store or something.
There were also some horses that someone kept in an area that I think was technically part of the land-site lease for the store, but my parents just sort of let this family keep their horses there.
Santa's Village is closed.
Jesus, the internets say since '98. I need another drink. Everyone, familiarize yourselves with what someone claims was the first franchised theme parks in the world.
http://www.santasvillage.net/santas.village.history.html
18: I don't, him being around means I definitely won't comment in a thread.
I don't agree with Shearer much, least of all with his scientific racism, but I will give him credit for keeping the blog honest at times (puncturing empirically suspect claims, challenging shaky logic). He is even funny from time to time.
A true noxious troll displays one or more of the following: arguing in bad faith; deliberately sidetracking discussions; or injecting gratuitous vitriol. Shearer generally doesn't do those things (unlike some other trolls I could name). He does occasionally say something breathtakingly insulting, but I charitably attribute that to obliviousness rather than malice.
21: No wonder you're able to comment now that you don't have dirt on top.
"My point remains, teachers want to argue they should be paid well because they are important but don't want to accept any responsibility for their student's results."
Lots of professions make these arguments. Doctors in particular. Is there any effort to fire the 5-10% worst doctors? Develop some noisy metrics not under the direct control of the doctors and let's do it.
"So in theory your wife would be judged on how she does relative to other teachers in teaching low income ESL kids. There are reasons to doubt how accurate these adjustments are but they aren't just looking at the raw results. "
In theory. In fact, teachers with challenging students do worse even after adjustments. My best bet is that students with low motivation have a higher variance in their test scores than students with high motivation.
43: Nearly all doctors are at will employees and can be fired very easily in theory and, in the higher paying jobs in nicer areas, in practice.
I only lurk here occasionally, but, from what I've seen, I agree with 41.
I rarely agree with his conclusions, but, in terms of his style of argument, I find him more convincing than most. He actually presents evidence for his claims, but he's derided for doing so, and mocked when he asks for evidence. He also seems remarkably level-headed, considering how mean people are to him.
41:unlike some other trolls I could name
Who are those people so I can avoid them?
43
Lots of professions make these arguments. Doctors in particular. Is there any effort to fire the 5-10% worst doctors? ...
In Illinois doctors (and lawyers) are much more likely to lose their professional credentials than teachers. See here:
During the past six years, 1 in 2,500 Illinois educators have lost their teaching credentials through suspension, revocation or surrender. By comparison, during the same period 1 in 57 doctors practicing in Illinois lost their medical licenses and 1 in 97 Illinois attorneys lost their law licenses.
43 again:
... Develop some noisy metrics not under the direct control of the doctors and let's do it.
Sounds like the malpractice system. Teachers should count their blessings.
44
In theory. In fact, teachers with challenging students do worse even after adjustments. My best bet is that students with low motivation have a higher variance in their test scores than students with high motivation.
Do you mean they do worse on average? Higher variance shouldn't have this effect. However it might increase the noise in the calculation and hence the probability that a teacher finds themself in the bottom of the range through bad luck.