What the teacher research DOESN'T say.
In his education speech to the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce in March, President Obama said, “From the moment students enter a school, the most important factor in their success is not the color of their skin or the income of their parents. It’s the person standing at the front of the classroom.”
To put it bluntly: “He’s wrong.”
That assessment comes from noted teacher quality researcher Dale Ballou at Vanderbilt’s National Center on Performance Incentives. As well, Doug Harris at University of Wisconsin, Doug Staiger at Dartmouth—and, well, those are just the first three I called. Not that any of them have any dearth of concern about the variance in teacher quality, or the power of a good teacher to drive improvement. But they agree that in their speeches and writing, politicians, policy makers and journalists often misrepresent what, exactly, the evidence has shown.
Which is: Of the various factors inside school, teacher quality has had more effect on student scores than any other that has been measured. (Principal quality: Nobody’s effectively isolated this yet, that I know of, but I’d venture to guess it makes as much if not more of a difference.) And that an effective teacher can move students of all backgrounds forward. Certainly nobody has ever proven that good teaching matters more than, say, genetic endowment, or home environment.
There’s much more about the research that I’ll talk about later, such as the nature of the good-teacher-several-years-in-a-row findings and the complications of translating all this into policy. But for now, just remember: When you read that teachers are the most important school factor, you can’t drop the “school” and pass it on.
Researchers: Is there anything else you think people are consistently getting wrong in the public conversation on education? Let me know.
To put it bluntly: “He’s wrong.”
That assessment comes from noted teacher quality researcher Dale Ballou at Vanderbilt’s National Center on Performance Incentives. As well, Doug Harris at University of Wisconsin, Doug Staiger at Dartmouth—and, well, those are just the first three I called. Not that any of them have any dearth of concern about the variance in teacher quality, or the power of a good teacher to drive improvement. But they agree that in their speeches and writing, politicians, policy makers and journalists often misrepresent what, exactly, the evidence has shown.
Which is: Of the various factors inside school, teacher quality has had more effect on student scores than any other that has been measured. (Principal quality: Nobody’s effectively isolated this yet, that I know of, but I’d venture to guess it makes as much if not more of a difference.) And that an effective teacher can move students of all backgrounds forward. Certainly nobody has ever proven that good teaching matters more than, say, genetic endowment, or home environment.
There’s much more about the research that I’ll talk about later, such as the nature of the good-teacher-several-years-in-a-row findings and the complications of translating all this into policy. But for now, just remember: When you read that teachers are the most important school factor, you can’t drop the “school” and pass it on.
Researchers: Is there anything else you think people are consistently getting wrong in the public conversation on education? Let me know.
posted by Linda Perlstein at
3:18 PM
18 Comments:
Curriculum remains the Great Undiscussed in education. Apropos of Obama's stance on teacher quality, Brookings' Russ Whitehurst just published a paper last week that as far as I can tell has received no attention in print but should. He pointed out that curriculum effects on educational outcomes dwarf the effect sizes of favored reform strategies (charter schools, teacher quality, early childhood ed and academic standards). Whitehurst writes:
"Further, in many cases they are a free good. That is, there are minimal differences between the costs of purchase and implementation of more vs. less effective curricula. In contrast, the other policy levers reviewed here range from very to extremely expensive and often carry with them significant political challenges, e.g., union opposition to merit pay for teachers. This is not to say that curriculum reforms should be pursued instead of efforts to create more choice and competition through charters, or to reconstitute the teacher workforce towards higher levels of effectiveness, or to establish high quality, intensive, and targeted preschool programs, all of which have evidence of effectiveness. It is to say that leaving curriculum reform off the table or giving it a very small place makes no sense. Let’s do what works for the kids, and let’s give particular attention to efficient and practical ways of doing so."
The bottom line: “We conclude that the effect sizes for curriculum are larger, more certain, and less expensive than for the Obama-favored policy levers,” writes Whitehurst, the former director of the Institute of Education Sciences.
Granted, this is not about "what the research doesn't say." It's about what the research DOES say, but isn't discussed.
I've consistently seen this same claim made, but I haven't seen any research which compares effect-size of community factors and school factors. Do you know of any studies that do work similar to the recent Brooking's letter (http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2009/1014_curriculum_whitehurst.aspx)that looks at curriculum reform versus other forms of reform?
Seems like me and Pondiscio responded simultaneously with similar thoughts.
The public perception that small class size equals a better education. I have friends who seem to think that a schools quality can be measured by their student to adult ratio.
For those interested in Stephanie's comment about the research on small schools, EWA is running a conference on that subject in San Diego Nov 8-10 - here's information http://www.ewa.org/site/Calendar/579628511?view=Detail&id=100501
Watch the website for info after the meeting or email Raven Hill (rhill@ewa.org).
Jason: The reason you can't find such a paper is probably because it doesn't exist. Most research on non-school factors has been correlational rather than longitudinal. For example: we know that students with more educated parents do better in school, but we haven't really tested whether educating parents will subsequently result in better school performances by their kids.
In other words: all of the effect sizes in Whitehurst's paper have to do with one change begetting another change, but that research hasn't really been done on non-school factors (with a few notable exceptions, like Gautreux and MTO).
Linda: Good post, but I don't understand why principal quality would have at least as large of an effect as teacher quality. Kids spend virtually every moment in school with their teacher(s), but many only see the principal patrolling the hallway or presiding over an assembly. Over a period of time, the principal might have more influence than a single teacher since they influence the climate of the school, but in any given year it's hard to imagine than anything other than the teacher could be the largest influence inside a school.
Corey: Because in many schools principals set the agenda for what's done in classrooms, how teachers work together (or don't) and use data (or don't), set discipline policies and test-prep protocals, and so on. I've seen schools where teachers have very little leeway for what they do and how every day in their classrooms. In those cases, my guess is that the principal is a HUGE factor.
I don't doubt that there are some remarkable principals out there, but education is generally a loosely coupled system -- most reforms that start as a wave outside of the classroom only cause a ripple inside it.
That said, you raise an interesting point: even if the teacher's teaching is the mechanism by which students learn more (or less), how/what the teacher teaches isn't totally up to the teacher. In other words, teacher quality can be influenced by people other than the teacher. I have little doubt that some principals make their teachers better teachers than they would be otherwise. In that sense, I don't completely disagree with your argument.
But I will push back on the idea that the climate and policies a principal establishes influence a student anywhere near as much as what a teacher does inside a classroom. Again, I have little doubt that an effective discipline policy and positive climate make teachers better, but a high-quality school environment won't teach kids how to read. Besides, teachers have as much of a hand in how school policies play out as does the principal.
The determinants of student performance outcomes in a school are complex and, sometimes, exceptional - - in that they can change in the same classroom from student to student. Overall, parent education is a powerful factor. Families with college educated grandparents and parents speak academic English, the concept-based, college level language in which textbooks are written and most instruction is conveyed. Not knowing this language is a major disadvantage. School factors: curriculum, teacher quality, learning culture, extra support, etc., are all powerful. If every lesson unit began at each student's existing skill, knowledge, and conceptual level, and included the amount of instruction and practice the student requires to master new standards (next level skills, knowledge, etc.) schools would produce much higher levels of student success.
Linda,
When I read President Obama's comments, I assumed he was talking about the school environment - not life in general. Consider this line:
"From the moment students enter a school, the most important factor in their success is not the color of their skin or the income of their parents, it's the person standing at the front of the classroom."
... from the moment students enter a school, not from the moment kids pop out of the womb. In the context of that part of his speech - which is about recruiting and preparing excellent, talented teachers - it's difficult to read his speech the way you have. There is absolutely no confusion in the paragraph you cite about what President Obama does and doesn't refer to.
Since we're playing "gotcha" journalism, I'll say no, Linda - "you're wrong."
It looks like you've attracted the lobbyist bloggers. Do not be fooled by their pronouncements about studies and the like, much of which represents a mythology that has been years in the making.
Nothing is black and white, in my book. Why wouldn't I care what a lobbyist, or a teacher, or anyone else has to say? I welcome everyone's thoughts.
Hi Linda,
Thanks for starting this blog.
I'm glad you made the critical distinction about the research regarding the importance of the teacher. Many, if not most, journalists and politicians have repeated the fallacy that the teacher is the most important factor in a child's education. Of course this is not true, but this misinformation is being used to shape policy for the entire country. Are we on the verge of another expensive but ultimately disappointing experiment in education?
In his books and speeches, President Obama seemed clear about the importance of the partnership between home and school, so I'm perplexed as to why his administration seems to be focusing on schools alone.
Linda Mele Johnson
Why would Obama say teacher quality mattered more than income or skin color if he meant to address only factors inside the school? Income and skin color have nothing do to with factors inside the school. If he had meant factors inside the school he would have said class size or per-pupil funding. His wording is clearly intended to indicate ALL factors in a child's life -- that's self-evident.
The education agenda is a war agenda. Those educators who joined in the hysteria around the demagogue, Obama, are now seeing the chickens come home to roost. That David Brooks and Jeb Bush give Duncan and Obama an "atta boy" on education is evidence that the bi-partisan project is unchanged: regimented curricula promoting witless nationalism, anti-working class high stakes exams, militarization in poor areas, and now merit pay. Toss in some limited privatization and you have a society dedicated to endless war and rising inequality making odd demands on schools.
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/09/01/18620428.php
Thanks for the thoughtful post, Linda. I too am intrigued by the over the top rhetoric and writing on the issue of teaching effectiveness and the presumed preeminence of the individual teacher in ensuring that students learn or not. At my blog (and in other published pieces of late) I have been pointing to an important new study demonstrating the powerful effect of teacher collaboration in producing greater student achievement gains. Using 11 years of student data in North Carolina, researchers found that most value-added achievement gains are attributed to the make-up of teacher teams, not the traits and characteristics of individual teachers. And guess what: the teachers who did the best when it came to student achievement had more experience and were more highly qualified.
One critical piece of research that the public should understand is that the NAS Board on Testing and Assessmente has warned the U.S. Department of Education NOT to use NAEP scores to evaluate Race To The Top programs.
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12780&page=1
Post a Comment
Considerate comments are welcome. Uncivil remarks will be deleted.
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home