One of the facts of life for many high-poverty schools and districts is constant flux and turnover among district leaders, school leaders, teachers, families, and students. A typical high-poverty school, for example, sees about 20-25% of its teachers leave each and every year (and that's just at a typical school: imagine what happens at the thousands of atypical schools out there).
I got to thinking about this while listening to a presentation last month on the failure of a curricular reform. The research that was being presented identified this turnover as the main reason for said failure. And I buy that explanation: almost every teacher they trained left before the new curriculum was fully established (as did the Superintendent, and the new one wanted to push a different curriculum).
But the larger question, to me, is what to do about this instability and turnover. The presentation concluded with the argument that future reforms should take this instability into account and essentially be turnover-proof. That's certainly a pragmatic approach. But it always makes me squirm when people propose what are essentially dumbed-down reforms for the most troubled schools while others get to do the real thing.
So I had a different thought: why not attack that instability directly? If a new curriculum can't be successfully implemented because teachers, principals, and district leaders are constantly in flux, why not try to stabilize those three? For example, a group of teachers and administrators at a school are given a bonus if they stay in place for, say, 5 years. And the district could lock-in the new curriculum for the same period of time so that it won't change even if the district's leadership does.
Maybe that would be too difficult to do on a large scale, but somebody could certainly try it on a smaller one -- a single charter school might be a good place to start. After all, charters were started to serve as incubators and laboratories for ideas that traditional public schools hesitate to try.
Showing posts with label teacher retention. Show all posts
Showing posts with label teacher retention. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
The Logistics of "Thinning Out" Bad Teachers
Nick Kristof recently wrote another column calling for more high-quality teachers based on the latest paper on value-added measures of teacher quality. There's a whole lot to discuss about both the column and the research paper, but let me focus for a minute on one small part of it.
Near the end of the column, Kristof writes that "If we want to recruit and retain the best teachers, we simply have to pay more — while also more aggressively thinning out those who don’t succeed. It’s worth it." Recruiting, retaining, paying (and training, which is left out of this sentence) are all complex endeavors, but the "thinning out" part of the equation is often taken for granted.
Here's my question for Kristof: even if (and that's a big if) we can find a fair, accurate, and agreeable way to identify and dismiss the worst teachers, how many teachers are we actually going to dismiss in such a scenario?
The first question would obviously be whether we need to fire the bottom 5%, 10%, 25% or some other number. That's up for discussion.
But the logistical question then, is how many teachers among the bottom X% 1.) can be readily identified and 2.) are planning on teaching again next year. This will differ greatly by school and district, but in some places, this is going to be a very small number.Why? Let's take a look at what the research says.
First, research consistently finds that it takes 3-5 years for a teacher to reach their potential. So a good number of the lowest-performing teachers are simply going to be novices who will be better teachers next year. We don't want to fire a first-year teacher who was in the bottom X% if we have reason to believe they'll be a really good teacher in a couple of years. That would be incredibly counterproductive.
Second, research has consistently found that value-added measures of teacher effectiveness bounce around considerably from year to year -- particularly for teachers who teach a small number of students (e.g. a 4th grade reading teacher with 18 students versus an 8th grade math teacher with 150 students). At least one paper has found that averaging scores over three years provides a much better, and more stable, estimate of teacher performance than does any single-year estimate.
Third, a number of recent papers have found that, at least in the first few years, many of the least successful teachers exit teaching. This makes sense -- if you start a new career and find yourself completely overwhelmed, you're not likely stay very long.
Fourth, teacher attrition is exceedingly high in many high-poverty schools. The general consensus is that about half of urban teachers leave the field within their first 3 years.
So, what does this mean? We probably don't want to fire a whole lot of teachers in the first 3-5 years of their career because a.) they're still learning and improving; b.) we can't be that sure who the worst teachers are anyway; and c.) a good portion of the catastrophically bad teachers are self-selecting out of the field anyway. If we give discount the first two years, when teachers are still learning their craft, and then take three more years to compute accurate value-added scores, it would only be teachers who'd taught for 5+ years who would really be ripe for firing due to low value-added scores.
Which means that the main herd we're trying to thin is the teachers who've made it through those first few years, reached their potential, and for whom we have accurate value-added estimates. But how many teachers is that? When I looked at high-poverty NYC middle schools a few years, I found that in the average school, only 1/3 of teachers had 5 or more years of experience.
Let's say that we're very confident in our ability to recruit and retain teachers who are better than our current teaching force and so we decide to fire all below average teachers (a full 50%) -- which would be a far more aggressive plan than any I've seen proposed. First, the majority of these below average teachers are novices who are still improving and for whom we don't have particularly good estimates of ability. Given that the majority of struggling beginning teachers either improve or self-select out of the profession, let's estimate that 2/3 of all teachers in their first 5 years are identified as below average teachers. This would mean that only 1/6 of all teachers in their sixth year and beyond are below average teachers. And since only 1/3 of teachers are in their sixth year or beyond, this would mean that only 1/18 of all teachers would both have 5+ years of experience and be rated below average. This is a little under 6% of all teachers.
The average school in my sample had 72 teachers. So, that's the equivalent of firing four teachers. And that's under an extremely aggressive scenario. Besides, now that you've rid your school of the chaff, who, exactly, do you want to fire next year? And if you want to argue that we could be more aggressive and fire some of the novice teachers, that would mean there'd be fewer low-performing experienced teachers (since teachers tend to be roughly equally effective pre- and post-tenure). So, for now, let's stick with the assumption that, under an aggressive plan, we'd fire four teachers this year in the average school.
Now, other districts have far more experienced teachers. And it might make more of a dent there. But a good number of our poorest-performing schools and districts are quickly churning through teachers too fast for firing low performers to make much of an impact. Certainly, we should make every effort to rid our schools of the worst teachers (by increasing the performance of, and/or dismissing the lowest performers) -- I don't think anybody seriously disputes that notion. Or, at the very least, I don't think anybody serious disputes that notion. But will firing the lowest performing 6% of teachers in high-poverty NYC schools make a difference? It's possible. But let's be reasonable -- it's not going to make much of a difference.
So, yes, let's work harder to rid our schools of the worst teachers. But let's not pretend it will be easy to do. And, perhaps more importantly, let's not hold our breath while we wait to see if that bullet is actually silver. In most places, other problems loom far larger.
Near the end of the column, Kristof writes that "If we want to recruit and retain the best teachers, we simply have to pay more — while also more aggressively thinning out those who don’t succeed. It’s worth it." Recruiting, retaining, paying (and training, which is left out of this sentence) are all complex endeavors, but the "thinning out" part of the equation is often taken for granted.
Here's my question for Kristof: even if (and that's a big if) we can find a fair, accurate, and agreeable way to identify and dismiss the worst teachers, how many teachers are we actually going to dismiss in such a scenario?
The first question would obviously be whether we need to fire the bottom 5%, 10%, 25% or some other number. That's up for discussion.
But the logistical question then, is how many teachers among the bottom X% 1.) can be readily identified and 2.) are planning on teaching again next year. This will differ greatly by school and district, but in some places, this is going to be a very small number.Why? Let's take a look at what the research says.
First, research consistently finds that it takes 3-5 years for a teacher to reach their potential. So a good number of the lowest-performing teachers are simply going to be novices who will be better teachers next year. We don't want to fire a first-year teacher who was in the bottom X% if we have reason to believe they'll be a really good teacher in a couple of years. That would be incredibly counterproductive.
Second, research has consistently found that value-added measures of teacher effectiveness bounce around considerably from year to year -- particularly for teachers who teach a small number of students (e.g. a 4th grade reading teacher with 18 students versus an 8th grade math teacher with 150 students). At least one paper has found that averaging scores over three years provides a much better, and more stable, estimate of teacher performance than does any single-year estimate.
Third, a number of recent papers have found that, at least in the first few years, many of the least successful teachers exit teaching. This makes sense -- if you start a new career and find yourself completely overwhelmed, you're not likely stay very long.
Fourth, teacher attrition is exceedingly high in many high-poverty schools. The general consensus is that about half of urban teachers leave the field within their first 3 years.
So, what does this mean? We probably don't want to fire a whole lot of teachers in the first 3-5 years of their career because a.) they're still learning and improving; b.) we can't be that sure who the worst teachers are anyway; and c.) a good portion of the catastrophically bad teachers are self-selecting out of the field anyway. If we give discount the first two years, when teachers are still learning their craft, and then take three more years to compute accurate value-added scores, it would only be teachers who'd taught for 5+ years who would really be ripe for firing due to low value-added scores.
Which means that the main herd we're trying to thin is the teachers who've made it through those first few years, reached their potential, and for whom we have accurate value-added estimates. But how many teachers is that? When I looked at high-poverty NYC middle schools a few years, I found that in the average school, only 1/3 of teachers had 5 or more years of experience.
Let's say that we're very confident in our ability to recruit and retain teachers who are better than our current teaching force and so we decide to fire all below average teachers (a full 50%) -- which would be a far more aggressive plan than any I've seen proposed. First, the majority of these below average teachers are novices who are still improving and for whom we don't have particularly good estimates of ability. Given that the majority of struggling beginning teachers either improve or self-select out of the profession, let's estimate that 2/3 of all teachers in their first 5 years are identified as below average teachers. This would mean that only 1/6 of all teachers in their sixth year and beyond are below average teachers. And since only 1/3 of teachers are in their sixth year or beyond, this would mean that only 1/18 of all teachers would both have 5+ years of experience and be rated below average. This is a little under 6% of all teachers.
The average school in my sample had 72 teachers. So, that's the equivalent of firing four teachers. And that's under an extremely aggressive scenario. Besides, now that you've rid your school of the chaff, who, exactly, do you want to fire next year? And if you want to argue that we could be more aggressive and fire some of the novice teachers, that would mean there'd be fewer low-performing experienced teachers (since teachers tend to be roughly equally effective pre- and post-tenure). So, for now, let's stick with the assumption that, under an aggressive plan, we'd fire four teachers this year in the average school.
Now, other districts have far more experienced teachers. And it might make more of a dent there. But a good number of our poorest-performing schools and districts are quickly churning through teachers too fast for firing low performers to make much of an impact. Certainly, we should make every effort to rid our schools of the worst teachers (by increasing the performance of, and/or dismissing the lowest performers) -- I don't think anybody seriously disputes that notion. Or, at the very least, I don't think anybody serious disputes that notion. But will firing the lowest performing 6% of teachers in high-poverty NYC schools make a difference? It's possible. But let's be reasonable -- it's not going to make much of a difference.
So, yes, let's work harder to rid our schools of the worst teachers. But let's not pretend it will be easy to do. And, perhaps more importantly, let's not hold our breath while we wait to see if that bullet is actually silver. In most places, other problems loom far larger.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
The Times' Tenure Math Problem
The NY Times today profiles some fairly reasonable, and minor, changes to the way tenure is granted to teachers in NYC (principals a.) have to describe why they're giving a teacher tenure and b.) are able to select from four ratings that can award, delay, or deny teachers tenure).
On the surface, those make sense, and the article seems to do a pretty good job describing them. But I have a problem with the math on which the article is premised. The second sentence of the article states that "virtually every new teacher earns" tenure, and then later cites a statistic that "6,400 teachers who were eligible for tenure, 234 teachers were denied it, or roughly 3.7 percent".
The problem here is that a "new teacher" and a teacher "eligible for tenure" are two very different things. Writing that 96% of those eligible are awarded tenure is very different from writing that "virtually every new teacher earns" tenure. Why? To start with, NYC has a high attrition rate -- particularly among new teachers. Nationwide, around 50% of teachers in urban schools leave within their first three years. Let's say that that statistic is precisely correct for the teachers that entered NYC schools in 2007; the correct calculation would then be that 46% of new teachers who began teaching in 2007 were awarded tenure in 2010 -- which looks like very different. In other words, the statement that "virtually every new teacher earns" tenure is demonstrably false.
Now, the 46% statistic wouldn't be all that helpful in judging the rigor of the tenure process because new teachers leave for all sorts of reasons. Some leave because their principals threaten to fire them if they don't; some leave because they simply prefer a different district or profession; some leave because they're simply unhappy; and some leave for other reasons or a combination of reasons (e.g. family relocation, pregnancy, health, etc.).
So, leaving aside the silly -- but important -- syntax error by the Times, what would actually be the actual best way to compute how many teachers earn tenure? There are a few different ways depending on exactly what the question is that one wants to answer, but I think you'd have to start by defining a population of teachers who want to earn tenure at some point during their teaching career (in NYC that would mean they want to teach in the city for more than 3 years). Exactly who counts in that group is up for debate: for example, would we include a teacher who wants to make it a career during year 1 but finds that he/she just doesn't like teaching during year 2? There's no clear answer. I would certainly include, however, any teachers who leave explicitly because they believe they will receive a negative rating if they don't -- something that happens all over the place but never seems to get mentioned in the press and only rarely in academic work (I've heard economists reference "the dance of the lemons," to describe teachers who transfer to other schools to avoid being fired). The estimate would shed some light on how many unsuccessful teachers -- teachers who might not receive tenure if they went through the process -- are leaving prior to starting their 4th year.
Whatever parameters one set, the answer to how many teachers tried to get tenure and didn't would be somewhere between the 46% estimate above and the 96% statistic cited by the NY Times. The more practical questions to answer, however, would really be in estimating how many people would be valuable as tenured teachers but don't end up teaching more than 3 years for whatever reason and how many are not particularly valuable as tenured teachers but earn tenure anyway for any number of reasons (my guess is that the former group is larger than the latter, though there are also probably quite a few in the former who wouldn't stay in teaching almost no matter what), and then figuring out how to get more in the former group to stay and more in the latter group to leave.
At any rate, I don't think there's much disagreement that tenure is too easy to earn in NYC (personally I'd argue for a more meaningful process that's awarded a little later in one's career, and matched by some added distinction that's meaningful to teachers), so I don't want readers to think that this critique of the Times' math problem is really a veiled attack on any who would dare insinuate that all teachers aren't perfect. But the Times should know better than to make such silly mistakes. And I hope that readers know better than to accept such superficial calculations as gospel.
Do "virtually all new teacher earn" tenure? No. Do almost all teachers who go up for tenure review earn tenure? Yes. But those are two very different statistics -- and neither really answers the more important questions of how many excellent teachers don't receive tenure and how many poor teachers do.
On the surface, those make sense, and the article seems to do a pretty good job describing them. But I have a problem with the math on which the article is premised. The second sentence of the article states that "virtually every new teacher earns" tenure, and then later cites a statistic that "6,400 teachers who were eligible for tenure, 234 teachers were denied it, or roughly 3.7 percent".
The problem here is that a "new teacher" and a teacher "eligible for tenure" are two very different things. Writing that 96% of those eligible are awarded tenure is very different from writing that "virtually every new teacher earns" tenure. Why? To start with, NYC has a high attrition rate -- particularly among new teachers. Nationwide, around 50% of teachers in urban schools leave within their first three years. Let's say that that statistic is precisely correct for the teachers that entered NYC schools in 2007; the correct calculation would then be that 46% of new teachers who began teaching in 2007 were awarded tenure in 2010 -- which looks like very different. In other words, the statement that "virtually every new teacher earns" tenure is demonstrably false.
Now, the 46% statistic wouldn't be all that helpful in judging the rigor of the tenure process because new teachers leave for all sorts of reasons. Some leave because their principals threaten to fire them if they don't; some leave because they simply prefer a different district or profession; some leave because they're simply unhappy; and some leave for other reasons or a combination of reasons (e.g. family relocation, pregnancy, health, etc.).
So, leaving aside the silly -- but important -- syntax error by the Times, what would actually be the actual best way to compute how many teachers earn tenure? There are a few different ways depending on exactly what the question is that one wants to answer, but I think you'd have to start by defining a population of teachers who want to earn tenure at some point during their teaching career (in NYC that would mean they want to teach in the city for more than 3 years). Exactly who counts in that group is up for debate: for example, would we include a teacher who wants to make it a career during year 1 but finds that he/she just doesn't like teaching during year 2? There's no clear answer. I would certainly include, however, any teachers who leave explicitly because they believe they will receive a negative rating if they don't -- something that happens all over the place but never seems to get mentioned in the press and only rarely in academic work (I've heard economists reference "the dance of the lemons," to describe teachers who transfer to other schools to avoid being fired). The estimate would shed some light on how many unsuccessful teachers -- teachers who might not receive tenure if they went through the process -- are leaving prior to starting their 4th year.
Whatever parameters one set, the answer to how many teachers tried to get tenure and didn't would be somewhere between the 46% estimate above and the 96% statistic cited by the NY Times. The more practical questions to answer, however, would really be in estimating how many people would be valuable as tenured teachers but don't end up teaching more than 3 years for whatever reason and how many are not particularly valuable as tenured teachers but earn tenure anyway for any number of reasons (my guess is that the former group is larger than the latter, though there are also probably quite a few in the former who wouldn't stay in teaching almost no matter what), and then figuring out how to get more in the former group to stay and more in the latter group to leave.
At any rate, I don't think there's much disagreement that tenure is too easy to earn in NYC (personally I'd argue for a more meaningful process that's awarded a little later in one's career, and matched by some added distinction that's meaningful to teachers), so I don't want readers to think that this critique of the Times' math problem is really a veiled attack on any who would dare insinuate that all teachers aren't perfect. But the Times should know better than to make such silly mistakes. And I hope that readers know better than to accept such superficial calculations as gospel.
Do "virtually all new teacher earn" tenure? No. Do almost all teachers who go up for tenure review earn tenure? Yes. But those are two very different statistics -- and neither really answers the more important questions of how many excellent teachers don't receive tenure and how many poor teachers do.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Are NYC Schools a Farm System for the Suburbs?
Conventional wisdom when I was teaching in NYC seemed to be that, to some degree, NYC served as a farm system for the surrounding counties' school systems. In other words, teachers would get a job in NYC, teach for maybe 1-5 years, and then look for a job on the suburbs. Since the city had fewer certified teachers than openings, it was much easier for recent grads and career changers to find a job there. Once they'd gotten some experience under their belt, they then might be able to land a position in the ultra-competitive suburban job market (where hundreds of teachers often apply for each opening). According to conventional wisdom, finding a job in the suburbs meant you could work in a more pleasant environment (fewer discipline problems, more resources, smaller classes) and earn more at the same time.
A number of teachers at my school had chosen this route, and came back from hiring fairs and job interviews in the suburbs with stories of long lines and selective hiring criteria. Which makes sense: if you were running a school and there were a ton of qualified, experienced, certified teachers applying for a job why would you hire somebody else?
As I was searching for statistics for another project on the NY state education website, I decided to see if there was any quantitative evidence that NYC is, to some extent, the minor league system that feeds the major league systems in the suburbs. I compared some statistics from NYC to those from surrounding counties (Nassau and Suffolk on Long Island and Westchester and Rockland north of the city).
As it turns out, there's evidence that teachers in NYC are younger, less experienced, paid less, and teach larger classes than those who teach in the surrounding counties. Consider the following statistics:
*On average, the median teacher in surrounding counties has 3.2 more years of experience (12.2 v. 9) than does the median NYC teacher
*The surrounding counties, on average, have about half as many teachers with fewer than 5 years of teaching experience as does NYC (16.7% v. 32. 2%)
*On average, the median teacher in surrounding counties earns almost $20,000 more per year (89K v. 69K) than does the median NYC teacher.
*The percentage of teachers under the age of 27 is 2.5 times higher in NYC than the average in surrounding counties (5.6% v. 2.25%).
*The average 6th grade class is 25% larger (26.5 v. 21.2) in NYC than in the rest of the state.
Not all of these statistics, however, are very striking. Over 2/3 of teachers in NYC, for example, are 33 or older. That's not exactly damning evidence that every teacher in NYC is young, inexperienced, and trying to find a job in the suburbs. But we have to take remember that not every teacher wants to leave NYC. There are quite a few schools in the city that are desirable places to work and employ a lot of experienced teachers. If we look at just the Bronx, the borough with the highest poverty rates, we see slightly more striking numbers. This is how the median teacher in the Bronx compares to the average median teacher in the two counties bordering the Bronx:
So, yes, there's a significant difference in the age and experience levels of teachers in NYC and the suburbs -- and an even larger difference between teachers in the Bronx and the northern suburbs. But that doesn't prove that teachers are flocking from NYC to the suburbs -- it just proves that teachers are younger and less experienced.
The closest thing I can find to proof of that is comparing the difference between the average total experience of teachers versus the average amount of experience within that district in the city versus the suburbs. If we look at the different percentiles listed on the website, we can see that the vast majority of teachers in the city have been in the city for their entire careers -- the same is not true of suburban teachers:
Most teachers in NYC have spent more time teaching in NYC than has the average Suburban teacher with the same relative seniority level; this despite the fact that suburban teachers, on average, are more experienced. There can be only one explanation for this: suburban teachers switch districts more frequently. I suspect some of that has to do with teachers switching between the smaller districts in the suburbs in order to procure a better job (maybe one closer to home), but it's at least plausible that some of that is because a number of suburban teachers taught in the city prior to finding their current job.
Just judging by these numbers, it's not possible to quite grasp the magnitude of the situation -- exactly how many NYC teachers are fleeing for the suburbs each year? But it's probably worth both investigating further and addressing. Assuming that this is, in fact, a problem, I don't see any easy solutions. If suburban jobs pay more to teach fewer kids in a better working environment (and often closer to home), what, exactly, is the city supposed to do in order to retain these teachers? Sure, the city could spend more money to reduce class sizes and/or teaching loads or raise teacher salaries -- but they're never going to match the spending levels of the suburbs. They could work on fostering better working environments (in their defense, there's at least a half-hearted attempt at this in the form of the annual school surveys), or try to recruit teachers who aren't aiming to bolt for the 'burbs in a few years.
Or they could do what they're doing now: save a ton of money by hiring people from Teach for America, the NYC Teaching Fellows, and the suburbs -- few of whom will stay long enough to earn much money yet alone a pension.
A number of teachers at my school had chosen this route, and came back from hiring fairs and job interviews in the suburbs with stories of long lines and selective hiring criteria. Which makes sense: if you were running a school and there were a ton of qualified, experienced, certified teachers applying for a job why would you hire somebody else?
As I was searching for statistics for another project on the NY state education website, I decided to see if there was any quantitative evidence that NYC is, to some extent, the minor league system that feeds the major league systems in the suburbs. I compared some statistics from NYC to those from surrounding counties (Nassau and Suffolk on Long Island and Westchester and Rockland north of the city).
As it turns out, there's evidence that teachers in NYC are younger, less experienced, paid less, and teach larger classes than those who teach in the surrounding counties. Consider the following statistics:
*On average, the median teacher in surrounding counties has 3.2 more years of experience (12.2 v. 9) than does the median NYC teacher
*The surrounding counties, on average, have about half as many teachers with fewer than 5 years of teaching experience as does NYC (16.7% v. 32. 2%)
*On average, the median teacher in surrounding counties earns almost $20,000 more per year (89K v. 69K) than does the median NYC teacher.
*The percentage of teachers under the age of 27 is 2.5 times higher in NYC than the average in surrounding counties (5.6% v. 2.25%).
*The average 6th grade class is 25% larger (26.5 v. 21.2) in NYC than in the rest of the state.
Not all of these statistics, however, are very striking. Over 2/3 of teachers in NYC, for example, are 33 or older. That's not exactly damning evidence that every teacher in NYC is young, inexperienced, and trying to find a job in the suburbs. But we have to take remember that not every teacher wants to leave NYC. There are quite a few schools in the city that are desirable places to work and employ a lot of experienced teachers. If we look at just the Bronx, the borough with the highest poverty rates, we see slightly more striking numbers. This is how the median teacher in the Bronx compares to the average median teacher in the two counties bordering the Bronx:
| Median Experience | % under age 26 | % <5 yrs experience | |
| Bronx | 8 yrs | 9.4% | 39.2% |
| N. Suburbs | 12.5 yrs | 1.85% | 15.15% |
The closest thing I can find to proof of that is comparing the difference between the average total experience of teachers versus the average amount of experience within that district in the city versus the suburbs. If we look at the different percentiles listed on the website, we can see that the vast majority of teachers in the city have been in the city for their entire careers -- the same is not true of suburban teachers:
| NYC: Years of Experience by Percentile | |||||
| 5th | 25th | 50th | 75th | 95th | |
| Total | 1 | 4 | 9 | 19 | 32 |
| In District | 1 | 4 | 9 | 17 | 31 |
| Suburbs: Years of Experience by Percentile | |||||
| 5th | 25th | 50th | 75th | 95th | |
| Total | 2.5 | 7.25 | 12.25 | 20.25 | 32 |
| In District | 1 | 5 | 9 | 14.75 | 27.75 |
Most teachers in NYC have spent more time teaching in NYC than has the average Suburban teacher with the same relative seniority level; this despite the fact that suburban teachers, on average, are more experienced. There can be only one explanation for this: suburban teachers switch districts more frequently. I suspect some of that has to do with teachers switching between the smaller districts in the suburbs in order to procure a better job (maybe one closer to home), but it's at least plausible that some of that is because a number of suburban teachers taught in the city prior to finding their current job.
Just judging by these numbers, it's not possible to quite grasp the magnitude of the situation -- exactly how many NYC teachers are fleeing for the suburbs each year? But it's probably worth both investigating further and addressing. Assuming that this is, in fact, a problem, I don't see any easy solutions. If suburban jobs pay more to teach fewer kids in a better working environment (and often closer to home), what, exactly, is the city supposed to do in order to retain these teachers? Sure, the city could spend more money to reduce class sizes and/or teaching loads or raise teacher salaries -- but they're never going to match the spending levels of the suburbs. They could work on fostering better working environments (in their defense, there's at least a half-hearted attempt at this in the form of the annual school surveys), or try to recruit teachers who aren't aiming to bolt for the 'burbs in a few years.
Or they could do what they're doing now: save a ton of money by hiring people from Teach for America, the NYC Teaching Fellows, and the suburbs -- few of whom will stay long enough to earn much money yet alone a pension.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Today's Random Thoughts
-If nothing else, I like the title of this LA Times story: "Controlling a classroom isn't as easy as ABC" (hat tip: Flypaper). Speaking from my experiences both teaching and working with and talking to other beginning teachers, there are an awful lot of little things about classroom management that seem obvious to veteran teachers and aren't to newbies.
-Jay Mathews says that the achievement gap is "useless as a measure of school improvement". I sort of see his point that a school (or school system) could get worse while, at the same time, the achievement gap shrinks. But that's only a reason to not make the achievement gap the only measure we examine.
-A new study finds that teachers in charter schools are 76% more likely two switch schools or leave the profession at the end of any given year, and that most of the attrition and turnover is due to dissatisfaction with their school. My initial reaction is that this is probably largely b/c charter schools tend to hire different teachers -- namely younger, more idealistic teachers who may be less intent on making a career of teaching and at the same time are more willing to explore different schools and careers instead of committing to one.
-Diane Ravitch compares the support of charter schools by social elites to "origins of free schooling in certain northeastern cities in the early 19th Century, when wealthy men decided that it was their civic duty to help civilize the children of the poor". I don't know if the motives of many donors are quite so paternalistic, but I do share her concern that the reliance of charter schools on this funding means that "our society will increasingly rely on the good will of wealthy patrons to educate children of color".
-Jay Mathews says that the achievement gap is "useless as a measure of school improvement". I sort of see his point that a school (or school system) could get worse while, at the same time, the achievement gap shrinks. But that's only a reason to not make the achievement gap the only measure we examine.
-A new study finds that teachers in charter schools are 76% more likely two switch schools or leave the profession at the end of any given year, and that most of the attrition and turnover is due to dissatisfaction with their school. My initial reaction is that this is probably largely b/c charter schools tend to hire different teachers -- namely younger, more idealistic teachers who may be less intent on making a career of teaching and at the same time are more willing to explore different schools and careers instead of committing to one.
-Diane Ravitch compares the support of charter schools by social elites to "origins of free schooling in certain northeastern cities in the early 19th Century, when wealthy men decided that it was their civic duty to help civilize the children of the poor". I don't know if the motives of many donors are quite so paternalistic, but I do share her concern that the reliance of charter schools on this funding means that "our society will increasingly rely on the good will of wealthy patrons to educate children of color".
Monday, November 9, 2009
Sunday Commentary: How Hope Hurts Teachers
That many teachers burn out seems to be conventional wisdom -- which is one reason why young, enthusiastic, TFA and TNTP teachers are so sought after in many circles. Though my school didn't have many veteran teachers, the school was large enough that a number of excellent, experienced teachers roamed the halls. The younger teachers, however, exuded enthusiasm. Most of us were there, to some extent at least, to change the world. Of course, we were also a lot more likely to quit.
A recent study looked at colostomy patients (a surgery that results in feces being collected through abdomen, often by a bag attached around the clock) and compared those who knew the situation was permanent with those who were told that the surgery might be reversible at some point down the line. The result? Those with permanent colostomies were happier than those with possibly reversible colostomies. Apparently, after an initial adjustment period people who knew nothing was going to change adapted to their circumstances. Those who thought the situation might be reversed, meanwhile, remained unhappy with their situation and held out hope that it would change.
Which doesn't sound too different from how teachers viewed teaching at my school. Us young rabble-rousers were never happy with what we saw or how our classrooms were operating. We hoped to change the world and, instead, were stuck dealing with all sorts of little (and big) problems that constantly got in the way. The vets, meanwhile, seemed more satisfied with what was happening. Or at least were less fazed when something went awry. Most figured that they were doing about the best they could and that there was no real need for radical changes in most situations -- including where they worked. Sure, they weren't thrilled with how the school worked, but they weren't nearly as despondent as us newbies.
In other words, the young teachers entered the year with high hopes and lofty ambitions and finished the year full of frustration while the vets maintained a more even keel throughout. So, in a perverse way, our hopefulness actually hurt us. It certainly made work more frustrating, and I think it's fair to say it made us more likely to quit -- or at least move to another school. Teaching is difficult enough without getting your hopes dashed on a daily basis. And running a school is difficult enough without constantly searching for new teachers after breaking the spirits of the ones you hired last year.
No, I'm not advocating that all teachers simply give up hope so that they can slog through their day and go home feeling ok. But I think it's worth noting how much harder it is to be a successful teacher in the long-run if you continue to hope that you can solve all the world's problems. In this sense, lack of hope (also known as low expectations) is a coping mechanism -- and, not, as many would have you believe, a sign of poor moral fiber or general evilness. Why do teachers lose hope? Because it's easier that way. Any economist should recognize that, in this way, lowering expectations is perfectly rational behavior. After all, if happiness equals expectations minus reality then lowering expectations is an easier path to happiness than is improving one's reality.
The solution? We need to figure out how to make teaching rewarding for those with high hopes -- both to assuage the attrition of the always-optimistic and to discourage dedicated teachers from descending to despondency and digging in their heels.
A recent study looked at colostomy patients (a surgery that results in feces being collected through abdomen, often by a bag attached around the clock) and compared those who knew the situation was permanent with those who were told that the surgery might be reversible at some point down the line. The result? Those with permanent colostomies were happier than those with possibly reversible colostomies. Apparently, after an initial adjustment period people who knew nothing was going to change adapted to their circumstances. Those who thought the situation might be reversed, meanwhile, remained unhappy with their situation and held out hope that it would change.
Which doesn't sound too different from how teachers viewed teaching at my school. Us young rabble-rousers were never happy with what we saw or how our classrooms were operating. We hoped to change the world and, instead, were stuck dealing with all sorts of little (and big) problems that constantly got in the way. The vets, meanwhile, seemed more satisfied with what was happening. Or at least were less fazed when something went awry. Most figured that they were doing about the best they could and that there was no real need for radical changes in most situations -- including where they worked. Sure, they weren't thrilled with how the school worked, but they weren't nearly as despondent as us newbies.
In other words, the young teachers entered the year with high hopes and lofty ambitions and finished the year full of frustration while the vets maintained a more even keel throughout. So, in a perverse way, our hopefulness actually hurt us. It certainly made work more frustrating, and I think it's fair to say it made us more likely to quit -- or at least move to another school. Teaching is difficult enough without getting your hopes dashed on a daily basis. And running a school is difficult enough without constantly searching for new teachers after breaking the spirits of the ones you hired last year.
No, I'm not advocating that all teachers simply give up hope so that they can slog through their day and go home feeling ok. But I think it's worth noting how much harder it is to be a successful teacher in the long-run if you continue to hope that you can solve all the world's problems. In this sense, lack of hope (also known as low expectations) is a coping mechanism -- and, not, as many would have you believe, a sign of poor moral fiber or general evilness. Why do teachers lose hope? Because it's easier that way. Any economist should recognize that, in this way, lowering expectations is perfectly rational behavior. After all, if happiness equals expectations minus reality then lowering expectations is an easier path to happiness than is improving one's reality.
The solution? We need to figure out how to make teaching rewarding for those with high hopes -- both to assuage the attrition of the always-optimistic and to discourage dedicated teachers from descending to despondency and digging in their heels.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Burned Out on Burnout over Burnout Stories
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Generalizing about the problems caused by teacher turnover and attrition is generally useless. Turnover varies so widely across schools and districts that we can't say much of anything about it when it comes to the entire nation.
In the majority of schools in the United States, turnover is not the biggest problem. An awful lot of schools lose less than a handful of teachers each year. But to say that turnover isn't really a big problem is, in my eyes, worse than saying it is. Here's why:
While most schools don't have huge problems with turnover, the most troubled schools have the disproportionate share of turnover problems. And when we talk about education policy, the vast majority of discussion is focused on the most troubled districts and schools. What percentage of districts in the U.S. have even a single charter school? I'm willing to be it's far below 50%. And yet we spend an awful lot of time talking about charter schools. And rightfully so. Charter schools are a huge deal. They may or may not transform American education the way we want them too, but they're unquestionably changing the way that families experience public education in quite a few large districts.
And the same thing goes for turnover. Saying that it's not a problem is like saying that charter schools aren't a big deal. Many of the schools and districts we most want to reform have huge turnover rates. In high-poverty middle schools in the Bronx, for example, almost half of all teachers are in their first or second year in that school. And only a third have five years of experience teaching.
Coincidentally, many of the districts where charter schools are proliferating are the same ones that have had chronic turnover problems. I'm not sure how many charter schools there are in rural areas, so it's actually possible there are more districts with high turnover (say 20+% per years) in many of their schools than there are districts with charter schools.
So you can imagine my frustration when I read Jay Greene's piece about how burned out he is on stories of teacher burnout. He writes:
First of all, I have a problem with people dismissing burnout stories, stories from which we can draw many lessons and glean many insights about our schools. Second, nobody's arguing that turnover is always a bad thing -- of course we don't want unsuccessful teachers to stay, and I have yet to hear 100% retention rate as a goal. But we're nowhere near that point in the schools and districts where turnover is a problem. Lastly, the story on pensions isn't that simple. While they undeniably disproportionately reward people who stay in the system for 20+ years (people who may or may not be burned out), they also reward people who retire in their 50s -- people who oftentimes would be willing and able to work longer.
At any rate, the next time you hear somebody say that turnover isn't a big problem, simply say "where?"
In the majority of schools in the United States, turnover is not the biggest problem. An awful lot of schools lose less than a handful of teachers each year. But to say that turnover isn't really a big problem is, in my eyes, worse than saying it is. Here's why:
While most schools don't have huge problems with turnover, the most troubled schools have the disproportionate share of turnover problems. And when we talk about education policy, the vast majority of discussion is focused on the most troubled districts and schools. What percentage of districts in the U.S. have even a single charter school? I'm willing to be it's far below 50%. And yet we spend an awful lot of time talking about charter schools. And rightfully so. Charter schools are a huge deal. They may or may not transform American education the way we want them too, but they're unquestionably changing the way that families experience public education in quite a few large districts.
And the same thing goes for turnover. Saying that it's not a problem is like saying that charter schools aren't a big deal. Many of the schools and districts we most want to reform have huge turnover rates. In high-poverty middle schools in the Bronx, for example, almost half of all teachers are in their first or second year in that school. And only a third have five years of experience teaching.
Coincidentally, many of the districts where charter schools are proliferating are the same ones that have had chronic turnover problems. I'm not sure how many charter schools there are in rural areas, so it's actually possible there are more districts with high turnover (say 20+% per years) in many of their schools than there are districts with charter schools.
So you can imagine my frustration when I read Jay Greene's piece about how burned out he is on stories of teacher burnout. He writes:
I suspect that these burnout stories are informed by and perpetuate a conviction that turnover in teachers in inherently a bad thing. It isn’t. What’s bad is a system that permits, through the inability to dismiss ineffective teachers, and encourages, through a a perverse pension system, people to continue teaching well after they have burned out.
First of all, I have a problem with people dismissing burnout stories, stories from which we can draw many lessons and glean many insights about our schools. Second, nobody's arguing that turnover is always a bad thing -- of course we don't want unsuccessful teachers to stay, and I have yet to hear 100% retention rate as a goal. But we're nowhere near that point in the schools and districts where turnover is a problem. Lastly, the story on pensions isn't that simple. While they undeniably disproportionately reward people who stay in the system for 20+ years (people who may or may not be burned out), they also reward people who retire in their 50s -- people who oftentimes would be willing and able to work longer.
At any rate, the next time you hear somebody say that turnover isn't a big problem, simply say "where?"
Monday, April 20, 2009
Charter School Teacher Retention
Debra Viadero reported last week on a paper by Dave Stuit and Tom Smith finding that charter school teachers are 230% more likely to leave the field (an updated version actually pegs it at 237%) at the end of the year than are teachers in traditional public schools, based on data from 2003-04.
Given that both writers are from Vanderbilt and that I find the topic interesting, I thought I'd look into it further. It's a conference paper -- not a finished paper that's been peer-reviewed and published in a journal -- so I'm not going to get into significant detail. While I'm sure it's not perfect and that it will undergo further revisions, I will say that the methodology seems pretty straightforward and that I trust both of the writers to investigate things rigorously and interpret them correctly, so my guess is that when the final version is released most of these figures will remain about the same. That said, let's get to it.
The most striking finding was that charter school teachers were more than twice as likely to leave the field as are teachers in traditional public schools -- the raw numbers are 14.1% and 7.0% (please note that the 230% estimate is based on log-odds ratios calculated using Hierachical General Linear Models controlling for clustering in schools*). They also calculated that charter school teachers were 113% as likely to transfer to another school.
They also found turnover nearly twice as high in schools that were new start-ups versus schools that had been converted to charter schools -- which makes sense because a new start-up would have more growing pains and instability than would a converted school.
But the most important question is why charter school teachers were more likely to leave the profession. Based on survey responses from those who left, charter school teachers were about twice as likely to report leaving for better salary and benefits (46%/22%), dissatisfaction iwth school (51%/24%), or due to school staffing action (40%/20%), and more than three times as likely to report leaving to pursue additional coursework outside education (27%/8%). They were also about one-third as likely to report leaving due to retirement (14%/38%).
In short, it seems that more teachers are leaving to move on to bigger and better things. This makes sense if we consider how many charter schools pluck people to serve as almost missionaries for a few years (think KIPP and their use of TFA fellows). I would expect that charter schools employ more people who are teaching as a way to give back to the community for a few years and fewer people that want to make a career out of teaching than are traditional public schools. Indeed, if we look at the demographics, charter schools employ more people under the age of 30 (34%/20%) and fewer over the age of 50 (18%/29%) than do traditional public schools. Teachers are also much less likely to be certified (67%/90%), and one would imagine that investing the time and effort into getting certified means that a teacher both intends to stay longer and will now be more likely to stay longer.
I've only just scratched the surface of all the paper examines and discusses, but I think the difference in attrition between sectors is worth thinking through. I could see the interpretation that this means charter schools need to work harder to retain teachers. I could also see an argument that attrition will hold back charters from achieving the success they could. But my main interpretation would be that charters tend to employ different types of teachers than do traditional public schools -- and these teachers, put simply, are less likely to stay in the profession for a long time (which could be exacerbated by the amount of time and effort required to teach in some of these charter schools). And I think the largest question it raises is about the replicability and scalability of charter schools.
If we continue to expand the number of charter schools and replicate those that have been more successful, will they continue to operate by employing teachers that don't make a career out of teaching? If so, how many people are out there that are both capable of being good teachers and want to teach for a few years?
*there was some confusion over how the 230% figure (now 237%) was derived on the Inside School Research site. After consultation with the author it's been explained that it was done thusly: a log-odds ratio of 3.368 was calculated. An odds ratio of 1 would mean that teachers were equally likely to leave the profession from both sectors. A ratio of 3.368 means that those in charter schools were 3.368-1 (=2.37, move the decimal point so that it turns into 237) percent more likely to leave.
Given that both writers are from Vanderbilt and that I find the topic interesting, I thought I'd look into it further. It's a conference paper -- not a finished paper that's been peer-reviewed and published in a journal -- so I'm not going to get into significant detail. While I'm sure it's not perfect and that it will undergo further revisions, I will say that the methodology seems pretty straightforward and that I trust both of the writers to investigate things rigorously and interpret them correctly, so my guess is that when the final version is released most of these figures will remain about the same. That said, let's get to it.
The most striking finding was that charter school teachers were more than twice as likely to leave the field as are teachers in traditional public schools -- the raw numbers are 14.1% and 7.0% (please note that the 230% estimate is based on log-odds ratios calculated using Hierachical General Linear Models controlling for clustering in schools*). They also calculated that charter school teachers were 113% as likely to transfer to another school.
They also found turnover nearly twice as high in schools that were new start-ups versus schools that had been converted to charter schools -- which makes sense because a new start-up would have more growing pains and instability than would a converted school.
But the most important question is why charter school teachers were more likely to leave the profession. Based on survey responses from those who left, charter school teachers were about twice as likely to report leaving for better salary and benefits (46%/22%), dissatisfaction iwth school (51%/24%), or due to school staffing action (40%/20%), and more than three times as likely to report leaving to pursue additional coursework outside education (27%/8%). They were also about one-third as likely to report leaving due to retirement (14%/38%).
In short, it seems that more teachers are leaving to move on to bigger and better things. This makes sense if we consider how many charter schools pluck people to serve as almost missionaries for a few years (think KIPP and their use of TFA fellows). I would expect that charter schools employ more people who are teaching as a way to give back to the community for a few years and fewer people that want to make a career out of teaching than are traditional public schools. Indeed, if we look at the demographics, charter schools employ more people under the age of 30 (34%/20%) and fewer over the age of 50 (18%/29%) than do traditional public schools. Teachers are also much less likely to be certified (67%/90%), and one would imagine that investing the time and effort into getting certified means that a teacher both intends to stay longer and will now be more likely to stay longer.
I've only just scratched the surface of all the paper examines and discusses, but I think the difference in attrition between sectors is worth thinking through. I could see the interpretation that this means charter schools need to work harder to retain teachers. I could also see an argument that attrition will hold back charters from achieving the success they could. But my main interpretation would be that charters tend to employ different types of teachers than do traditional public schools -- and these teachers, put simply, are less likely to stay in the profession for a long time (which could be exacerbated by the amount of time and effort required to teach in some of these charter schools). And I think the largest question it raises is about the replicability and scalability of charter schools.
If we continue to expand the number of charter schools and replicate those that have been more successful, will they continue to operate by employing teachers that don't make a career out of teaching? If so, how many people are out there that are both capable of being good teachers and want to teach for a few years?
*there was some confusion over how the 230% figure (now 237%) was derived on the Inside School Research site. After consultation with the author it's been explained that it was done thusly: a log-odds ratio of 3.368 was calculated. An odds ratio of 1 would mean that teachers were equally likely to leave the profession from both sectors. A ratio of 3.368 means that those in charter schools were 3.368-1 (=2.37, move the decimal point so that it turns into 237) percent more likely to leave.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
How Many New Teachers Should a School Have?
The local paper ran a rather bland article yesterday about the number of new teachers in local schools ("School debate value of novice teachers").
According to the people they interview, it essentially boils down to this: newer/younger teachers are more enthusiastic and sometimes relate to the kids better, while older/more experienced teachers have better classroom management, more expertise, and can serve as mentors. Sounds about right to me.
I think you can make a compelling argument that too many of either one is a bad thing. But where is the line for "too many?" This particular article highlights Rutherford County (in the suburbs of Nashville) as having the highest number of novice teachers (due to rapid growth) in the area. 37% of the teachers in the district have five or fewer years of experience.
That's fairly high, but about half what it was in the school where I taught (which was not atypical for middle schools in the Bronx).
I would think that having around one-third of the staff in their first five years (assuming that there's an even distribution within that experience demographic -- e.g. not all of that third are in their first year of teaching) is probably about as high as you would want in an ideal school.
A school where less than a third of the teachers have five years of experience or more, however, should be raising somebody's eyebrows. Not that it's not possible to have a successful school in such circumstances, but it certainly merits further investigation if you're an administrator.
According to the people they interview, it essentially boils down to this: newer/younger teachers are more enthusiastic and sometimes relate to the kids better, while older/more experienced teachers have better classroom management, more expertise, and can serve as mentors. Sounds about right to me.
I think you can make a compelling argument that too many of either one is a bad thing. But where is the line for "too many?" This particular article highlights Rutherford County (in the suburbs of Nashville) as having the highest number of novice teachers (due to rapid growth) in the area. 37% of the teachers in the district have five or fewer years of experience.
That's fairly high, but about half what it was in the school where I taught (which was not atypical for middle schools in the Bronx).
I would think that having around one-third of the staff in their first five years (assuming that there's an even distribution within that experience demographic -- e.g. not all of that third are in their first year of teaching) is probably about as high as you would want in an ideal school.
A school where less than a third of the teachers have five years of experience or more, however, should be raising somebody's eyebrows. Not that it's not possible to have a successful school in such circumstances, but it certainly merits further investigation if you're an administrator.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Fire all the Bad Teachers . . . And then What?
Good news: the most consistently thoughtful education blog (Bridging Differences) is back in business. Diane Ravitch leads off with a piece on the new reform efforts in education and how Democrats seem to be adopting the ideas of Republicans. Although it's only tangentially related, it reminded me of a question I wanted to ask.
A lot has been written about Michelle Rhee's plan to give teacher's huge raises in exchange for getting rid of tenure -- I assume that she's planning on firing a lot of teachers, otherwise I don't see the point of the plan. But here's my question: who's going to replace the fired teachers?
I don't know the situation in D.C. well enough, so it might be the case that the D.C. Teaching Fellows and other efforts can recruit enough teachers to replace whoever gets fired in this plan, but more generally speaking I always hesitate to believe that simply firing all the bad teachers will solve our problems. Beyond the fact that it's harder to identify "bad" teachers than we might want to believe, we often forget to ask whether there are better teachers waiting in the wings.
As an anecdotal example, let me talk even more about my school. My school was not the worst one in the Bronx, but about a quarter of the teachers left each year. My second year we had a handful of positions that remained vacant for all or most of the year (after two chorus teachers were driven off they couldn't seem to find a third). The new principal, however, decided she needed to go after a number of teachers she didn't like in order to replace them with her people. I'm not going to say that every teacher in my school was nominated for teacher of the year, but what, exactly, is the point of firing teachers when you don't have anybody with which to replace them?
A lot has been written about Michelle Rhee's plan to give teacher's huge raises in exchange for getting rid of tenure -- I assume that she's planning on firing a lot of teachers, otherwise I don't see the point of the plan. But here's my question: who's going to replace the fired teachers?
I don't know the situation in D.C. well enough, so it might be the case that the D.C. Teaching Fellows and other efforts can recruit enough teachers to replace whoever gets fired in this plan, but more generally speaking I always hesitate to believe that simply firing all the bad teachers will solve our problems. Beyond the fact that it's harder to identify "bad" teachers than we might want to believe, we often forget to ask whether there are better teachers waiting in the wings.
As an anecdotal example, let me talk even more about my school. My school was not the worst one in the Bronx, but about a quarter of the teachers left each year. My second year we had a handful of positions that remained vacant for all or most of the year (after two chorus teachers were driven off they couldn't seem to find a third). The new principal, however, decided she needed to go after a number of teachers she didn't like in order to replace them with her people. I'm not going to say that every teacher in my school was nominated for teacher of the year, but what, exactly, is the point of firing teachers when you don't have anybody with which to replace them?
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Convincing Teachers to Choose High-Poverty Schools
I just read an interesting (and very short) piece in the latest Teacher's College Record. In it, Tom Carroll and Souma Sathya argue that we need to "change the conditions that make high-needs schools hard to staff" (which is also the title).
Their most important point, to me, is "that at the end of the day it will be the teachers who will make the decisions about where they will teach." As such, they argue that we should make high-needs schools more attractive to teachers.
Their recommendations are, in short, that we award bonuses to teachers who teach in these schools, ensure that there are competent and supportive leaders, that novices are not left to "sink or swim," and that paths to rise from novice to master teacher be created.
The purpose of this post is to encourage you to read the piece (it will only take two minutes, really), so I'll keep the analysis short. Though short on details, all of the recommendations seem logical and fairly straightforward. High teacher turnover certainly crippled my school and given the demographics of the current teaching force it seems likely both that reducing turnover in the future will benefit high-poverty schools and that making schools better places to work will reduce turnover.
Their most important point, to me, is "that at the end of the day it will be the teachers who will make the decisions about where they will teach." As such, they argue that we should make high-needs schools more attractive to teachers.
Their recommendations are, in short, that we award bonuses to teachers who teach in these schools, ensure that there are competent and supportive leaders, that novices are not left to "sink or swim," and that paths to rise from novice to master teacher be created.
The purpose of this post is to encourage you to read the piece (it will only take two minutes, really), so I'll keep the analysis short. Though short on details, all of the recommendations seem logical and fairly straightforward. High teacher turnover certainly crippled my school and given the demographics of the current teaching force it seems likely both that reducing turnover in the future will benefit high-poverty schools and that making schools better places to work will reduce turnover.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Teachers and Student Race
I've been MIA for a few days while I busily jumped through hoops. I just read through all the blogging I missed, and here's the exchange I found most interesting:
Eduwonkette pointed out that a wide body of research has found that teachers are less likely to stay in schools with a large population of racial minority students.
Mike Petrilli responded by asking if that meant that teachers are racist and points out that KIPP schools and some others have had success attracting teachers to teach in schools with overwhelmingly racial minority student bodies.
I have two things to add:
1. No, it doesn't mean teachers are racist. Recent work has found that teachers tend to end up in schools where they feel more comfortable -- where students and teachers are from the same geographic area, social class, race, etc. as themselves. That makes sense. People like be surrounded by familiar things.
2. Pointing out that KIPP attracts teachers to teach racial minorities is a bad example for two reasons. First: I don't have statistics handy, but I don't think KIPP's teacher retention rates are too stellar. KIPP and some other high-flying charter schools rely on young idealistic teachers (including many in TFA) who are willing to devote their lives to the school for a few years before they move on to something else. Secondly, even if KIPP retained the talented teachers it recruits, that wouldn't be proof that there are enough people willing to teach in these schools across the entire country. I'll agree with his point that the working conditions probably matter more than the racial make-up of the student body, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't consider the racial make-up of a school.
Eduwonkette pointed out that a wide body of research has found that teachers are less likely to stay in schools with a large population of racial minority students.
Mike Petrilli responded by asking if that meant that teachers are racist and points out that KIPP schools and some others have had success attracting teachers to teach in schools with overwhelmingly racial minority student bodies.
I have two things to add:
1. No, it doesn't mean teachers are racist. Recent work has found that teachers tend to end up in schools where they feel more comfortable -- where students and teachers are from the same geographic area, social class, race, etc. as themselves. That makes sense. People like be surrounded by familiar things.
2. Pointing out that KIPP attracts teachers to teach racial minorities is a bad example for two reasons. First: I don't have statistics handy, but I don't think KIPP's teacher retention rates are too stellar. KIPP and some other high-flying charter schools rely on young idealistic teachers (including many in TFA) who are willing to devote their lives to the school for a few years before they move on to something else. Secondly, even if KIPP retained the talented teachers it recruits, that wouldn't be proof that there are enough people willing to teach in these schools across the entire country. I'll agree with his point that the working conditions probably matter more than the racial make-up of the student body, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't consider the racial make-up of a school.
Monday, May 19, 2008
All Research is "Mesearch"
So says my roommate, who heard it from a friend. As a relatively new member of the research community, I have two thoughts on this:
1. There's a lot of truth in that statement
2. "All" is too strong
I don't really have a rooting interest in any particular intervention, but I would be lying if I said that my personal experiences hadn't shaped my research interests. I'm a private person -- when I talk about myself, it's not usually about personal things. Education is, to me, however, very personal. Particularly my decision to quit teaching. I know not everybody quit for the same reason as me. I don't know exactly how the exit of people like myself affects schools. But I've been convinced by my experiences that it merits further investigation.
I'm in an unusually pensive mood b/c TMAO has started to expound a bit on his decision to quit, and it stirs up a lot of memories for me. He makes a list of all the reasons he didn't quit and, oddly enough, these are mostly reasons why I did quit. Here are all the reasons he lists that he didn't quit:
But enough about me; back to my point. Just as everybody has experiences that define their lives, this one has defined mine. And these experiences define not just who people are but also what they research. Part of me feels that this is a bad thing -- in which case I plead guilty -- but part of me isn't so sure.
On the one hand, it means that people have more personally at stake in their research than we might like to believe (I'm guessing that most people who are interested in merit pay or teacher education believe that they are potentially powerful interventions). But, on the other, it also means that people have some context for the questions they ask and, for that matter, that they are motivated to spend time on the topic.
I know that my experiences have shaped my interests (and probably always will), and I think I can be ok with this as long as I start a project answering questions that I genuinely believe can be answered in either direction. It's the difference between starting off saying "I'm going to prove that discipline problems influence teacher retention" and saying "I wonder if discipline problems influence teacher retention and, if so, how much?" I'm not perfect, but that's the goal for which I'll aim.
1. There's a lot of truth in that statement
2. "All" is too strong
I don't really have a rooting interest in any particular intervention, but I would be lying if I said that my personal experiences hadn't shaped my research interests. I'm a private person -- when I talk about myself, it's not usually about personal things. Education is, to me, however, very personal. Particularly my decision to quit teaching. I know not everybody quit for the same reason as me. I don't know exactly how the exit of people like myself affects schools. But I've been convinced by my experiences that it merits further investigation.
I'm in an unusually pensive mood b/c TMAO has started to expound a bit on his decision to quit, and it stirs up a lot of memories for me. He makes a list of all the reasons he didn't quit and, oddly enough, these are mostly reasons why I did quit. Here are all the reasons he lists that he didn't quit:
- I wasn't prepared - I certainly wasn't. It's not really the reason that I quit, but it certainly hindered the amount of success I had.
- I'm not successful - I certainly never felt successful. Maybe I just set the bar too high for myself, but I always felt like I was trying to preside over chaos.
- I'm not supported - TMAO says he doesn't know what this means. In my school, it meant that when I struggled I was told I was a bad teacher rather than helped. When a student flipped out, I was berated and the student remained in my room.
- I can no longer stand to work with the disastrously declined youth of today or their apathetic, uninvolved families - I'll agree with him on this one -- that had nothing to do with my decision
- I'm not paid enough - Of course I wasn't paid enough for what I went through, but that had very little to do with my decision to leave.
- I really want to teach at a KIPP school - That was probably the last thing on my mind as the kids ran out the door on my last day.
- I'm burnt out - TMAO wrestles with whether or not he was burnt out. I have no such quandary: I was burnt out -- badly.
But enough about me; back to my point. Just as everybody has experiences that define their lives, this one has defined mine. And these experiences define not just who people are but also what they research. Part of me feels that this is a bad thing -- in which case I plead guilty -- but part of me isn't so sure.
On the one hand, it means that people have more personally at stake in their research than we might like to believe (I'm guessing that most people who are interested in merit pay or teacher education believe that they are potentially powerful interventions). But, on the other, it also means that people have some context for the questions they ask and, for that matter, that they are motivated to spend time on the topic.
I know that my experiences have shaped my interests (and probably always will), and I think I can be ok with this as long as I start a project answering questions that I genuinely believe can be answered in either direction. It's the difference between starting off saying "I'm going to prove that discipline problems influence teacher retention" and saying "I wonder if discipline problems influence teacher retention and, if so, how much?" I'm not perfect, but that's the goal for which I'll aim.
Monday, May 12, 2008
Another One Bites the Dust
A sad day in the world of teaching. The writer of the blog Teaching in the 408 has announced he's resigning. I don't want to put words in his mouth, but it sounds like he was frustrated.
I've never seen him teach, but it sounds like he was an effective teacher in a tough school. A smart, determined, dedicated Teach For America alum. In other words, just the type of teacher that we should be trying to keep.
I've never seen him teach, but it sounds like he was an effective teacher in a tough school. A smart, determined, dedicated Teach For America alum. In other words, just the type of teacher that we should be trying to keep.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
How Does Teacher Retention Affect Schools?
I've been on the road for two weeks now and all the conference presentations are starting to muddle together in my head. As such, I'm just going to talk briefly about the paper I presented yesterday. It's one of the few things that I can keep straight in my head right now.
Here's the premise of the paper:
Lots of people have investigated why teachers leave schools, but I haven't seen much on how schools are affected by teachers leaving. The simplest version of this question would be "does retaining more teachers improve student performance?"
As I've discussed before, the nature of teacher retention is very different in different schools. Since retention rates are notably low in high-poverty urban schools, I chose to focus solely on them. I had some data and was able to compile a dataset of 43 NYC middle schools that had large percentages of poor students (not including magnet, K-8, and some other schools with unreliable statistics). Across these schools, about 40% of teachers were in their first or second year of teaching at their current schools and less than half had a total of 5 or more years of teaching experience.
There was also a moderately strong (r=.44, p<.05) relationship between the average student score on the 8th grade state math test and the percent of teachers who had been teaching for at least two years at that school. In other words, schools with higher rates of teacher retention also had higher student achievement.
Using regression analysis and controlling for race and attendance rate, teacher retention was still significantly related to student achievement. Teacher retention had a fairly sizable effect (effect size of .20) and the model did a pretty good job of explaining the variance in test scores (R-squared of .70).
So, in short, among high-poverty middle schools in NYC, those with higher rates of teacher retention also had higher test scores, even when controlling for other things that influence student test scores. The question that I can't answer with the data is whether better schools make teachers want to stay there more or if more teachers staying in a school improves the school and boosts student achievement (or a little of both). I hope to come closer to answering this question in the future.
Here's the premise of the paper:
Lots of people have investigated why teachers leave schools, but I haven't seen much on how schools are affected by teachers leaving. The simplest version of this question would be "does retaining more teachers improve student performance?"
As I've discussed before, the nature of teacher retention is very different in different schools. Since retention rates are notably low in high-poverty urban schools, I chose to focus solely on them. I had some data and was able to compile a dataset of 43 NYC middle schools that had large percentages of poor students (not including magnet, K-8, and some other schools with unreliable statistics). Across these schools, about 40% of teachers were in their first or second year of teaching at their current schools and less than half had a total of 5 or more years of teaching experience.
There was also a moderately strong (r=.44, p<.05) relationship between the average student score on the 8th grade state math test and the percent of teachers who had been teaching for at least two years at that school. In other words, schools with higher rates of teacher retention also had higher student achievement.
Using regression analysis and controlling for race and attendance rate, teacher retention was still significantly related to student achievement. Teacher retention had a fairly sizable effect (effect size of .20) and the model did a pretty good job of explaining the variance in test scores (R-squared of .70).
So, in short, among high-poverty middle schools in NYC, those with higher rates of teacher retention also had higher test scores, even when controlling for other things that influence student test scores. The question that I can't answer with the data is whether better schools make teachers want to stay there more or if more teachers staying in a school improves the school and boosts student achievement (or a little of both). I hope to come closer to answering this question in the future.
Saturday, March 1, 2008
Is There a Teacher Shortage or Not?
A paper presented yesterday at the Incentive Pay Conference held on campus raised some eyebrows. The authors looked at the relationship between teacher effectiveness and teacher retention -- in some contexts less effective teachers were more likely to leave a school while in others there was no statistically significant difference between more and less effective teachers.
The statistic that seemed to raise eyebrows was that after 5 years about 2/3 of the beginning teachers were still teaching at a public school in Florida (the paper examined 5 cohorts of first-year teachers in Florida public schools over 5 years). One economist suggested that this was a much higher retention rate than any other professional field and that, perhaps, we should be asking why so many teachers stay in the field instead of why so many leave.
The point raised is a valid one, it appears that teacher retention is not a problem in a lot of places and that, taken as a whole, there is no "teacher shortage" in this country. But there's a dangerous caveat that makes saying "teacher retention isn't a problem" just as false as saying that it is; teacher retention is a problem in some areas -- most notably high-poverty schools.
In this particular study, the authors found that only 20% of teachers in high-poverty schools were still teaching in that school in their fifth year and that teachers tended to transfer to schools with fewer minorities, fewer students in poverty, and higher test scores. To be fair, after reading the paper in full, the authors do acknowledge this -- but that doesn't change the fact that the reaction in the room seemed to be agreement that teacher retention was overblown as a problem in America's schools.
Secondly, the utility of an overall number is limited because it remains to be seen how much it helps or hurts a school when a teacher leaves one school in favor of teaching in another. Imagine the most extreme scenario: all teachers remain in teaching for their entire career, leading to an overall retention rates of 100%, but switch to a different school each year; even though teacher retention is not a problem for the system as a whole, it might be within schools.
In summary:
There is no "teacher shortage" in this country, but some schools are short on teachers. Most teachers continue to teach, but not in certain schools. Teacher retention may not be a problem at the school down the street, but it may be at the school across town -- and dismissing it as a problem is just as dangerous as exaggerating the scope of the problem.
The statistic that seemed to raise eyebrows was that after 5 years about 2/3 of the beginning teachers were still teaching at a public school in Florida (the paper examined 5 cohorts of first-year teachers in Florida public schools over 5 years). One economist suggested that this was a much higher retention rate than any other professional field and that, perhaps, we should be asking why so many teachers stay in the field instead of why so many leave.
The point raised is a valid one, it appears that teacher retention is not a problem in a lot of places and that, taken as a whole, there is no "teacher shortage" in this country. But there's a dangerous caveat that makes saying "teacher retention isn't a problem" just as false as saying that it is; teacher retention is a problem in some areas -- most notably high-poverty schools.
In this particular study, the authors found that only 20% of teachers in high-poverty schools were still teaching in that school in their fifth year and that teachers tended to transfer to schools with fewer minorities, fewer students in poverty, and higher test scores. To be fair, after reading the paper in full, the authors do acknowledge this -- but that doesn't change the fact that the reaction in the room seemed to be agreement that teacher retention was overblown as a problem in America's schools.
Secondly, the utility of an overall number is limited because it remains to be seen how much it helps or hurts a school when a teacher leaves one school in favor of teaching in another. Imagine the most extreme scenario: all teachers remain in teaching for their entire career, leading to an overall retention rates of 100%, but switch to a different school each year; even though teacher retention is not a problem for the system as a whole, it might be within schools.
In summary:
There is no "teacher shortage" in this country, but some schools are short on teachers. Most teachers continue to teach, but not in certain schools. Teacher retention may not be a problem at the school down the street, but it may be at the school across town -- and dismissing it as a problem is just as dangerous as exaggerating the scope of the problem.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)