A Teacher’s Comment

March 3, 2011

I’ve pasted below, in full, the comment that a teacher wrote in response to Bob Costrell’s op-ed in the Wall Street Journal about the expense of teacher health and retirement benefits in Milwaukee.

Before you read it, I just want to make a few points.  First, this type of comment is not nearly as rare as you might hope.  I’ve written on teacher pay myself and let me tell you that a non-trivial number of teachers react like this.  Second, when I read comments like this I wonder why their authors are still teaching.  They seem to hate their job, hate the kids, and are filled with rage.  If things are that awful perhaps they should look for other lines of work.  Third, comments like this make me worried about how bright these teachers are.  This guy clearly has difficulty with written English.  He also has a hard time rationally processing the argument raised by Bob Costrell’s piece.  The op-ed was about how Milwaukee teachers are paid 74.2 cents in benefits for every 1 dollar in salary.  That rate is unsustainable and lacks transparency because fringe rates are less visible than salary.  The comment does not rationally respond to any part of that argument.  How can this person teach anything if he can’t read and understand an argument?

Let me be clear, I do not think all or even most teachers are like this guy.  But a non-trivial number of them are.  All of us, especially the good teachers, should be focused on how we can get people like this out of the classroom as quickly as possible.

Here’s the comment:

Mr. Costrell (and anybody who agrees with Bob),

You obviously have never experienced “teaching” to its fullest.

Teachers are not typical workers.

You obviously haven’t made a life-long career of “teaching” which cannot be expressed/explained in one word “teaching” let alone a discussion blog: You stand in a room for 7 hours a day 25-35 kids, unmotivated, sometimes you[‘re the best they’ve got, many with broken homes and social issues, baggage. A teacher enters the profession to make a positive difference in the world, then a kid in the class tells you “F U, I’m not doing this…”

Why don’t you take a Special Ed Teacher’s place for one day, and get SPIT on, kicked, smacked, get your hair pulled, get called names, and I dare you to come back the next day, and do it all over again.

Why don’t you stand in a teacher’s place, and put in your 7-3 with barely a lunch, cramming it down your throat in 10 minutes, because you spend your “LUNCH” calling parents, helping kids, tutoring, and planning awesome lessons.

Why don’t you, after your 7-4 shift, continue to coach until 6pm, and then continue to coach at the game, so the bus can return to the school at 10pm, and you can get home by 11pm, just to wake up at 5am and do it again the next day…I dare you. (and you wonder where our extra pay comes from).

I dare you to try to eat your lunch after a kid tells you sick stories, stories that would make you sick for weeks, where DCFS gets involved, that I can’t even share due to confidentiality and legality.

Why don’t you give it 150% everyday, all of the above, in addition to accepting constructive criticism from administrative and government demands for higher test scores, while balancing trying to teach your kids “critical thinking” skills, in addition to solely passing a standardized test, just to meet NCLB.

I dare you to step in a teacher’s footsteps for a day, and then standing up for what you believe in, and trying to keep your basic bargaining rights, and then losing your rights, and go back and give it 75% or more….do you seriously think a teacher would give it their all from that point on.

Why don’t you call all your teachers and thank them for everything they taught you: the ability to write what you believe, even though what you believe is a bunch of B S.

I dare you to send your kids to a school now, after posting your opinion.

Actually, good luck to anybody sending their kids to Wisconsin public schools after insulting the Wisconsin teachers like that. Teachers are more than just “teachers”. Don’t you forget it.

Mr Costrell, why don’t you walk in a teacher’s footsteps, and make a lifelong career out of it, before you open your stupid mouth.

FYI-you’re not a teacher, you’re a Harvard professor. Get off your high horse.

9 Comments | teacher quality | Tagged: , | Permalink
Posted by Jay P. Greene

MPINO

February 24, 2011

Most people are familiar with RhINOs (Republicans in Name Only), which is a pejorative for Republican officials who differ from other Republicans on certain key issues. With a new piece in Education Next, Stuart Buck and I would like to introduce to the policy lexicon the term, MPINO — Merit Pay in Name Only.

Few merit pay programs for teachers manage to overcome union-fueled political opposition to be adopted and implemented. We estimate, based on data from Vanderbilt’s National Center for Performance Incentives, that no more than 3.5% of all districts have anything even remotely resembling merit pay.

But even the few programs that aren’t blocked are largely co-opted and diluted so that they are little more than MPINO. They tend to define merit as additional credentialing, such as paying for national board certification or simply additional degrees. The bonuses tend to be small add-ons to the traditional salary schedule based entirely on seniority and credentials. And the plans are frequently not fully implemented or quickly reversed.

The problem is that merit pay programs are trying to simulate the compensation systems that one might develop in a competitive market. But without the pressure and discipline of the market there is nothing to keep these plans sensible or permit the constant tinkering necessary to address gaming or other design weaknesses. In short, we hold out little hope for merit pay improving achievement in the absence of meaningful choice and competition given the union ability to block, dilute, or co-opt merit pay proposals.

In addition, we suggest that the most powerful form of merit pay is the concern that inadequate performance might cause one to lose one’s job. Without ending tenure and burdensome fair dismissal procedures, merit pay is unlikely to do much to change a teaching workforce that cannot lose jobs for sub-par performance.

Even if we see more programs that are called merit pay, we are unlikely to get more than MPINO. Unfortunately, this won’t even result in SAINO (Student Achievement in Name Only).

6 Comments | teacher pay, teacher quality | Permalink
Posted by Jay P. Greene

NYT on Tenure Reform

February 4, 2011

(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)

Nothing quite signifies the intellectual bankruptcy of the unions better than this article. Faced with a significant national trend towards revoking tenure, the President of the NEA fires back with: an absurd story about an attempt to fire an Arizona teacher 30 years ago based upon a speech impediment that was actually an accent!

Mr. Van Roekel of the teachers’ union disagreed. Recounting a story that had the burnish of something told many times, he recalled that around 1980, when he was a union leader in Arizona, he had arranged to have a speech pathologist assess a teacher whom a principal was trying to fire because of a speech impediment. The pathologist determined that the teacher had a New York accent.

“She would say ‘ideer,’ instead of ‘idea,’ ” Mr. Van Roekel said. “The principal thought that was a speech impediment. Without a fair dismissal law, that principal could have fired her arbitrarily, without citing any reason.”

Riiiiiiiiight….

Could it be that I am the only one who has noticed that, despite all of the complaining that unions do about administrators, that the vast majority of them come straight out of the teaching ranks?  Furthermore, the state of school accountability in Arizona 30 years ago would have been zilch, either in the form of testing or parental choice. Such a dearth of transparency and competitive pressure would enable the arbitrary firings of staff of even effective staff. Oddly though, zilch in the way of accountability, whether in the form of testing with teeth or parental choice is the prefered policy stance of the NEA.

Strange that.

Further, the debate over tenure that I am watching involves complex discussions about methods for measuring teacher effectiveness rather than proposals for arbitrary and capricious firing. I wonder what debate Van Roekel has been watching.

15 Comments | teacher quality, teacher union | Tagged: , | Permalink
Posted by matthewladner

McKay Scholarship Mom Goes to War with Tenure in Florida Video

January 29, 2011

(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)

W*O*W, watch the video.

1 Comment | teacher quality, teacher union | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by matthewladner

False Claim on Drill & Kill

December 13, 2010

The Gates Foundation is funding a $45 million project to improve measures of teacher effectiveness.  As part of that project, researchers are collecting information from two standardized tests as well as surveys administered to students and classroom observations captured by video cameras in the classrooms.  It’s a big project.

The initial round of results were reported last week with information from the student survey and standardized tests.  In particular, the report described the relationship between classroom practices, as observed by students, and value-added on the standardized tests.

The New York Times reported on these findings Friday and repeated the following strong claim:

But now some 20 states are overhauling their evaluation systems, and many policymakers involved in those efforts have been asking the Gates Foundation for suggestions on what measures of teacher effectiveness to use, said Vicki L. Phillips, a director of education at the foundation.

One notable early finding, Ms. Phillips said, is that teachers who incessantly drill their students to prepare for standardized tests tend to have lower value-added learning gains than those who simply work their way methodically through the key concepts of literacy and mathematics. (emphasis added)

I looked through the report for evidence that supported this claim and could not find it.  Instead, the report actually shows a positive correlation between student reports of “test prep” and value added on standardized tests, not a negative correlation as the statement above suggests.  (See for example Appendix 1 on p. 34.)

The statement “We spend a lot of time in this class practicing for [the state test]” has a correlation of  0.195 with the value added math results.  That is about the same relationship as “My teacher asks questions to be sure we are following along when s/he is teaching,” which is 0.198.  And both are positive.

It’s true that the correlation for “Getting ready for [the state test] takes a lot of time in our class” is weaker (0.103) than other items, but it is still positive.  That just means that test prep may contribute less to value added than other practices, but it does not support the claim that  “teachers who incessantly drill their students to prepare for standardized tests tend to have lower value-added learning gains…”

In fact, on page 24, the report clearly says that the relationship between test prep and value-added on standardized tests is weaker than other observed practices, but does not claim that the relationship is negative:

The five questions with the strongest pair-wise correlation with teacher value-added were: “Students in this class treat the teacher with respect.” (ρ=0.317), “My classmates behave the way my teacher wants them to.”(ρ=0.286), “Our class stays busy and doesn’t waste time.” (ρ=0.284), “In this class, we learn a lot almost every day.”(ρ=0.273), “In this class, we learn to correct our mistakes.” (ρ=0.264) These questions were part of the “control” and “challenge” indices. We also asked students about the amount of test preparation they did in the class. Ironically, reported test preparation was among the weakest predictors of gains on the state tests: “We spend a lot of time in this class practicing for the state test.” (ρ=0.195), “I have learned a lot this year about the state test.” (ρ=0.143), “Getting ready for the state test takes a lot of time in our class.” ( ρ=0.103)

I don’t know whether something got lost in the translation between the researchers and Gates education chief, Vicki Phillips, or between her and Sam Dillon at the New York Times, but the article contains a false claim that needs to be corrected before it is used to push changes in education policy and practice.

UPDATE —

The LA Times coverage of the report contains a similar misinterpretation: “But the study found that teachers whose students said they “taught to the test” were, on average, lower performers on value-added measures than their peers, not higher.”

Try this thought experiment with another observed practice to illustrate my point about how the results are being mis-reported…  The correlation between student observations that “My teacher seems to know if something is bothering me” and value added was .153, which was less than the .195 correlation for “We spend a lot of time in this class practicing for [the state test].”  According to the interpretation in the NYT and LA Times, it would be correct to say “teachers who care about student problems tend to have lower value-added learning gains than those who spend a lot of time on test prep.”

Of course, that’s not true.  Teachers caring about what is bothering students is positively associated with value added just as test prep is.  It is just that teachers caring is a little less strongly related than test prep.  Caring does not have a negative effect just because the correlation is lower than other observed behaviors.

(edited for typos)

3 Comments | instructional reform, journalism, school accountability, teacher quality | Tagged: , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Jay P. Greene

LA Times Piece Documents Harms of Seniority-Based Layoffs

December 6, 2010

The LA Times has another great article based on the analysis they have conducted with a RAND researcher on the value-added of LA public school teachers.  This one shows that seniority-based lay-offs, as required by many union contracts, are hurting kids:

The Times sought to measure the impact of about 2,700 seniority-based layoffs in the Los Angeles Unified School District in the last two years. It focused particularly on the performance of about 1,000 elementary and middle school teachers for whom math and English scores were available.

Among the findings:

Because seniority is largely unrelated to performance, the district has laid off hundreds of its most promising math and English teachers. About 190 ranked in the top fifth in raising scores and more than 400 ranked in the top 40%.

Schools in some of the city’s poorest areas were disproportionately hurt by the layoffs. Nearly one in 10 teachers in South Los Angeles schools was laid off, nearly twice the rate in other areas. Sixteen schools lost at least a fourth of their teachers, all but one of them in South or Central Los Angeles.

Far fewer teachers would be laid off if the district were to base the cuts on performance rather than seniority. The least experienced teachers also are the lowest-paid, so more must be laid off to meet budgetary targets. An estimated 25% more teachers would have kept their jobs if L.A. Unified had based its cuts on teachers’ records in improving test scores.

Leave a Comment » | teacher quality | Tagged: , | Permalink
Posted by Jay P. Greene

Is The Fox Guarding the Hen House?

November 15, 2010

Cheating in K-12 education appears to be a serious problem.  Addressing that problem may not be helped by the allegations in this Chronicle of Higher Education piece that education students are themselves frequent cheaters.

The piece is written by Ed Dante, which the editors note “is a pseudonym for a writer who lives on the East Coast. Through a literary agent, he approached The Chronicle wanting to tell the story of how he makes a living writing papers for a custom-essay company and to describe the extent of student cheating he has observed.”

Here’s the money quote:

it’s hard to determine which course of study is most infested with cheating. But I’d say education is the worst. I’ve written papers for students in elementary-education programs, special-education majors, and ESL-training courses. I’ve written lesson plans for aspiring high-school teachers, and I’ve synthesized reports from notes that customers have taken during classroom observations. I’ve written essays for those studying to become school administrators, and I’ve completed theses for those on course to become principals. In the enormous conspiracy that is student cheating, the frontline intelligence community is infiltrated by double agents. (Future educators of America, I know who you are.)

(HT to SB)

7 Comments | scandal, teacher quality | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by Jay P. Greene

UFT: If You Close Your Eyes, the Schools Look Fine!

October 22, 2010

HHGTTG on the many uses of towels: “wrap it round your head to … avoid the gaze of the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal (a mindboggingly stupid animal, it assumes that if you can’t see it, it can’t see you – daft as a bush, but very ravenous)”

(Guest post by Greg Forster)

The Journal reports that the New York City DOE, at the bidding of the UFT, is withholding teacher data that would allow the public to evaluate 12,000 teachers the same way the LA Times did in Los Angeles earlier this year. The data were to be released in response to public record requests by the Journal and other organizations, but the UFT sued. Now a court will have to pry the data loose.

Can you say “the new tobacco lobby,” boys and girls? Can you say “FINISH HIM?” I knew you could!

HT Whitney Tilson

Leave a Comment » | politics, school accountability, teacher quality, teacher union | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by Greg Forster

Sweet are the Uses of Adversity

September 23, 2010

(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)

Jay has lost that loving feeling after the failure of the merit pay plan in Nashville. Mike Antonucci quite rightly points out that “If we want to evaluate teachers on their performance, we should be prepared for performance pay programs to be evaluated on their performance.”

It was worth trying, but it merit pay didn’t work, so should move on to more promising reform strategies, right?

WRONG MOR-TONE!!!!!

What this study seems to show is that the Nashville program didn’t work. That’s valuable information, and we might want to figure out why a program in Little Rock found positive results, while the one in Nashville did not. Inch by inch, we just might figure something out.

Greg and I have each noted in different ways that getting this figured out is a very tricky business. We agree that maximizing competition within the system is key to sorting out the incentives properly. The Nashville study seems to reinforce the view that this about drawing the right people into the teaching profession rather than dangling a carrot out in front of your current teachers. This subject however deserves careful study across multiple programs over a long period of time.

When results by teacher vary so profoundly, it strikes me as inconceivable that we cannot develop a system to treat teachers like professionals. A profession that offers summers off and high job security but has a union negotiated pay scale that incrementally rewards you for getting old doesn’t seem likely to garner as many highly capable people as needed into the profession.

A Nashville pilot program dangling out a $15,000 carrot doesn’t seem likely to get the best and the brightest out of Vanderbilt to forego that MBA and go into teaching. It didn’t seem to motivate the teachers who were already there either.

I don’t know the answers. I do know that we need a lot of people trying a lot of different things and sharing their results and experiences-that’s the primordial soup of innovation. Schools run by the teachers like law firms, parent and student satisfaction measurement models, hybrid model schools with rolling thunder value added assessment systems, and whatever else we can come up with- bring it on.

How about a 33 year old hedge fund manager turning out killer content from a closet? Yes please!

The same logic applies for merit pay- we need experimentation and study. There were many failed attempts to build a plane before the Wright Brothers, and even the Wright Brother plane was more likely to get you killed than fly you to another city, state or country.

We all need to take a deep breath, keep our expectations reasonable, and learn from failures like the Nashville program.

11 Comments | research reports, teacher pay, teacher quality | Tagged: , | Permalink
Posted by matthewladner

Room for Debate on Teacher Assessment at the NYT

September 6, 2010

(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)

Lance and Marcus enter a bar brawl over at the NYT on value added assessment. Watch out for the guy holding the pool stick upside down!

Leave a Comment » | teacher quality | Tagged: , | Permalink
Posted by matthewladner

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »