Last week (April 27th) veteran journalist Jay Mathews of the Washington Post concluded — despite compelling counterfactuals from research studies — that our nation’s highest need public schools “need (youthful) energy more than experience” in their teaching ranks. In discounting a very thoughtful analysis of how untested teachers negatively impact low performing schools (also reported in the Post), Mr. Mathews’ online article ignores a host of research evidence and good old-fashioned logic.
I wonder now whether the editors of the Washington Post will replace Mr. Mathews — one of the nation’s most respected and seasoned education journalists — with a young whippersnapper right out of college. If the Post editors follow Mr. Mathews' thinking, we'll all have to say goodbye to "Jay's take" — and disagree though we may, I'd venture to say that Post readers would be worse for it.
But let’s get real: Contrary to what is portrayed in the popular media, preparation for teaching actually does matter for teacher retention and student achievement. While current teacher education and licensing standards leave a lot to be desired (and need a good overhaul), teachers with preparation and those who successfully complete an internship before they begin teaching are more effective and more likely to stay in teaching.
In fact, researchers have found a strong relationship between preparation and teacher retention. Richard Ingersoll and Tom Smith, for example, found that the more teachers learned about teaching in their pre-service training programs, the longer their student teaching lasted. And the more comprehensive their support was during the induction years, the longer these teachers stayed in teaching (Ingersoll & Kralik, 2004). Others have found that teachers’ academic ability and commitment to teaching in high needs schools are insufficient — confirming that knowing how to teach is also a critical predictor for effective teaching (Monk, 1994 & Wenglinsky, 2000 and 2002).
More recently, a New York City study found that first-year teachers who produced higher student achievement gains graduated from education programs with tightly supervised student teaching experiences aligned with their initial teaching assignment (Boyd, et. al., 2008). In reality there is a plethora of research proving that short-cut training programs “add to the revolving door of ill-prepared individuals who cycle through the classrooms of disadvantaged schools, wasting district resources and valuable learning time for their students” (Darling-Hammond & Sykes, 2003).
Effective veteran teachers, like my special education teaching wife, could tell Mr. Mathews that experience (coupled with smarts and training) counts when it comes to managing classrooms, as well as working with parents and families and the many social service agencies and community organizations needed to serve students well. As her work with the Project on the Next Generation of Teachers, Harvard University professor Susan Moore Johnson has noted that "teachers with no training had a 335 percent higher hazard [attrition] rate than those with preparation." Johnson and her colleagues have “document[ed] the stress that teachers experience when they are unprepared for the subjects they are assigned to teach” and their “struggles” to prepare lessons that can inform, engage, and empower their own students (Johnson, et. al., 2005).
Teaching experience also counts when it comes to helping all the novice teachers who desperately need help to survive teaching in high needs schools. Contrary to Mr. Mathews’ claims, what high needs schools require is a thoughtful calculation of well-trained experienced teachers with the energy and zeal of more youthful ones. Hopefully, before the Post replaces him with an energetic 23-year-old, Mr. Mathews will take a harder look at the facts.
References
Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Lankford, H., Loeb, S. and Wyckoff, J. (2008). Teacher preparation and student achievement. Albany: Teacher Policy Research, SUNY-Albany.
Darling-Hammond, L.. and Sykes, G.. (2003, September 17). Wanted: A national teacher supply policy for education: The right way to meet the "Highly Qualified Teacher" challenge?. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11(33). Retrieved [Date] from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n33/.
Ingersoll, R, M. & Kralik, J.M. (2004). The impact of mentoring on teacher retention: What the research says. Denver: Education Commission of the States, pp. 1–23; Ingersoll, R. M. & Smith, T.M. (2004). Do teacher induction and mentoring matter? NASSP Bulletin, 88, (638), pp. 28–40.
Johnson, S.M., Berg, J.H., Donaldson, M.L. (2005) Who stays in teaching and why: A review of the literature on teacher retention. Boston: Harvard Graduate School of Education: The Project on the Next Generation of Teachers. Retrieved April 1, 2009 from http://assets.aarp.org/www.aarp.org_/articles/NRTA/Harvard_report.pdf
Monk, D. (1994). Subject area preparation of secondary mathematics and science teachers and student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 12(2), 125-142; Wenglinsky, H. (2000). How teaching matters: Bringing the classroom back into discussions of teacher quality. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service; Wenglinsky, H. (2002). How schools matter: The link between teacher classroom practices and student academic performance. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(12); retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n12/.