Advancing the Teaching Profession

Economists: Return Your Salaries for Producing Flawed Studies

Would it be outrageous for economists to have to pay back part of their salaries if their theories don’t improve the economy? What if education economists had to return consulting fees to the think tanks that paid them if their methods were flawed? Or if their conclusions ignored other research findings and the realities of teaching?

If you think this would be a good idea, then Harvard professor and MacArthur Genius Grant winner Roland Fryer and Freakonomics co-author and University of Chicago professor Steven Levitt (and colleagues John List and Sally Sadoff) might just have to cancel their vacations this fall. They would have to return the pay they received for their recent paper and recommendation that teachers must return salary bonuses (paid up front) when their students’ test scores do not improve sufficiently from one year to the next.

The Study: What It Said

Funded by the Broad Foundation—and drawing on a study about how Chinese factory workers are paid (see page 2)—the report concludes that teacher-incentive programs should be framed in terms of losses rather than gains.

Frustrated by study after study showing that single-minded merit-pay plans don’t improve student achievement (e.g., see the RAND report on New York City’s program, and the exhaustive longitudinal Nashville experiment), these highly touted scholars are on a mission to prove, as one journalist suggested, that “the promise of a larger paycheck will motivate (teachers) to work harder when they're up in front of the chalkboard.”

Fryer and colleagues analyzed the student test results (from the ThinkLink Assessment System) of 150 K-8 teachers from Chicago Heights, Illinois. The teachers were divvied into one control group and four treatment groups, with opportunities to be rewarded or punished for individual and team gains or losses. The “gain” treatment group worked under a traditional year-end bonus structure, similar to merit pay proposals of past and present. This group could earn up to $8,000 extra based on their students' standardized test scores.

Another treatment group—the “loss” treatment group—was given $4,000 at the beginning of the year and knew up front that if their students scored below expectations on the end-of-year test, they'd have to return part of this payment, proportionate to their students’ results.  The researchers found that the gain group showed no significant differences in student achievement, while the loss-treatment group’s individual and team results were comparable to increasing teacher quality by one standard deviation.

What It Missed

I am certain that this study was conducted by very smart people, but people who know too little about teaching and learning, schooling and community, teachers and students.

Consider these issues:

1.     The methodology is built on the assumption that money makes teachers more effective, but there is a wealth of evidence, including a recent Gates-funded study, to the contrary.

2.     The researchers used a low-stakes standardized diagnostic test that is supposed to be aligned with state standards, but there is no evidence that is the case. Did the researchers read this recent report on how off the mark many standardized tests are?

3.     While the teachers were assigned randomly to the control and treatment groups to control for working conditions, the researchers do not own up to the fact they are making a summative judgment about teacher effectiveness on the basis of a 25-50-question multiple-choice test that may not be aligned with the standards that teachers had been using all year.  

More Considerations

The researchers did show some concern for how other factors might affect the achievement of these students.  They looked at student mobility. Check. They look at cheating. Check. They look at liquidity constraints. (What?)  Fryer and company considered how teachers who received upfront payments might have competitive advantage if they “purchase certain materials that facilitate instruction.” My first reaction was to offer kudos to Professor Fryer. Not so fast.

Fryer was concerned that teachers who had additional dollars up front might go out and buy “new workbooks or dry-erase markers” that would allow them to teach more effectively than those in the control and gain groups. Really? These concerns tell us so much about how little these researchers know about teaching and learning.

Other studies have shown that teachers are more effective when they loop with their students for more than one year, when they teach the same course (in secondary school) for more than one year, when they have high-quality curriculum materials, and when they work with a team to plan curricula and evaluate student work. All these factors contribute far more to effective teaching than the loss-aversion merit pay schemes posed by this study.

More questions arise about how Fryer’s scheme would work in reality: Would districts have to hire more bureaucrats to collect the dollars awarded to teachers when test scores did not increase? How would such a pay scheme affect teacher morale? What about the impact on collaboration, given that the authors’ statistical model promotes competition among teachers?

Economists like Fryer and company—and their funders—are desperate to find some kind of empirical link between short-term test score gains and teacher pay (or firings). The researchers found a model—based on a Chinese factory where “loss” workers saw only a 1 percent increase in productivity—and decided to use it in such a complex enterprise as teaching.

If they were truly interested in improving schools, they might want to take a look at teachers’ own bold ideas about pay. If they were truly interested in improving schools, they might want to take a look at a larger body of research on teacher incentives and student achievement. Perhaps in the future, economists like Fryer and company will have to return their consulting fees if they don’t.

There’s Room for Teacher Leaders in a Sci-Fi Future

Pete Wailes’ short story on the future of education (“The Life and Times of James Roebuck, Part 1”) raises some provocative issues about the teaching profession. 

It’s a worthwhile read, but make sure you read all 1,286 words. At first blush, it might seem like Wailes is another school reformer who thinks technology will replace 55 million teachers who currently teach in classrooms worldwide. In future-speak, Wailes writes:

Shortly after the invention of the quantum computer chip, and the laying of fibre optic broadband to almost every house in the UK, it had been clear that the days of teaching as a profession were numbered. Teaching had been relegated to a minority profession in a matter of years.

But then it gets a bit more interesting. Just as he was convincing readers that the teaching profession “couldn’t withstand the onslaught of technology”—to the delight of many self-proclaimed school reformers—Wailes pivots.

He raises questions about who would curate resources, moderate virtual learning, and oversee the interaction of children and adolescents. He raises questions about who would make sure that children have safe places to learn, and that all children have access to the knowledge and resources needed to be successful.

Wailes’ essay promises a “Part 2.” I’m hopeful that the sequel will suggest that though technology can democratize knowledge, without teachers—especially expert ones—there will be no opportunity for students to use that knowledge to promote and sustain democracy. 

Renee Moore, NBCT, Milken winner, and erudite teacher-author, pictured with one her students from her years teaching in Shelby, Mississippi. Knowledge of children, culture, and community, along with deep subject matter expertise make for excellent teachers. And Renee is one of the best.

Regardless of what the profession looks like in the future, we will undoubtedly need more teacher leaders—teacher leaders like Renee Moore, a longstanding member of our Teacher Leaders Network and profiled in our forthcoming Jossey-Bass book, Teacherpreneurs. Below, Renee reflects on her teaching practice:

When I sit down next to each of my students or with a small group of them (physically or virtually) to share their most recent work; to reflect on how they have grown as writers since their last piece or since the start of the course; to give sincere, critical feedback on what would help make it better—I am doing what no technology or software program can provide. It is through these very human interactions that I also show them that they have worth far beyond a number on a scale.  This is at the core of teaching.

I’m eager to read more of what Wailes has to say about technology and the teaching profession. Teacher leaders like Renee—and the millions like her around the world—will be the ones leading the technology revolution by implementing the technology and balancing it with real-life, personalized interaction.

Wailes’ story shows us that there’s more to look forward to in the coming years than just robot-powered cars. A future with a true teacher-led education system—now that’s something to get excited about.

More Time for Teachers Means Better Time for Students

As students across the country are enjoying summer breaks, many educators and education reformers are using their time to, well, think about time. Some schools are transitioning to year-round schooling. Others are extending the school day into the late afternoon.

While most of the recent focus has been on student time, a critical piece of the discussion should be teacher time. “Time can and must allow for us to engage with other professionals in order to hone our craft and, ultimately, to serve our students better,” writes Dedy Fauntleroy on this month’s Teaching Ahead: A Roundtable.

For most teachers in the Unites States, collaboration time isn’t built into the school day—it’s stolen in tiny intervals: in the hallways, after school, in the copy room. Teachers spend most of their days in front of students, leaving their lesson planning and professional development to before and after school.

Current school schedules are keeping teachers away from our nation’s best educational resource—their fellow teachers.

“I never thought I’d say it, but less time teaching might make me a better teacher,” wrote CTQ blogger Kate Mulcahy in a recent post.

An International Perspective

Earlier this month, I had the opportunity to moderate a panel of extremely accomplished teachers at the International Symposium on Educational Reform (ISER) in Lexington, Kentucky. The group got to talking about how much time they have each week to collaborate with their colleagues and watch them teach.

The American teachers estimated their collaboration time to be, on average, about five hours a week, and their observation time at an average of about two hours a week. And these numbers are likely higher than the national average, since several teachers on the panel are involved in mentoring and other leadership positions that require them to observe and meet with peers.

Kimberly Shearer shared her schedule—one that’s fairly representative of other teachers in the U.S. She spends 30 to 35 hours a week in front of students, and though she gets planning periods and lunch each day, she often uses that time to meet with students.

In contrast, in Finland, a typical teacher might spend 15 hours a week—or a maximum of 24 hours—in front of students, said Mika Risku, a teacher-education researcher on the panel from Finland. The other part of the day is spent in professional development, planning lessons, and engaging with colleagues and parents. “If you want teacher leaders,” Mika asked the group, “when do you analyze the data and processes?”

Lauren Hill, an English teacher from Kentucky, shared that in her ten years of teaching in the same school as Stephanie Wooldridge—her colleague who was also at the conference—the closest she’d ever been to actually observing Stephanie teach was when she had to deliver a piece of tech equipment to her classroom. “And it was like being in a different country,” Lauren said. Both Lauren and Stephanie are members of Teacher Leaders Network and are actively engaged in our Implementing Common Core Standards initiative—which requires a great more time to build interdisciplinary lessons with colleagues, capitalize on new tools and resources, and unpack the data from new forms of student assessment.

We need to give teachers the opportunity to “travel” to their colleagues’ classrooms during the school day so they can infuse their own teaching with new ideas and strategies. These observations, which can be conducted live or through digital recordings, can propel productive and practical conversations, collaboration, and the much-needed scrutiny of one another’s classroom practice.

It's Time to Start

“What would be the value of five extra minutes in an educator's schedule?” Jessica Keigan asks on Teaching Ahead. “These five minutes might be spent learning about a new professional strategy, catching up on local and national policy or interacting with peers in virtual or real time venues.”

Five minutes is a good place to start—but we must do better. We must build dedicated collaboration time into every teacher’s schedule. Giving teachers time to work together and learn from one another will allow them to reflect on and improve their professional practice.

And it isn’t just Finland, either. Other top-performing nations, like Singapore, build in collaboration time willingly and without question. Mike Thiruman, president of the Singapore Teachers’ Union and former deputy in his nation’s education ministry, told me recently, “We would not think of having our teachers teach more than nineteen to twenty-one hours a week.”  Teachers also receive 100 hours of professional development per year, at government expense.  Is it not time for U.S. policymakers to follow suit and invest in more time for teachers so students learn more?