Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I had a field placement in Hasbrouck Heights and then substitute taught in Piscataway. Out of the two, Piscataway had better teachers who really cared about the students and better quality education overall. Piscataway also paid its subs at a higher rate than HH or Manalapan as well. And generally, from what I have heard, the best paying districts in the state are the Abbotts for the sole reason that the teachers have to put up with more rowdy kids. The Abbotts have more money since they receive special state funding.
While kids in low income areas may be rowdy and disorderly, dealing with students in ultra-rich areas, especially new money areas, won't be any easier, especially if those rich kids are spoiled brats who, along with their parents, will tell you their parents have better degrees than you do and generally act condescending toward the teacher and do all they could to get their little angels out of trouble each time.
Someone here once mentioned about interviewing for a job in Marlboro's district. They told him/her that the students will tell teachers their parents have better degrees and that when there is an issue between a parent and a teacher, administration will side with the parents. I'd rather be in a district where administration supports and sticks up for its teachers.
What surprises me even more is how districts still manage to rank good even after teachers get bogged down by spoiled brats and their arrogant parents with the whole "my son, my daughter, my way" attitude. I abandoned this profession for other reasons.
Even if Abbott districts pay well they have huge turn over rates. If it is about just money and not atmosphere than that would not be the case.
The single most important factor correlating with student success is teacher quality (generally speaking having a degree or advanced degree in ones field) even taking into account socioeconomic effects.
It almost seems as though you're suggesting that if the Millburn and Irvington HS students were to trade places, the school performances would be largely reversed (or at least, that Irvington would do better, as teachers are a more important factor)
Not only is that nonsense, it is not really supported by the lit reviews you posted. In particular, these studies do not show that teacher quality is "more important" or "less important" than the background of the students themselves in determining the outcomes.
The "even taking into account socioeconomic effects" doesn't mean that you show that teachers have more impact than SES. It shows that if you were to control for socioeconomic effects, teacher quality comes out on top (either by doing a sequential regression, or breaking into categorical indicators of SES like parents occuption and looking at within-category variability). This is intended to provide some assurance that your measure of teaching quality isn't mistakenly measuring the effects of correlated SES variables. But again, it does not tell you that teaching quality is more important than SES (or other characteristics of the parents)
The only way one could reliably determine effects of different inputs is via randomized assignment. Otherwise, you are stuck with the fact that your inputs are very correlated (e.g. not only do better school districts select high SES families, they also tend to attract families who place more value on education).
Even if Abbott districts pay well they have huge turn over rates. If it is about just money and not atmosphere than that would not be the case.
As I said in my previous post, a prospective teacher would probably choose a lesser-paying job at a top school over a better paying inner-city school. But if an above-average school paid better than the top school, I'd be willing to bet that many people would choose the above-average school.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elflord1973
It almost seems as though you're suggesting that if the Millburn and Irvington HS students were to trade places, the school performances would be largely reversed (or at least, that Irvington would do better, as teachers are a more important factor)
Not only is that nonsense, it is not really supported by the lit reviews you posted. In particular, these studies do not show that teacher quality is "more important" or "less important" than the background of the students themselves in determining the outcomes.
Do you mean it's nonsense that if the teachers were to trade places the performances would be reversed? If so, then I agree. But if the students were in fact reversed, the performances probably would be reversed.
As I said in my previous post, a prospective teacher would probably choose a lesser-paying job at a top school over a better paying inner-city school. But if an above-average school paid better than the top school, I'd be willing to bet that many people would choose the above-average school.
Do you mean it's nonsense that if the teachers were to trade places the performances would be reversed? If so, then I agree. But if the students were in fact reversed, the performances probably would be reversed.
I mean that if you bussed the Millburn students to Irvington and vice-versa, I believe that the students who were originally at Millburn would still do better -- but if you believe that the teachers are the key factor, you'd have to conclude that the kids from Irvington would suddenly start getting admitted to Harvard when you put the Millburn teachers in front of them. I'm questioning the notion that teachers are really a "more important" factor than SES of the parents.
I mean that if you bussed the Millburn students to Irvington and vice-versa, I believe that the students who were originally at Millburn would still do better -- but if you believe that the teachers are the key factor, you'd have to conclude that the kids from Irvington would suddenly start getting admitted to Harvard when you put the Millburn teachers in front of them. I'm questioning the notion that teachers are really a "more important" factor than SES of the parents.
You are 100% correct. Studies have shown the SES is the #1 indicator of student achievement. Irvington kids swap with Millburn kids = Irvington becomes "Millburn" quality and Millburn becomes an Abbott district or whatever is left of them. Simple as that.
I mean that if you bussed the Millburn students to Irvington and vice-versa, I believe that the students who were originally at Millburn would still do better -- but if you believe that the teachers are the key factor, you'd have to conclude that the kids from Irvington would suddenly start getting admitted to Harvard when you put the Millburn teachers in front of them. I'm questioning the notion that teachers are really a "more important" factor than SES of the parents.
OK, then I agree with you. I think you meant to say "teachers" instead of "students" in your response to lkb0714
It almost seems as though you're suggesting that if the Millburn and Irvington HS students were to trade places, the school performances would be largely reversed (or at least, that Irvington would do better, as teachers are a more important factor)
Not only is that nonsense, it is not really supported by the lit reviews you posted. In particular, these studies do not show that teacher quality is "more important" or "less important" than the background of the students themselves in determining the outcomes.
The "even taking into account socioeconomic effects" doesn't mean that you show that teachers have more impact than SES. It shows that if you were to control for socioeconomic effects, teacher quality comes out on top (either by doing a sequential regression, or breaking into categorical indicators of SES like parents occuption and looking at within-category variability). This is intended to provide some assurance that your measure of teaching quality isn't mistakenly measuring the effects of correlated SES variables. But again, it does not tell you that teaching quality is more important than SES (or other characteristics of the parents)
The only way one could reliably determine effects of different inputs is via randomized assignment. Otherwise, you are stuck with the fact that your inputs are very correlated (e.g. not only do better school districts select high SES families, they also tend to attract families who place more value on education).
I know it was a long read (especially the Rowe paper) so here are some points you may have missed.
" Ronald Ferguson (1991) found that combined measures of teachers’ expertise—scores on a licensing examination, master’s degrees, and experience—accounted for more of theinter-district variation in students’ reading and mathematics achievement (and achievement gains) in grades 1 through 11 than student socioeconomic status."
"Partial correlations confirm a strong, significant relationship of teacher quality variables to student achievement, even after controlling for student poverty and for student language background (see Table 2 and Figure 4)."
This next one most supports my idea that the best teachers are in the best districts.
"Student characteristics such as poverty, non-English language status, and minority status are negatively correlated with student outcomes, and usually significantly so. These student characteristics are also significantly and negatively correlated with the qualifications of teachers; that is, the less socially advantaged the students, the less likely teachers are to hold full certification and a degree in their field and the more likely they are to have entered teaching without certification.
Maybe your misconception comes from your misunderstanding of "controlling for". When you have multiple variables that correlate with a measure (in this case student achievement on a national standardized test) you can differentiate between them by using two specific statistical tests. First, an ANOVA to determine quanititatively which correlates the strongest with the variable. That is what Darling did to separate out out which is the strongest correlate including SES and teacher quality among others. Second, you use linear regression (or least squares) to find out the mathematical equation that best predicts your data. It is usually a combination of all the variables but each is multiplied by a number that gives it a weight. The number that has the largest number it is multiplied by and predicts most of the data points is the most significant. For both of these statistical tests teacher quality (as defined by Darling) was the strongest predictor of student achievement INCLUDING SES.
Maybe we need to make some common definitions. By student achievement I (and Darling) mean that children are making gains over previous years. You seem to be defining it as college admissions. I am completely willing to concede that college admissions will correlate most strongly with SES over teacher quality but I suspect even you will admit that is due to a huge variety of factors many of which have nothing to do with student achievement at all.
But if we are going to talk about factors that can improve schools, regardless of SES, improving teacher quality is the most important factor. Because what Darling, Ferguson, and most of the other researchers found was that regardless of SES students with teachers of quality did significantly better on achievement tests than those without.
This next one most supports my idea that the best teachers are in the best districts.
"Student characteristics such as poverty, non-English language status, and minority status are negatively correlated with student outcomes, and usually significantly so. These student characteristics are also significantly and negatively correlated with the qualifications of teachers; that is, the less socially advantaged the students, the less likely teachers are to hold full certification and a degree in their field and the more likely they are to have entered teaching without certification.
To me, this sounds more like pointing out that yes, the best teachers are usually in the best districts. But that doesn't necessarily mean that the teachers are the reason those districts are the best.
I mean that if you bussed the Millburn students to Irvington and vice-versa, I believe that the students who were originally at Millburn would still do better -- but if you believe that the teachers are the key factor, you'd have to conclude that the kids from Irvington would suddenly start getting admitted to Harvard when you put the Millburn teachers in front of them. I'm questioning the notion that teachers are really a "more important" factor than SES of the parents.
I would love if it were possible to do such a study. I would bet that the gains that year would be exactly as I stated before. The "new" Irvington students would have significantly less gains than they had ever had before and the "new" Millburn students would have significantly higher gains.
Lets make the thought experiment slightly better. Split the kids at each school into two groups randomly. Send one half of the original Millburn kids to Irvington, and one half of the Irvington kids to Millburn.
Now do you really think the half of the Millburn kids at Irvington will still post the same gains as the ones who stayed at Millburn? Do you conversely then think the Irvington kids who are at Millburn will not show significant gains over their counterparts still at Irvington?
Now granted other factors are going to be at play besides just teacher quality such as school factors but at least you will completely control for SES.
I know it was a long read (especially the Rowe paper) so here are some points you may have missed.
No, I didn't miss these points. It's not really possible to comment on them without reading the original work, but it doesn't address what I posted.
Quote:
This next one most supports my idea that the best teachers are in the best districts.
But my claim is not that the best students aren't in the best districts.
Quote:
Maybe your misconception comes from your misunderstanding of "controlling for". When you have multiple variables that correlate with a measure (in this case student achievement on a national standardized test) you can differentiate between them by using two specific statistical tests. First, an ANOVA to determine quanititatively which correlates the strongest with the variable. That is what Darling did to separate out out which is the strongest correlate including SES and teacher quality among others.
Second, you use linear regression (or least squares) to find out the mathematical equation that best predicts your data. It is usually a combination of all the variables but each is multiplied by a number that gives it a weight. The number that has the largest number it is multiplied by and predicts most of the data points is the most significant. For both of these statistical tests teacher quality (as defined by Darling) was the strongest predictor of student achievement INCLUDING SES.
Both of these are actually equivalent (that is, you can formulate an ANOVA in terms of a multi linear regression).
But it doesn't really say what you want it to say or think that it says. For example, if you chose a "better" measure than SES (for example, maybe it turns out that parental education is a better measure), you will get different results, because your model for the "parent" factor is better. It might turn out to be the case that something less tangible, such as parental interest in their childs education is a major factor, and teaching ability might be a more reliable proxy for that than parent SES (remember, according to you, teaching ability is correlated with school district, and the better school districts tend to select parents who are interested in quality education for their child).
The problem I was getting at is related but slightly different. Suppose you have two variables that each by themselves explain 90% of the variance (which implies they will be heavily correlated). Throw them into an ANOVA and one will come out on top, but that doesn't really tell you which one
is the "more important" factor, it will basically tell you that one of them had a slightly better correlation. If you were to for example replace one of the variables with its square or logarithm, you would find that the correlation went down but the transformation didn't make that variable any less predictive, it only made the linear model less effective because the true relationship is no longer linear.
Basically, there are two factors: "parents" and "teachers". The problem is that they are sufficiently correlated that it's hard to reliably determine that your "teachers" factors aren't partially proxies for "parents" factors (because more responsible parents will tend to insist on good schools with good teachers)
Random assignment would largely get you out of this mess because you can be sure that you were holding all other variables constant when you manipulated one of them. You can't re-assign parents, but it's possible to assign teachers. For example, you get to change the teacher without moving any of the correlated variables. It would be possible to do something like this, but it would probably be difficult to do so in a way that allowed a sufficiently variable sample of teachers.
Quote:
Maybe we need to make some common definitions. By student achievement I (and Darling) mean that children are making gains over previous years.
That's fine, I think it's the measure they should use for the purpose of an academic study. However, the general public tend to judge schools by the SAT scores of the outgoing class. By this measure, you could put the worlds best teachers in front of Irvington high students, and it would still have a reputation as a "bad" school.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
