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.
Not for nothing but quality teachers are the single most important factor for student achievement including ALL socioeconmic factors.
Got any data to support that? What I've read indicates that SES and maternal education at birth are the biggest factors. What proof do you have that it's the teachers?
Parents, gravitate to the best district they can but they do so in like SES groups. What data do you have to support that better teachers are the reason for better results over things like SES and parental education?
Teacher quality, by a dearth of research, has shown to be the single most important factor. But SES is the next most important, especially at the lower SESs. You have to remember this is for very large sample sizes, obviously there will be variation across any sample (meaning sometimes the best teachers cannot over come the socioeconomic issues) but generally, yes, teachers can make the difference especially for kids who might go either way.
Its a bell curve, the majority of the kids will make it out ok but not with a great experience. For those kids a great teacher can make the experience better but to be honest they would have made it out anyway. For the top level kids, their inner motivation far surpasses anything a teacher can do, and at best we act as gateways not the source of learning for those children (btw that is what I do at my school).
For the kids who lack a good support system at the lower end of the curve a great teacher can save many of them, even if its just to keep them in for one more year. But because it is a bell curve, for those 2 standard deviation away kids, even the best teachers may not be able to save all of them.
Are teachers accountable for achievement? Sure but it is achievement that has to be controlled for (and this is where the scientist in me comes into play) other factors that can be hard to measure. All of this is even more exacerbated by the lack of a working definition for student achievement.
I would absolutely support a merit pay program that took into account those other factors and controlled for the portion that teachers can influence. The problem is I have never even seen one that admitted that other factors are at play.
For example, there will be years where there maybe no measurable success for large portions of students, but every plan I have seen does not allow for that. For all the talk of data driven decision making, all the people I have seen in charge of it seem to have an exceptionally poor understanding of statistics.
Thanks for the clarification and detailed statement.
Got any data to support that? What I've read indicates that SES and maternal education at birth are the biggest factors. What proof do you have that it's the teachers?
Parents, gravitate to the best district they can but they do so in like SES groups. What data do you have to support that better teachers are the reason for better results over things like SES and parental education?
Nationwide, huge sample set, excellent review of the lit.
Another one based on a review of the lit. Most of the newer articles show how SES and other socio factors are actually statistical artifacts and when you control for them teacher quality and class room effects are stronger correlates albeit at higher r-value for lower SESs.
Another one based on a review of the lit. Most of the newer articles show how SES and other socio factors are actually statistical artifacts and when you control for them teacher quality and class room effects are stronger correlates albeit at higher r-value for lower SESs.
The most concise and newest ones are not free. Do you have journal access?
Problem is they can't really measure teacher quality. They can only measure certification requirements. Certificates don't make you a good teacher. They just mean you are educated.
No, I don't have journal access except for what is in ERIC and that seems to be older articles.
Thanks for the links. I'll add them to my reading list. I'm curious as to how they measured teacher quality. IMO, that's a hard one to pin down. It's not something you can measure on a test and I'm not sure how you separate out SES. SES and teacher qualifications tend to track together because higher SES areas pay teachers more so more highly qualified teachers apply to those districts. I'm thinking chicken or egg.
Problem is they can't really measure teacher quality. They can only measure certification requirements. Certificates don't make you a good teacher. They just mean you are educated.
No, I don't have journal access except for what is in ERIC and that seems to be older articles.
Thanks for the links. I'll add them to my reading list. I'm curious as to how they measured teacher quality. IMO, that's a hard one to pin down. It's not something you can measure on a test and I'm not sure how you separate out SES. SES and teacher qualifications tend to track together because higher SES areas pay teachers more so more highly qualified teachers apply to those districts. I'm thinking chicken or egg.
Do you know how to control for a specific variable when developing a mathematical relationship? They ran an ANOVA based on multiple lines, including SES and ALL the variables for which teacher quality can be quanitifed (which they explain in the paper).
"Variables were selected according to three criteria: to examine relationships often tested in other studies, to maximize explanatory power,
and to avoid problems of multicollinearity. Teacher quality variables included the percentage of all teachers with full certification and a major in the field and the percentage of uncertified newly hired teachers, because these exhibit large influences on achievement, and the percentage of teachers with master’s degrees, because this is a frequently examined teacher quality variable."
It is probably one of the most apt statistical analyses to use but it was by no means their only one.
"Partial correlations confirm a strong, significant relationship of teacher qualityvariables to student achievement, even after controlling for student poverty and for student language background (see Table 2 and Figure 4)."
Odd that you would immediately shoot down their findings without reading far enough past the abstract to get to method.
Do you know how to control for a specific variable when developing a mathematical relationship? They ran an ANOVA based on multiple lines, including SES and ALL the variables for which teacher quality can be quanitifed (which they explain in the paper).
"Variables were selected according to three criteria: to examine relationships often tested in other studies, to maximize explanatory power,
and to avoid problems of multicollinearity. Teacher quality variables included the percentage of all teachers with full certification and a major in the field and the percentage of uncertified newly hired teachers, because these exhibit large influences on achievement, and the percentage of teachers with master’s degrees, because this is a frequently examined teacher quality variable."
It is probably one of the most apt statistical analyses to use but it was by no means their only one.
"Partial correlations confirm a strong, significant relationship of teacher qualityvariables to student achievement, even after controlling for student poverty and for student language background (see Table 2 and Figure 4)."
Odd that you would immediately shoot down their findings without reading far enough past the abstract to get to method.
I didn't shoot them down. I gave you my initial reaction. I think it will be difficult to separate out things like SES because they track with things like higher teacher qualifications. There are many variables here. Maternal education is a pretty strong predictor of student success. That also increases in higher SES districts.
I just don't think it's simple to pull one piece out, but I will read the reports when I have time ot analyze the data. I'd like to see how they separated out SES. How they compared. Also there are strong peer influences. There is a HUGE difference between going to a school where most students go to college and one where most don't that has nothing to do with teacher qualifications but, again, I'd expect higher teacher qualifications in the school that has more students going to college becuase they are coming from homes where education is valued.
Don't get me wrong. I like that these conclude that teacher qualifications are a determining factor because I meet them. I have majors in my subject matter and full certification. That doesn't impress most districts. They're more interested in my prior experience as a teacher than that I have majors/minors in my subject areas. The districts I've interviewed with value flexibility in credentials over subject matter expertise any day of the week. Schools don't act like it's teacher qualifications that matter, but, then again, all of our teachers are certified and sit for exams in their subject area. Perhaps that is enough. Here, you can't teach without a certificate. If this study is comparing teachers with educations and training to those without, then I'd agree. I'm not so sure in comparing one certified teacher to antoher.
And yes, it can be a chicken and egg situation with SES for many, many reasons and teacher qualifications are only one. There is an incredible difference in the student body at my neices school, where 100% of the students go to college and mine where the majority don't go to college but all of the teachers involved went through the same certification process. We have the same degrees and certifications. There is a huge difference in SES and a huge difference in average number of years of experience of a teacher but not our qualifications. Some of our teachers are very highly qualified. The chemistry/physics teacher is a former engineer, the law and forensics teacher is an ex lawyer, the computer teacher is a former IT specialist...on paper, we look darned good but we are not able to even come close to the job the schools in the better districts can.
I would believe that within a district, SES plays a smaller role because I believe that peer to peer expectations play a bigger role than SES but that has nothing to do with teacher quality. That has to do with demographics.
I can't "shoot this down" before reading it. I can simply say, I'm skeptical and I am. I will read it when I have time to disect it. I'd like to see how they controlled for the other variables. IMO they're difficult to tease out.
I didn't shoot them down. I gave you my initial reaction. I think it will be difficult to separate out things like SES because they track with things like higher teacher qualifications. There are many variables here. Maternal education is a pretty strong predictor of student success. That also increases in higher SES districts.
I just don't think it's simple to pull one piece out, but I will read the reports when I have time ot analyze the data. I'd like to see how they separated out SES. How they compared. Also there are strong peer influences. There is a HUGE difference between going to a school where most students go to college and one where most don't that has nothing to do with teacher qualifications but, again, I'd expect higher teacher qualifications in the school that has more students going to college becuase they are coming from homes where education is valued.
Don't get me wrong. I like that these conclude that teacher qualifications are a determining factor because I meet them. I have majors in my subject matter and full certification. That doesn't impress most districts. They're more interested in my prior experience as a teacher than that I have majors/minors in my subject areas. The districts I've interviewed with value flexibility in credentials over subject matter expertise any day of the week. Schools don't act like it's teacher qualifications that matter, but, then again, all of our teachers are certified and sit for exams in their subject area. Perhaps that is enough. Here, you can't teach without a certificate. If this study is comparing teachers with educations and training to those without, then I'd agree. I'm not so sure in comparing one certified teacher to antoher.
And yes, it can be a chicken and egg situation with SES for many, many reasons and teacher qualifications are only one. There is an incredible difference in the student body at my neices school, where 100% of the students go to college and mine where the majority don't go to college but all of the teachers involved went through the same certification process. We have the same degrees and certifications. There is a huge difference in SES and a huge difference in average number of years of experience of a teacher but not our qualifications. Some of our teachers are very highly qualified. The chemistry/physics teacher is a former engineer, the law and forensics teacher is an ex lawyer, the computer teacher is a former IT specialist...on paper, we look darned good but we are not able to even come close to the job the schools in the better districts can.
I would believe that within a district, SES plays a smaller role because I believe that peer to peer expectations play a bigger role than SES but that has nothing to do with teacher quality. That has to do with demographics.
I can't "shoot this down" before reading it. I can simply say, I'm skeptical and I am. I will read it when I have time to disect it. I'd like to see how they controlled for the other variables. IMO they're difficult to tease out.
I seriously suspect your ability when it comes to science. For someone who claims to have a science/technical background you give equal weight to personal experience and anecdotal evidence as you do to scientific. The above response is a clear example. As is the idea that an ANOVA cannot "tease out" co-correlates, you claim that you are going to "dissect" this study despite the fact that it has been peer-reviewed. Sure, flaws happen but let's be honest, your opinion over peer-review? I think not.
You also seem unable to separate your own personal views from anything that conflicts with them. For example, the complaint about certification and inability to get a job. That is the most important thing in many districts, far more important than experience in this political climate. Yet, you hang your inability to secure a job or interview on a larger picture that just is not real. There are much stronger correlation variables for your inability to get an interview or a job than your issue about certs vs. experience. One of them can be seen in nearly every thread on this forum.
Skeptical is always good, skeptical based on a story about your personal experience, not. A scientist or even someoone trying to teacher is supposed to be open minded. You are not. On top of that you seem unaware of the tools used in modern science especially statistical analysis.
The news is full of stories recently about how terrible the schools are in America and how we are slipping behind the rest of the world. Of course the group that gets the most blame is the teachers. The second amount of blame goes to the Principal and the rest of the blame goes towards the school administrators and bureaucrats.
If a failing school in the worst neighborhood in the City does not do as well as the school in a rich suburb with parents who are doctors, lawyers, and scientists with high IQ's and PHD's, then the failing school's Teachers and Principal are fired.
Why won't the media admit the problem with American schools are: uninterested parents, a messed up popular culture and students who are more interested in acting out than learning?
Do you think the Teachers and Principals should get most of the blame for the problems in American Schools?
The OP ^ Let's not make this a personal debate between just a couple of posters please.
I seriously suspect your ability when it comes to science. For someone who claims to have a science/technical background you give equal weight to personal experience and anecdotal evidence as you do to scientific. The above response is a clear example. As is the idea that an ANOVA cannot "tease out" co-correlates, you claim that you are going to "dissect" this study despite the fact that it has been peer-reviewed. Sure, flaws happen but let's be honest, your opinion over peer-review? I think not.
You also seem unable to separate your own personal views from anything that conflicts with them. For example, the complaint about certification and inability to get a job. That is the most important thing in many districts, far more important than experience in this political climate. Yet, you hang your inability to secure a job or interview on a larger picture that just is not real. There are much stronger correlation variables for your inability to get an interview or a job than your issue about certs vs. experience. One of them can be seen in nearly every thread on this forum.
Skeptical is always good, skeptical based on a story about your personal experience, not. A scientist or even someoone trying to teacher is supposed to be open minded. You are not. On top of that you seem unaware of the tools used in modern science especially statistical analysis.
I am not relying on anecdotal evidence. There is plenty out there to suport that things like SES and quality of peers matter. In fact, there's much to suggest that peers matter more than anything else. Fortunately or unfortunately, as the case may be, peers come with the territory, literally.
My personal views are based on research. I don't form them until I've looked at the data. Hence I'm reluctant to drop them the second someone posts something they think proves them wrong.
I do question their ability to determine which teachers are high quality and which are not. You can quantify credentials but much of what makes a good teacher a good teacher is subjective.
As I said, I'll read the research and get back to you. Right now I don't have the time to disect the data. And no, I'm not just taking the word of the researchers. I want to see what their peers have had to say.
Only a fool jumps ship every time some new piece of "research" comes out without analyzing the research. I'm certain I've read newer studies than these that still claim that SES and parental attitudes towards education are important factors. Peer influences are a more controversial topic but I'm convinced they matter (Read the book "The Nurture Assumption"). Every good teacher knows that the secret to getting a class in line is getting the biggest trouble makers on your side. If you can do that, the rest of the kids will fall in line because how their peers view them is very important to them and they respect anyone their peers respect. The best teachers not only know this, they know how to do it. I'm still working on that one.
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.
