The National Education Policy Center (NEPC) critiqued the Los Angeles Times' evaluation of teachers' value-added, citing flaws in their research. Re-analyzed data by University of Colorado professors showed significant discrepancies from the Times' rankings, a common occurrence due to the sensitivity of value-added assessments to various model specifications. This critique challenges the use of imperfect research to guide policy decisions, particularly regarding teacher rankings derived from value-added assessments. While these assessments offer insights, supplementing limited information from other sources like teachers' credentials or administrator evaluations, publishing individual teachers' value-added scores in newspapers, as done by the Los Angeles Times, remains contentious. NEPC's critique prompts reconsideration of using imperfect data in evaluating teacher effectiveness, acknowledging its potential as a supplement to other information sources. The debate shifts from the research's imperfections to its role within a broader context of teacher assessment and policy decisions. However, the critique's focus on research quality doesn't fully address the complexity of using such assessments in policymaking and evaluation.
Educational stakeholders have raised concerns about the collaboration between U.S. News and World Report and the National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) to evaluate teacher education programs. The initiative aims to rank these programs akin to colleges and universities. Issues encompass NCTQ's approach to institutions unable to provide all requested materials and methodological concerns regarding their evaluation design. Leaders from the University of California system questioned the evaluation's standards, evidence measures, and methodology's reliability. The debate centers on balancing the need for rigorous assessment with the intricacies of teacher preparation. While recognizing the importance of evaluating teacher education quality, there's contention over the adequacy of NCTQ's approach. Suggestions propose a comprehensive study design encompassing various data analyses, including classroom interactions, program practices, alumni feedback, student teacher evaluations, and selective use of value-added analyses. California is proposed to lead an innovative, mixed-methods evaluation, potentially setting a benchmark for other states. The goal is to strike a balance between rigor and a nuanced understanding of teacher preparation, aiming for an evaluation approach that comprehensively reflects program quality while acknowledging its complex nature.
The push for pay-for-performance teacher salaries could revolutionize education by valuing teaching as specialized talent. This shift, prompted by U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan and supporters, aims to reward exceptional teaching through test score-based incentives. However, this transition could significantly raise education expenses and transform the teacher compensation structure. Drawing parallels with Marvin Miller's revolutionizing baseball players' wages, the switch from uniform teacher salaries to valuing exceptional talent may yield unpredictable effects. Recognizing and promoting exceptional teachers could mimic how colleges offer star professors premium wages. Yet, envisioning a system where teacher talent determines compensation might generate brutal competition, creating substantial salary disparities among educators. While this approach celebrates exceptional teachers, it's uncertain how this would impact overall teacher wages and the teaching profession as a whole. Considering the historical rise of wages in specialized fields, proponents of this shift may not have accounted for the potential salary demands that valuing teacher talent could create.
The upcoming Economics of Education Review issue presents papers from the “Performance Pay: Will it Work? Is it Politically Viable?" conference at Harvard’s Kennedy School. Three papers stand out: One paper debunks the correlation between education degrees and teacher effectiveness but notes an improvement with experience, which might later decrease; Another paper examines how formal teacher ratings by principals relate to teacher traits like experience, education, and absenteeism, suggesting their usefulness in career decisions; A final paper explores the economic impact of teacher quality on student achievement, revealing the considerable added value a highly effective teacher brings to students' future earnings and proposing significant gains if low-performing teachers are replaced.
Alan Daly's recent commentary delves into the debate surrounding what qualifies as a "highly qualified" teacher, stemming from recent legislation that broadened this definition, impacting both human and social capital in schools. He highlights the significance of social capital, emphasizing that teachers in supportive environments tend to perform better. The bill allows alternative path teachers to be deemed "highly qualified," recognizing their capability despite lacking state certification, a move not strongly supported by evidence. However, the legislation adversely impacts social capital. It aligns with California's education code favoring seniority in layoffs, disproportionately affecting newer teachers in challenging schools. Layoffs in these schools disrupt stability and equitable teacher distribution, contrary to the lawsuit's aim for fairer teacher allocation. By removing a potential tool for equalizing teacher distribution, Congress risks exacerbating inequalities in schools, especially those serving disadvantaged students, which might not significantly affect individual teaching talent but undoubtedly damages social capital where it's needed most.
The debate on teacher tenure lacks concrete quantitative evidence regarding its impact on teacher labor markets or student achievement. Stories of tenure's effects exist, but research is scarce due to the absence of a control group—every public school operates with some form of tenure. However, variations in tenure policies across states, particularly in probationary period lengths, offer insight. Researchers show that longer probation periods correlate with higher starting teacher salaries, especially in districts with collective bargaining. This is because job security as a benefit leads to teachers demanding higher wages in exchange for increased uncertainty. California, with a two-year probationary period, may face salary pressures, especially in districts bordering states like Nevada with different tenure policies. Extending the probation period might lead to salary hikes in certain districts to attract teachers. However, it's uncertain how this change might influence who enters teaching, district responses in terms of evaluation or training, or its overall impact. Further research on tenure's effects on teacher labor markets is necessary to better inform this significant policy debate.
David Plank’s commentary insights highlight the complexities in teacher evaluation, sparking debates about how to measure a teacher’s impact on student achievement and how assessments could affect teachers' careers. The discussion around "value-added" assessment has divided opinions, focusing on testing, measurement, and what defines significant learning. Plank suggests maintaining an open dialogue by exploring alternative evaluation methods and reconsidering the concept of 'value.' The 'value-added' assumption rests on the teacher's individual abilities and student demographics, overlooking the potential influence of social capital within an educational system. Research suggests that social capital, like collaborative teacher communities, profoundly impacts teacher effectiveness. Consider two equally skilled new teachers: one in an environment lacking collaboration and shared practices, the other in a supportive, collaborative community. Despite similar abilities, the latter might demonstrate higher 'value-added' due to better access to resources and shared practices. This perspective underscores the importance of social capital alongside human capital in assessing teacher effectiveness. It encourages rethinking evaluation systems to account for the supportive or constraining impact of social relations on a teacher's ability to enhance student learning. Integrating social capital into evaluation discussions could significantly enhance educational reform efforts.
Smart Money examines how successful school districts allocate resources linked to higher student achievement. It suggests integrating student achievement goals into labor negotiations between school management and unions. Currently, talks primarily revolve around wages and employment conditions, overshadowing student success. Advocating a transformative shift in labor law, the book proposes making student achievement a mandatory negotiation topic. This change aims to align budgeting with educational goals, prompting discussions on resource impact. It resists prescribing specific goals but encourages discussions, prompting both sides to consider how funds affect achievement. This approach broadens goals beyond test scores to encompass graduation rates, language proficiency, and authentic assessments. Incorporating student achievement goals in labor contracts could gradually reshape practices without disrupting established structures. The change aims to enhance educational outcomes in bargaining discussions while maintaining negotiation processes.
The release of a teacher ranking based on student test scores by the L.A. Times sparked a national debate on the ethics of evaluating teachers publicly. New York City's decision to follow suit intensifies this trend, raising concerns about the validity of using standardized tests to assess educators. Key questions arise regarding the accuracy of tying student achievement solely to teacher performance, considering the limitations of standardized tests in capturing all learning influences. There is a critical inquiry into whether the emphasis on standardized tests prioritizes scores over a more comprehensive educational approach. Doubts persist about the effectiveness of public rankings in motivating improvement or accurately identifying underperforming teachers. Researchers advocate for more nuanced evaluation methods beyond test scores, seeking a holistic approach that includes various measures of effective teaching without resorting to public exposure. Amidst these discussions, there's a call for thoughtful consideration, urging stakeholders to weigh the impact on teachers and teaching quality before embracing such ranking systems.
For nearly three decades, PACE has facilitated discussions on California's education policies by integrating academic research into key policy challenges. Traditionally, this involved publishing policy briefs, organizing seminars, and producing the annual 'Conditions of Education in California' report, offering comprehensive data and analysis on the state's education system. The launch of "Conditions of Education in California" as a blog marks a shift to engage a wider audience and enable ongoing updates. This platform, authored by PACE-affiliated researchers across California, aims to share new data, compelling research findings, and insights on current legislation and policies. The objective remains fostering informed discussions on education policy challenges in California, now extending the conversation to policymakers, educators, and citizens. This inclusive dialogue is crucial to drive the necessary policy understanding and momentum for improving the state's education system.
