In a recent post for the Shanker Blog, Matthew Di Carlo discusses the current policy focus on teacher quality as a way to improve schools. He observes that “some (but not nearly all) components of this all-hands-on-deck effort are perplexing to the many teachers, and have generated quite a bit of pushback…what drives it is the tantalizing allure of variation in teacher quality.”
After a brief overview of the literature on this subject, Di Carlo admits that the differences in student performance between those that have “top” teachers and those that have “bottom” teachers is pretty compelling. However, he does not think that, if it is true, this knowledge alone helps anything. He argues that the key question policymakers and researchers should be focusing on is “whether and how we can measure teacher performance at the individual level and, more importantly, influence the distribution—that is, to raise the ceiling, the middle and/or the floor.” Rather than focusing on this, we are instead putting most of our effort into designing new teacher evaluation systems that attempt to measure “true” teacher quality in a valid and reliable manner.
“The seductive variation in teacher performance, coupled with the inadequacy of current evaluation systems in many places, has compelled some (but not all) states and districts to rush ahead with this process without field testing, and to begin using their new evaluations in high-stakes decisions, including termination.” This, in spite of the fact that there is no real proof that these new systems will improve outcomes.
According to Di Carlo, the current spate of tactics used to inform decisions about professional development, teacher benefits, teacher certification, etc., are all tied to the assumed variation in teacher quality. For example:
- Measuring the efficacy of teacher training programs, and holding them accountable for it;
- Altering compensation structures to attract/retain more qualified candidates;
- Videotaping lessons to see if there are practices common among more effective teachers;
- Expanding alternative certification routes;
- Experimenting with systems for collecting and distributing student data to inform instruction;
- Weakening of teacher job protections;
- Stepping up processes to screen applicants to open teaching positions;
- Limiting teacher sick days;
- Changing teacher layoff criteria;
- Trying programs for new teachers, such as mentoring and induction.
All of these projects have a common foundational purpose—“to try anything to harness some portion of the variation in teacher quality, which appears so large that even small improvements…might yield substantial benefits.” However, a more reasonable expectation should be to design and implement policies to produce small, gradual improvements in the distribution of teacher quality over a period of years and decades. Until we can achieve this, “the allure persists, unwavering.”
To read his full commentary, please visit http://shankerblog.org/?p=5681
