Why Teaching Experience Matters

guest perspective

April 6, 2010

Why Teaching Experience Matters

by Diana Senechal, at 3:02 pm

Teacher layoffs in New York State are about to begin, and they will not be pretty. There is no ideal approach to them; one can only hope to do as little harm as possible. But how do we set our priorities? Who should stay, and why?

Currently, the teachers contract requires layoffs to be done according to seniority, following the basic principle of “last hired, first fired.” In a recent City Journal op-ed, Manhattan Institute Senior Fellow Marcus Winters objects to the idea of laying newer teachers off first:

Basing layoffs on seniority would make sense if it were true that more experienced teachers were always more effective. But a wide and uncontroversial body of research says that’s not the case. We know that after only a couple of years in the classroom, a teacher’s additional experience has no bearing on the amount her students learn.

Unfortunately this is one of those “research has shown” statements that distort what the research has actually shown. It is far from true that “after only a couple of years in the classroom, a teacher’s additional experience has no bearing on the amount her students learn.” With respect to test scores alone, the statement is inaccurate — and a teacher’s influence on learning (as any teacher knows) goes far beyond test scores.

What does the “body of research” actually say? A few leading studies indicate that the effect of teacher experience on student achievement is greatest in the first few years. In “Photo Finish” (Education Next, Winter 2007), Thomas J. Kane, Jonah E. Rockoff and Douglas O. Staiger report:

New York’s teachers are no different from other teachers around the country. Teachers make long strides in their first three years, with very little experience-related improvement after that. The students of third-year teachers score 6 percent and 3 percent of a standard deviation higher in math and reading, respectively, than students of first-year teachers.

This does not mean that additional teaching experience has no effect. Charles T. Clotfelter, Helen F. Ladd and Jacob L. Vigdor (2007) have found that teacher experience has a significant positive effect on student achievement, with more than half of the gains occurring during the teacher’s first few years, but substantial gains occurring over subsequent years, albeit at a slower rate. They write:

Compared to a teacher with no experience, the benefits of experience rise monotonically to a peak in the range of 0.092 (from model 4) to 0.119 (from model 5) standard deviations after 21-27 years of experience, with more than half of the gain occurring during the first couple of years of teaching.

None of this is a surprise. Novice teachers are often thrown into chaotic situations; it may take them a year to get their bearings. They may be asked to teach a subject outside of their field, or to teach more than one subject. They may be assigned the lowest-performing students. After a few years, not only do they get a handle on their everyday duties, but their assignments may be slightly easier or closer to what they know.

One would expect, even hope, that a teacher’s effect on test scores would slow down at a certain point. Students have a role in their own achievement, after all. A teacher typically has a mix of students: those who work hard at their subject and those who don’t, those who find the subject easy and those who struggle with it. Yes, a teacher’s instruction has a great effect on students, and teachers should do all they can. But if years of teacher experience had a linear correspondence with gains on test scores, the teacher would essentially control student performance. What would this say for human choice and responsibility? What role would students play in their own education?

Beyond this, there is more to education than test scores in math and reading. It seems silly to belabor the point, but it eludes many policy makers and think-tankers. State tests are low-level tests of skills and strategies. They involve very little subject matter knowledge; to pass a reading test, one need not have read any excellent literature. One doesn’t even need to know how to write a grammatical sentence. An excellent teacher goes far beyond the test in rigor, substance, and understanding, and life experience and teaching experience enrich this.

Besides teaching the actual subject (which is much richer than the stuff on the tests), a teacher offers insight, knowledge, experience, and wisdom, whether directly or indirectly. Over time, a teacher comes to see the education field and his or her subject in perspective. Newer teachers may be excited about new discoveries, but teachers with more experience can distinguish valuable ideas from passing fads. There are exceptions, of course, on both ends. But experience can bring humility, good judgment, and an ability to see and hear the larger story.

A student gleans these things. They affect the sounds in the room, the tenor of the lesson, the way the subject matter comes through. They can be sensed in the tones of the words. I remember how a teacher read Robert Frost’s “Never Again Would Birds’ Song Be the Same,” and the strange mixture of triumph, humor, and sadness in the last line, “And to do that to birds was why she came.” A younger teacher might have read it beautifully but without quite the same mixtures.

The point is not that veteran teachers simply read poems with more feeling. The point is that life experience and the immersion in the subject affect the teaching in all sorts of ways, large and small. Repetition brings not only fluency, but insight; when you teach a subject over and over (especially a subject you know and love), you see more in it and find different ways of presenting it. Your repertoire grows; you have more materials, ideas, and lessons in your mind and file cabinets. You know how to reach your students; you are less severely affected by the day’s or the year’s ups and downs, distractions, and interruptions. Experienced teachers are also a great asset to novice teachers who need advice, encouragement, and guidance. When a school goes through upheavals every few years — discarding one model for another, or firing half its staff–a veteran teacher can help keep the school and its purpose intact.

At the end of his piece, Winters acknowledges that decisions should not depend solely on test scores. But this qualification comes a bit late. Even at their best, tests are confined to the short term and reflect only a fraction of what students learn. Teacher experience — even after the first few years — does affect test scores, but it affects much more than that. What the student turns into habit or remembers years down the road, what continues to play in the mind long after the test is done — that is the stuff of education. That is the stuff that veteran teachers teach well, having learned to sort out the flashy from the true.

Diana Senechal

Back to the question of the “least unfair” option. There are basically three choices:

1. Layoffs based on seniority
2. Layoffs based on merit
3. Layoffs determined at random

Random layoffs are a bad idea–they will result in mayhem.

Now, within option 2, there are several possibilities:

a. Merit defined mainly by test scores
b. Merit determined by the principal
c. Merit determined by a team of administrators, teachers, parents, students

Even those who support the merit approach will acknowledge that test scores in themselves are not a reliable measure of teacher quality. And most will recognize that a principal may have unfair biases and favorites. So team decisions seem to have the most promise.

But teams can make big mistakes. When the individuals on the team hesitate to challenge the majority, the team can make worse decisions than an individual might. They might try to please the principal or avoid displeasing her. They might try to please each other. They might worry about what others will say about them. Many a good teacher will be misjudged badly by a team. I have seen it happen. In addition, teams can be gossipy and petty, and teachers will find themselves talked about, day in, day out, with official sanction. Gossip becomes a daily duty.

The merit options are all seriously flawed. None is a clear improvement over seniority. But those who oppose seniority seem to think there are hordes of awful senior teachers and hordes of sparkling brilliant new ones ready to take their place. That just isn’t the case. Teachers generally improve over time, and they become well known to the school community. They have shown their commitment to education, and that should count for a lot. Again, there should be room for exceptions. I can see many possible variations on the seniority option, but as an operating principle it seems just a little better at this point than the alternatives.
Michael M.

DS,

Outside the “layoff” domain, I would suggest #4: Voluntary early retirement packages.

Many variations on this theme as well.
Ken

Hey Diana,

Great stuff! I like how you outline the possibilities. Here are some quick thoughts on this:

1. On your layoff choices, you might list “Layoffs determined to optimize the quality of the system post-layoffs.” This is similar to “Layoffs based on merit” (or perhaps the same based on how you define “merit”), but it might include cases, for example, where a teacher is retained partially because that type of teacher is in short supply. It also might include cases where a teacher loses his or her job in favor of two teachers that are almost as good but half as expensive. I know this case is HUGELY controversial amongst many. However, I think it is an issue that must be discussed (not necessarily agreed upon!). Regardless, subject to whatever constraints we agree to place upon it, this layoff approach is the one I favor.

2. “Random layoffs are a bad idea — they will result in mayhem.” Random layoffs is intentionally thought-provoking. (It’s similar to the hard-to-refute argument that, based on modern tax logic, we should tax tall people more than short people.) Why would random layoffs cause mayhem if they were announced with sufficient notice and designed to maintain continuity by seniority distribution and specialization distribution (i.e. they would be random subject to constraints)? To be clear, I don’t like random layoffs much more than the current system!

3. Another layoff approach (again similar to methods mentioned already) is one that attempts to minimize disruption. Whether partially-random or not, layoffs would be designed to leave the system in as close a state to it’s prior state as possible. The current system is not best for that. The current system dramatically changes the seniority mix, exacerbates class size problems, and, possibly, exacerbates shortages in certain practice areas.

4. As far as different approaches to merit, you seem to focus almost exclusively on the risk of error. Of course, any system will make mistakes, including, of course, a seniority system. The question is: which system will do the best job? I believe that, ON BALANCE, principals have the incentives and skill to make better decisions than a seniority system. Moreover, if that is not true, we should all be focusing on improving principal incentives and skill. I doubt we can ever have very good schools without competent leadership at the school level.

5. Overall, I love your approach, but I don’t think you’ve motivated that seniority is better than the alternatives.
http://ednotesonline.blogspot.com/ norm

From Ed Notes

Ed Deformers Model Anti-Seniority Positions on Ant Behavior

Edward O. Wilson, an antologist (as opposed to an uncologist – yes, I can make up my own words and be as corny as I like) has written his first novel called “Anthill” which was reviewed in the Sunday Times book review section last week. Wilson is a major biologist and naturalist who has studied ants and other social insects and made comparisons to human society.

I was struck by this comment in the review:

His language achieves poetic transcendence when describing “the decency of ants,” whose disabled members “leave and trouble no more.” When the nest must be defended, its eldest residents — with the least long-term utility remaining to them — become the most suicidally aggressive, “obedient to a simple truth that separates our two species: Where humans send their young men to war, ants send their old ladies.”

Now I get it. The DOE and all the Ed Deformers are following this precept of ant society by trying to send senior teachers out to pasture. Maybe Sarah is right. Obama does have death panels.
http://ednotesonline.blogspot.com/ norm

Oh Ken. Let’s just do this layoff thing in spite of the fact that we have such a high percentage of principals who are —someone provide some words here.

All we have to do is fix a problem that has always existed and will always exist but has been made worse by giving even good principals an incentive to get rid of high salaried teachers no matter what their competence. Of course they will feel they can take a hit for a year or two with newbies and hope to get them trained to do the minimal test prep until their salaries are too high (remember how so many private companies do exactly the same thing in removing senior employees). They can get 2 for one so why not? Here is where we disagree when you say – “I believe that, ON BALANCE, principals have the incentives and skill to make better decisions than a seniority system.” You are wearing blinders.

“Moreover, if that is not true, we should all be focusing on improving principal incentives and skill. I doubt we can ever have very good schools without competent leadership at the school level.”

I only agree with the last sentence. We will only get good leadership when we drastically change the governance structure. You like the charter model so much, I say let’s import that to public schools and let local communities of teachers and parents make leadership decisions and not put that power in the hands of the mayor. That has never happened here so why not try some experiments.

In the meantime, layoffs by seniority will overall provide the fairest system and in fact the best long term education for kids.

And one more point – the great salary gap between newbies and 23 year teachers in the system is somewhat obscene. BloomKlein could have attempted to reverse that trend in contract negotiations but we saw no sign of that. They knew full well that by keeping very high salaried people over a short term they would have the ultimate last laugh over a UFT hungry to grab every short term dime no matter what the long term consequences. The entire backdrop of this discussion is about politics and economics, not education.

If we intend to end the concept of teachers building long-term careers and replacing it with a peace corps like system let’s just come out and say it and stop beating around the bush.
Ken

Hey Norm,

We agree on the leadership issue AND the problem with the current salary schedule. That’s two things right there!

On your leadership comments, a few random thoughts:

1. It’s not clear to me that the authorizers wouldn’t approve (or haven’t approved) charter schools with experimental leadership structures, e.g. the teachers pick the principal.

2. The UFT, interestingly, went with a rather conventional leadership structure for their charter school (from what I remember from skimming their application and reading about problems they have had with principals). I’ve always found that choice to be provocative in its conformity to things that the UFT often seems to rail against.

3. In my experience, many charter schools seem to have excellent leadership.

4. The hope amongst us “ed deformers” (really one of the best insult titles out there) is that in a system with many competing choices, the schools and CMO’s with bad leadership will lose students and/or be shut down, while the schools and CMO’s with good leadership will be in high demand and be allowed to expand. Over time, we should have more well-run schools and fewer poorly-run schools.

5. Point #4 completely allows for teachers to create great schools with unconventional approaches to governance. Of course, perhaps authorizers don’t like it?

6. Your governance approach reminds me of the structure I understand to exist at many professional partnerships in which the partners elect a managing partner for a fixed term. Different than schools, though, the individual partners are more clearly accountable by observable things like billable hours and client feedback. My biggest concern in applying this structure to a school is that the managing partner would have a difficult time leading decisions related to poor performance, unless the teachers embraced a culture of accountability.
Diana Senechal

Ken,

I am going to suggest something that probably won’t fly with you. Seniority as an operating principle (with adjustments and exceptions) is good because respect for one’s elders is a good principle in life. It is good for children, good for teachers, good for schools.

It means that when people are at a stage in life where they have wisdom and experience and grey hairs, they aren’t suddenly kicked to the curb. We’re not talking about 80-year-olds (who arguably might not have the mental or physical energy to teach in stressful schools full-time). Our veteran teachers are usually around their 50s, I believe.

Of course there are elders who don’t merit much respect, and young teachers who do. That’s where the exceptions come in. Such exceptions should be made with great care and conscience.

I sense that many people think older teachers are just hanging on for the pension. In a few cases that might be so (and an early retirement option might be helpful there), but many continue to teach because they love to teach. Many continue teaching after retirement, even as subs, because they love to teach. Even principals turn to teaching after retirement. Should these people be spat on?

But what if these older teachers aren’t the best for the school? you may ask. Well, I would ask, why assume they aren’t? In the schools I have taught and visited, the senior teachers were holding the place together. They had the knowledge, the experience, the resources, the perspective. Not all senior teachers, of course, but many.

And I have seen some intelligent and talented senior teachers treated by principals as though they aren’t wanted any more. That can make anyone bitter. I have also seen people light up as soon as they are treated with respect.

We should not be so quick to dismiss the benefits of experience and of years. Studies have NOT shown that teachers stop improving after a certain point. I keep reading more statements along the lines of Winters’, and it seems people are just repeating what others have said the studies say.

As for principals, they should have greater respect for experienced teachers. Many are conditioned to regard veteran teachers as a liability from the outset. Some are suspicious of those who stay in teaching, precisely because they stay. Why would anyone with qualifications do such a thing? they wonder–so they assume that veteran teachers stay for lack of anything “better” (higher-paying) to do. They ignore the virtue of continuing with something for a long time–and the possibility that teachers might be motivated by something other than money.

I have been asked many times, “Why would you teach, with your qualifications”? What an awful question! I plan to return to the classroom when my book is done. When I reach 50, I am sure I will be regarded with some suspicion: why didn’t I find anything “better” to do? Sad that teaching isn’t regarded as the best profession of all.

That’s going on a tangent a little, but not too much. I believe that if the teaching profession were held in higher regard, veteran teachers would be highly regarded as well.
http://ednotesonline.blogspot.com/ Norm

Ken
On the UFT structure for their charter schools, you know that the UFT and DOE are both top down so why expect teachers to actually run the school?

Over 10 years ago I put up a resolution at the delegate assembly calling on the UFT to support teachers who want to set up their own schools. Randi asked me to withdraw it because she said she wasn’t ready to deal with it. I innocently thought she agreed with me (what a dupe I was) and didn’t make the proposal. In reality, she had no intention of proposing real teacher power.

On accountability – you seem to think there is a special culture of accountability. We have different definitions. I always felt I was accountable but most of all to the parents. I know they don’t count for much when we talk accountability since it is all about being accountable to some higher authority. The Ed deformers see it in terms of entire schools and teachers based on some mass data. I viewed accountability as one on one between me and the student/parent.

We had one teacher who got great scores all the time but was absent an enormous amount of time and did not look to be doing much with the kids. Other teachers were outraged when the principal praised this teacher to the sky at a school party. I know of two superb teachers who boycotted that party for years after.

You guys are trying to simplify and codify a very complex situation.

Diana’s points are very well taken. Many Lead Acad principals were entrusted with a mission to wipe out the school culture which meant getting rid of most senior teachers, especially any who raised even the most minor points of objection to a program they saw as not helping the kids. I could tell you one story after another.

These people who often know little of education want young-uns they can mold. What is interesting that the former young-uns who started 5 or more years ago and are still there are coming to see things like the replaced senior teachers did (check the blogs). That is why TFA wants them out of the classroom as soon as possible and into some ed policy leadership – before they get tainted by reality.
Experience Matters

Thank you, Diana, for the wonderful initial piece and your thoughtful follow-up comments. My first job was in a terrible school and I still thank God for the wonderful experienced teachers who supported me, advised me and were always willing to help me out or else I would have not made it to my second year. We are so quick to dismiss the contributions of people who have put time and effort into the system, paving the way for new people. New teachers do well in my current school, in part because of the climate created by the current staff, including many teachers who have 20 years or more in the system.
Ken

Hey Norm,

By a “culture of accountability” (in this context) I mean a culture in which teachers would demand high performance (however they think it is appropriate to define it) from their colleagues. This concept doesn’t suggest any particular viewpoint on test scores as appropriate for judging colleagues. However, it would suggest that teachers take and support action when a colleague is not performing well based on whatever reasonable standards are set at the school.
Ken

Hey Diana,

I agree that “respect for experience and past contributions” (which I somewhat prefer to “respect for one’s elders” in this context) is a good principle. We disagree on how to apply and weight that principle in this situation. Indeed, I would speculate that the current rules designed to protect teachers (particularly senior teachers) from termination (some would say “unfair termination”) are the single biggest reason that the teaching profession doesn’t receive more respect.
Michael M.

Ken,

I am stunned to read (despite your caveats) that termination rules are are at the heart of lack of respect for the teaching profession.

No, the lack of respect for the teaching profession in THIS town anyway starts in the Chancellor in his treatment of them ALL, even the ones he DOESN’T want to fire.

I refer readers again to the HuffPo essay in which Klein accuses teachers of being obstacles to children’s civil rights.

We are fast approaching a silly season of blaming the teachers even for the ills of the system in which they struggle to work, educate our young, and find (on a lucky day) any measure of the personal validation that is part and parcel of the “psychic pay” that the teaching profession USED to provide.

Sheesh.
Michael M.

Lack of ice floes for the experienced teachers. Yeah, that’s another problem with global warming.
Ken

Hey Michael,

My point doesn’t address the Chancellor’s treatment of teachers, nor did I mean to suggest that teachers, as a group, aren’t respected. My simple point is that I speculate that people would have more respect (than whatever amount they have now) for the teaching profession if the termination and layoff rules placed more than the current near-zero consideration on the performance of individual teachers. Prior to my blogging experience, I would have thought that would be a noncontroversial statement. Luckily, I know better now, so I make all of the qualifications that I can think of… which is often still insufficient!
Jeff S

Ken…the problem remains is that nobody but I mean nobody has come up with a system that properly evaluates all levels of teachers. I would agree it is usually not too difficult to determine if a teacher is totally incompetent and as a matter of fact many such teachers leave of their own choosing or are discontinued before achieving tenure and these statistics never make the papers which would rather show that only 3 teachers have been removed for incompetence in the last couple of years. But one of the major problems is the quality of Principals that are being put in place by a civil rights lawyer who goes around the world masquerading as an educator who knows nothing whatsoever about education but sort of has sold his spin on things to the editorial writers of the major papers in this city and elsewhere. The job of the Principal, the most important vital job of a Principal is to evaluate and work with teachers to improve their instruction and if this fails to properly document a case at a 3020A hearing. I am tired of hearing this garbage that it is such a difficult thing. It is a difficult thing for the quality of Principal that has been foisted on schools many of whomn lack the proper educational experience to be able to fairly evaluate a teacher’s effectiveness.

I wish it were as easy to take the rest of the teachers, teachers whom we might rate of a scale of 1 59 10, put the facts into a computer and come up with a fair evaluation which could be used to determine who to keep and who to let go if indeed firings are necessary. What we have now, however, and certainly you or anybody cannot deny it is that with teacher personnel budgets now based on actual salaries of the teachers rather than counting each teacher as 1 unit using the average salary of teachers, another bird brained idea championed by the civil rights lawyer unqualified to be an educator, there would most assuredly be an inclinatin to let the higher salaried teachers go. Besides, a more experienced teacher represents a threat to many of these inexperienced Principals who know their lack of educational qualificdations will be obvious to an experienced teacher. You know this and I know this and we all know this. I have read elsewhere people knocking the system of layoffs based on seniority exactly because of the salary issue. In this time of economic distress, we must trim budgets as much as possible and if that means getting rid of senior teachers, no matter how good, so be it.

I am afraid until the days comes, and I believe a fair minded person would have to say it is a long way off, that we can feed all the facts into a computer and come out with a fair grade for a teacher and then make a decision with deire consequences for the teacher and for the system, we have to do things in such a way so as not to discriminate against people just because they have acquired seniority and are making more than a neophyte. I feel the same way about merit pay; there is no sure way to properly determine just how well a teacher is doing his or her job. Should a teacher working at Stuyvesant who gets 100% passing the math Regents be rewarded for that while a teacher working at South Shore High School or what used to be South Shore High School who gets 47,3% of his students to pass be rewarded on this basis. It is very possible the teacher at South Shore is doing much more with less but then again nobody wants to hear that. I spent well over 20 years as an Assistant Principal of mathematics and I could mentally rate my teachers from say 0 to 10. The few I had who were truly incompetent, those that for example did not know the subject matter and taught wrong mathematics, I either worked with the Principal to discontinue or went through a nasty 3020A procedure and yes it was nasty full of name calling but I did what I had to do. But I would hate to ever have been in a position to be told that I had to desinate 2 teachers to get a $10,000 bonus as a lead teacher or something like that. Nobody should be put in that position because so much of it is subjective.

Once people understand this, they will understand the importance of keeping in place a system where favoritism is not the primary means of making decisions such as this nor salary. Until that day comes, I am afraid seniority is all we have.
Jeff S

Excuse the typos in the above…this board simply does not have the capability which many boards have of editing a post once it’s up..my response has a few and don’t waste time saying how illiterate I am. I assure you with a proper board, they would all be corrected.
Ken

Hey Jeff,

I hear you that it is very difficult to come up with a system to judge teachers in a reasonably objective manner. I also hear you that you believe (as many others do) that there are many principals that shouldn’t be trusted to make termination or layoff judgments.

These two principles are true about most or all sectors of our society: (1) How do you judge people objectively; (2) What if the people given the power to make termination and layoff decisions make bad, even unethical, decisions? In most other sectors, these problems haven’t been solved. I’m guessing that many on this website would like to see seniority/jobs-for-life be extended to these other sectors. On the other hand, many people (like me) think that the approach followed in other sectors works best, despite its problems. These issues of balance are hard to prove one way or the other.

One thing that makes public education in NYC much different than many of these other sectors is that there is one dominant government employer. I can see that that can make a big difference as to the optimal outcome. That’s something that I have been thinking about a lot lately.
Michael M.

Yo Ken,

Would we have more respect for cops or firemen if it were easier to fire them?

I know I sure as heck would have more respect for Chancellors if….

And I’m sure we’d all have more respect for the PEP if it weren’t so notoriously and laughably EASY to fire THEM.

Next, I can’t help but think that this focus on the teachers needs to be seen in context. You amongst others are more than willing to micro-analyze the teacher-evaluation process (as in: why don’t we have one that might result in some pricey ones getting canned), but less willing to analyze the context, motivations, and myopia of the head-hunters.

Youth, and charter-inclined union-busting, will be served, I guess.
Michael M.

Observation:
At most school, parents talk amongst themselves about how important it is that their kids do well on tests, and how important it is to get assigned to a good teacher.

But I have never heard any parent chatter with respect to teachers along the lines of which one has raised their average student’s standardized test score the most.

Again, the metric the administration wants to home in on does NOT appear to be important to parents.

My conjecture:
Because parents know that while test scores are important in the current climate, and even with that in mind, such is NOT an important factor to what makes for a desirable teacher.

(Of course the above is based on ZERO science, and of course I’d most welcome same.)

Silly time:
Any one who likes “market forces” should be happy to see a “bidding” mechanism for teachers, same as some high schools and colleges have “bidding” systems for course selection.
Ken

Hey Michael,

Although I almost can’t resist (I just deleted a response), I don’t know enough about cops or firemen in particular to be comfortable making a comparison. Of course, I focus on teachers, because I focus on education and, of course, this is an education blog. I’d love to learn more about termination procedures for cops and firemen if you know of a good link.
Matthew

Diana,

You are an excellent writer and so thoughtful. The debate you have sparked with Ken and Norm and Michael is complex and informative, and should be made required reading for those who want to pronounce upon this topic.

While the issue that has brought all all here is layoffs, the broader concern I have is how we manage schools generally. As Ken has made the point repeatedly, the question for me is not whether experience has benefits. No doubt it plays an important role. Perhaps researchers like Winters misunderstand the metrics upon which they base their judgment, but then so too do staunch defenders of the current system when they argue (in essence) that experience is the only attribute that matters, and that all experience is equally valuable.

As I posted to another GS conversation, the thing I can’t understand is the complete and total mistrust of principals’ judgement from many of the posters who identify as teachers. Doubtless just as there are teachers who should not be in the profession, there are principals too, who ought not to be there. But is this the characteristic of all of them? The majority of them? If they are all so corrupt or misguided that they cannot be trusted to evaluate and manage their staff, then why in G-d’s name are we paying them in excess of $100,000 a year, plus benefits? Why did we trust them to hire anyone in the first place?

In the alternate case, if most principals do have good judgment, why don’t we have more faith in their ability to identify the right mix of talents needed for their school to succeed? Would these principals not be able to weight the benefits of experience, the areas of high need, the potential of less experienced staff who show promise and come to some rational decision?

No question that if a senior person who has a contract has to be let go, it should be done with dignity and respect. While our pension system is apparently also in a crisis, it would seem to be that accelerated vesting could be one option to ease this pain for some more senior staff.

But that’s a separate question entirely from whether our school system is so corrupt or riven though with malign intent that no one (not parents, not teachers, not kids) can count on the senior-most leader at a school to make good decisions about the one factor most central to his or her school; the teachers.

If this is the case, I fear all the charters and all the blogs and all the philanthropy and all the accountability in the world won’t save us.
Michael M.

Hey Ken,

Dang, I’m sure the deleted draft was a doozy.

As to links re firemen and cops, the point to me is the disparate public fascination — not the actual procedures.

But now that I think about it, cops and firemen rack up OT pay, and as I understand, this OT pay helps set their pension levels. Same for teachers? I’m guessing you might know. ; – )

Thanks for engaging.
Jeff S

Matthew..

There was a time long past when it took a long time for a person to acquire the experience to be a good Principal. I spent 14 years as a classroom teacher of mathematics and then the next 21 as an Assistant Principal of Mathematics. I only feel qualified to discuss secondary education; I know little or nothing about elementary educdation never having spernt a day teaching in a school with anything less than a 9th grade (when I started, the vast majority of students started high school in the tenth grade having finished ninth grade in a JHS). (However that still beats the current lawyer masquerading as an educdator who had no experience whatsoever in education and runs around the world telling others how to run a school system but that’s for another time and place).

Having said that, it toom me at least five to seven years of being an Assistant Principal to even begin to think I had enough experience to be a Principal and by that point, the rear end licking in the system had become such that I didn’t want or need any part of that job. However, one of my major problems with the demise of the large high schools, if you have read any of my postings, is the loss of proper supervision for secondary subject teachers in their own subject area. For years with the large high school, each department was led by a subject area specialist (who had to pass some sort of examination) who most importantly was familiar with subject area and also differences in the way one teachers different subject area. I never would have felt comfortable observing say a Chemistry class (I had to do so from time to time when the Science AP left and in the period before a new one was appointed)…after all if you’re a Math AP, you know Science. Right? Wrong…to me then and I carried it forward by far the most important attribute of a secondary school teacher is knowledge of subject area; most everything else could b e worked with. I didn’t give a damn if the aim of the lesson was elicited from the students and written in the form of a question, even though I had a Principal who thought that was the only way to teach mathematics (or any other subject for that matter). If the teacher taught mathematics correctly, every thing else could be worked on for the most part. The same is true in other subject areas. When I met with teachers at post observation conferences, for the most part, they could relate because I had been in the trenches too and could take advantage of my experience. I could teach demonstration lessons, I could invite novices in to watch me teacher (becoming an Assistant Principal then meant you had to have a teaching test and be judged a master teacher). Again the same thing was true in other subject areas. My Principal for a long time, an experienced Principal, his expertise was in English and told me it was my job to run the department and would back me in every decision I made pertaining to mathematics. That was the way most high schools operated and teachers gained experience and I was very pleased when three or four of my teachers later follow me into supervision.

Today we don’t have the same thing. We have Principals who lack experience in their own subject area, let along others. You have people with four or five years experience as a teacher, bingo into the Leadership Academy and they are instant Principals. We have seen, just today in the papers, just how wonderful the Leadership Academy has been. But even with the best of intentions, while I think many and I’m even willing to say most, Principals do make decisions which they feel are in the best interests of the students, they do not have the proper educational experience, without assistance from trained subject area specialists on the high school level, to properly make these decisions. As I said earlier in the thread, yes it is pretty easy to see a truly incompetent teacher and it is the job of a Principal assisted by a properly licensed subject area Assistant Principal to work with this teacher and if all else fails, to rid the system of such teachers. And it is reltively easy to do with non tenured teachers (sometimes I am afraid too easy given the lack of ability of many Principals to properly relate to the different nuances of different subject areas), once we pass the incompetent level, the remaining teacher range from adequate to good to very good to excellent. I still insist that it is next to impossible for anybody, even a well meaning Principal, to do with malice towards none, without playing favorites. And until that day comes, or we go back to a system where true subject area specialists are involved in these decisions, I just don’t trust most of today’s Principals to make proper decisions in an objective manner.
Michael M.

Matthew:

You had me at hello.

Then this: “the senior-most leader at a school.” I had to read it twice to realize you were talking about the principal — as opposed to an educator with seniority, mastery of subject, mastery of teaching abilities, wisdom, etc.

But “Let go with dignity and respect?” (wince.) I liked “Up In The Air” too, but please.

* * *

Huzzah, Jeff S.

* * *

And now, The Tao of Tweed…

Master Klein:
When you can take the pebble from my hand, it will be time for you to leave.

Grasshopper:
But why, Master?

Master Klein:
Tenure.
http://ednotesonline.blogspot.com/ Norm

Ken

I have to parse your comment about a culture of accountability. I feel especially strong about this since I just came back from seeing a former 4th grade student from my class in the early 80′s do a one man show that touches on many issues of growing up Black/Latino in Bushwick/Williamsburg. And seeing a bunch of other students from those years attend these shows and finding out about their lives since my accountability for them ended the June they left me 28 years ago. Shouldn’t I remain accountable for what happened to their lives? Or maybe the teachers who followed me should be accountable in your world

For all the sturm and drang about doing right by kids from the ed deformers I hear precious little about what we should be doing to support the kids and their families – other than holding their teachers accountable.

You say:
By a “culture of accountability” (in this context) I mean a culture in which teachers would demand high performance (however they think it is appropriate to define it) from their colleagues.

I wonder how you would define high performance beyond testing because no matter how much I think about it I cannot find criteria that match the words “high performance.” Makes us sound like cars. Maybe we need to eat high test breakfasts to perform highly.

I think about my performance – very high sometimes, not so great others. Very high AM, not as hot PM. Better when Johnny bad boy was absent. Boy if we could get all these factors to look like data.

I mean, since all you ed deformers write so much – from theory I might add while we write from the reality of experience – how come we never see anything but generalities on what you are talking about – choose one or all 3 – “performance” “quality” “effectiveness” beyond test results?
Maybe I define effectiveness as – they didn’t die before they finished high school.

Then you write
This concept doesn’t suggest any particular viewpoint on test scores as appropriate for judging colleagues. However, it would suggest that teachers take and support action when a colleague is not performing well based on whatever reasonable standards are set at the school.

So let’s say your principal is basically an idiot and has an agenda and goes after a teacher you are ambivalent about. What do you do? This principal values loyalty above all else – you should only know how this is a priority to so many principals. I say teachers will back a teacher no matter what until they can have trust in the judgement of their principal on most matters. I just heard a story about a well-known and respected administrator who rose from principal to high in the BloomKlein admin. Someone told me that at school parties it was very important to get on the dance floor and do the electric slide which the principal loved or you ended up on the sh-t list. That is the reality in too many schools.

I come back to the kids I taught who were deepest in the water. My major goal wasn’t closing the achievement gap. It was often figuring out some tools I could provide to keep them alive. Now the “kids” I saw tonight – now almost 40 – were the top performers in my school and many went to college. Some even teach in the NYC schools. WOW! You mean we actually had educated kids in pre-BloomKlein years? In the play, the actor talked about how he was the only reader in his house (with lots of kids) and how he was put down for it. How his drug addict brother (who didn’t live past the twenties) made fun of him for reading Shakespeare. Do I get merit pay for that by the way? In fact I had little to do with his reading ability because he probably came to school with some skills in pre-k or was so smart he picked things up very fast – he has a masters from USC by the way. But if I had his brother in my class, why not blame me for his lack of reading and say it led to his drug addiction?

Then there was the girl in the same class whose dad – who was old enough to be her grandfather – brought her to school every single morning and picked her up every afternoon. There was not a day we didn’t chat about her. Her math and reading were perfect. Do I get merit pay for that when I had nothing to do with it? Her dad should get merit pay I imagine. By the way she went to one of the 3 top NYC HS and then a good college but had to drop out because she couldn’t afford to stay. Who is accountable for that one? Does this nation have any measure of accountability for a wonderful student who can’t afford college? She works for a high end outfit in some capacity today but has no college degree.

Now take the kid who came from 3 generations of drug dealers and made little progress and who I used to take home to stay over sometimes (rubber room for me for that one) and ended going to prison for 3 years at the age of 15 and then was shot 5 times in the head at 18 while selling drugs in the wrong territory, leaving a 3 year old daughter he fathered with a 24 year old woman. Where does my accountability lie on that one? By the way, his kid was being raised by his grandmother and was going to my school last I heard. I wonder how she was doing and what level of accountability we can assign to her teachers.

Experienced teachers often get to know stuff about their kids decades down the road. There are many surprises and disappointments but we know our place in the big scheme of things and the least of what we have to worry about is establishing a “culture of accountability.”
Ken

Hey Norm,

I think this is a great area to drill down on. To start, two questions:

Can you recall situations in which your school employed teachers that you and many of your colleagues thought were ineffective? If so, what did you and the teachers that shared your view do about it?
Michael M.

Ah… the teachers’ version of the blue wall of silence.
http://ednotesonline.blogspot.com/ norm

I just love this slightly disingenuous question Ken. Yes there were some teachers like that, often politically connected.
I wonder why you didn’t first ask what my principal did about it. Or my district since we as teachers had zero power.
I would ask you about your jobs in the past even going back to your youth. Did you work with people who you thouht were ineffective and what did you do about it when you weren’t the boss? Did you snitch to the boss about them? I just hope you never worked as a longshoreman.

By the way, what are we doing about cops who are not only ineffective but dangerous? My former student’s performance the other day inlcuded a lot about being semi-brutalized by the forces of law and order and had zero material about supposedly ineffective teachers.
http://curioustwo.com Ken Hirsh

Hey Norm,

The question isn’t disingenuous. Let me explain.

If we agree that there is such a thing as an “ineffective teacher” and an “ineffective principal”, the question is how does an organization respond to that? A “culture of accountability” is one in which leadership and staff are encouraged to support accountability for effective performance. As usual, it’s not a black and white thing. Most organizations have significant room for improvement in this regard. However, an organization in which almost everyone accepts poor performance, in which the principal is an “idiot”, in which teachers are protected by their political connections… this is unlikely to be organization that supports a significant degree of accountability.

The lead-in to this discussion was our comments about a school in which leadership was selected by the teachers. One challenge in making this work is that the leader might have a hard time holding teachers accountable. It would require the teachers to encourage the leader to monitor performance and to hold them accountable. It’s not at all impossible, but it is quite difficult, especially if teacher effectiveness, as I think we agree, can be difficult to measure. In any case, that is what I meant by saying that there would need to be a “culture of accountability”.

What about accountability for the school leaders? In the teacher-governed model that you suggest, it could work well provided, again, that the teachers want to work at a high-performing organization. However, I think it would be likely that some teachers would prefer a school leader that would NOT hold them accountable.

In the traditional model, if the organization is well-run, it will often encourage feedback from staff about leadership effectiveness. However, this is really tough, for obvious reasons. Teachers, for example, could be extremely reluctant to give honest feedback to a principal. And, of course, the principal might not be willing or able to respond to honest feedback. The most common solution in most sectors is for good employees to leave the organization in favor of one that is better managed (or managed more to their liking). Alternatively, but less commonly, they complain to higher management, the board of directors, or whomever can take action against the ineffective manager. With our current near-monopoly of management with the DOE, these mechanisms might be severely compromised, especially to the extent that the DOE is not trusted.
Michael M.

Ken,

I love reading your writings, but can’t help but wonder why you don’t spend half as much effort focusing the same intellectual rigor on Chancellor competency as teacher competency.

I don’t question your dedication to the improvement of education, but given your horse(s) in the charter race, I can’t help but think your “target selection” isn’t its own sort of bias.

How did we all come to decide that the problem with public education in NYC — and therefore the battlefield — was teacher competency?

The shifting of the debate to one side’s chosen turf is its own victory.

Then again, I listen to parents, not investors.
Michael Fiorillo

Let’s see, now.

Timothy Geithner, who as head of the Federal Reserve Bank of NY either enabled or neglected to see the plundering that was taking place on Wall Street during his term, becomes Secretary of the Treasury.

Lawrence Summers, who was an integral part of dismantling securities laws and deregulating the financial industry, leading directly to the financial and economic meltdown we are enduring – and which is being used as a pretext to attack teachers and their unions- becomes the President’s chief economic advisor.

Hedge fund and private equity operators, who function as either economic parasites or predators, or both, extracting and diverting wealth from productive economic activity, have their speculative losses subsidized by the public.

To date, virtually no one has been charged with criminal violations – the SEC just filed a civil, not criminal, case against Goldman – that have saddled the country with trillions of dollars in debt, and have made huge swaths of the nation economic disaster areas.

Yet people in finance and their spokespeople, who have never taught a day in their lives, and are funding the privatization of the public schools, have the unmitigated gall to talk about accountability for teachers?
http://curioustwo.com Ken

Michael,

I think you make a good point. I plan on writing more about the management side of the system, but, to date, I haven’t written about it very much. And I’ve written almost nothing about Klein, Mayoral Control, etc. I have lots of opinions about those issues, but I have less conviction about them and my opinions are somewhat more nuanced and, therefore, more difficult to express. I’ll work on it, though.
http://curioustwo.com Ken

The previous comment responded to Michael M.

Michael F,

I agree with you that there has been large amounts of bad behavior in the financial system and in our government’s response. I don’t agree with your blanket characterizations, but I do think you describe a meaningful number of market participants.

I hope that two wrongs don’t make a right, i.e. bad behavior in the financial system should allow for bad behavior in the educational system. Also, I would hope that my background in finance wouldn’t preclude my involvement in public education.

Finally, I agree with you that I and others with a finance background could do a lot more to speak out for financial system reform.
Arjun Janah

Dear Ms. Senechal,

Thanks for reminding those who needed to be reminded of the value of experience, insight, perspective and wisdom. If nothing else, education, be it in everyday life or at school, is the passing on of culture, leading to furthering and changing of that culture.

The humans involved are not, of course, mere mechanical widgets in this. It is an active exchange.

Teachers, including traditional, old-school ones like myself, have probably learned as much from our students over decades of teaching (including even in our own subjects, by way of questions and comments from them, and from struggling to grasp the essential concepts and to communicate them in as clear as fashion as possible) as we did in years of prior study of our subjects.

And we have learned more about human nature (both the good and the bad) and about how students learn, in practice, than you could find in any textbook on educational psychology or than could ever be encapsulated in a prescribed pedagogical formula or approach.

Indeed, it is a common fallacy that our field, which involves such a degree of human interaction as well as knowledge of one or more disciplines, can be approached in the same way some have succeeded, for instance, in formulating “laws” in physics or in boosting “productivity” in factories.

The complexity of human interaction and culture cannot, I believe, be captured so simply — nor can it be channeled so crudely without adversely affecting the basic creativity, flexibility and ability to adapt to local, human situations, that are needed.

As regards seniority — it is best regarded, along with standardized tests (that are reasonable, and associated with curriculum that leaves sufficient room for not teaching to the test) as a necessary evil.

As with anything else, seniority on the one hand, and, even more so, merit pay on the other can be subject to abuse. So, even from a purely practical viewpoint, a situation in which one has to work for twenty years or more to achieve the top pay levels, and one in which teachers are focused mainly on outcomes in standardized tests, or in catering to the whims of administrators and their bosses, are both absurd. From the point of view of satisfactory teaching and learning, they are even more so.

Arjun
Brooklyn
Michael Fiorillo

Ken,

Two points:

1) It has much less to do with “market participants” who behave badly, than with a system that enables,encourages and enriches them, and with the encroachment into realms where its hold was not previously absolute. Over the past thirty years, as finance has become an ever-greater percentage of the economy, we’ve seen a corresponding polarization of incomes, and a increasing degree of capture of government by financial interests.

The issue isn’t that these are Bad People – although the are MANY bad actors out there – but that, rather than functioning in its legitimate role as tightly controlled mid-wife to productive investment, finance instead extracts an ever-increasing amount of the national income by means of interest, fees, royalties, rents, on ever-more abstruse financial vehicles, many of which are of negative social utility (except, of course, for their issuers and traders).

It may sound strident to use words like “parasitic” and “predatory,” to describe the so-called “free market” financial system, but can anyone who reads this site contest the fact that the most outlandish paranoia of the most vulgar Marxist has been confirmed and exceeded by the pillaging that we learn more about every day? This isn’t just some bad apples, but a system based on many levels of deception, self-deception included. The financial industry is increasingly sociopathic, and enriches itself at the expense of other sectors of the economy and society at large. It needs to shrink, and we should start by putting it on a very short leash in the schools.

It is my contention that the deepest, tectonic forces at work in so-called education reform are part of that same tendency to loot and pillage, and that in fact public education and Social Security are seen as El Dorado by many. That’s not a personal attack on any one individual, but an observation about how the system has been set up to work, and how people have been “incentivized” to benefit from what history will show to be an era of social vandalism.

2) You and other venture capitalists are of course free to comment and become involved with issues regarding public education. You’re free to open your own schools, although I don’t see why the public should subsidize them. The problem is your implied equivalence between the involvement of average citizens and the likes of Eli Broad, Bill Gates, Michael Bloomberg and others further down the food chain. Let’s speak openly about this, and like adults: there’s absolutely nothing comparable between them, and let’s not pretend there is.

Ed deform malanthropists do more than just comment: they use their immense wealth, augmented by decades of tax cuts and deregulation, to establish a corporate/philanthropic/academic/PR complex that is able to train cadre, fund friendly research and set the terms of debate. That’s a significant difference. In fact, they are now insinuating themselves deeper into the day-to-day running of school systems, as cash starved cities and localities rely on them. We are seeing private interests becoming directly involved in the finance of education, as in Washington DC.

It’s my contention this is not a healthy thing, as it turns children’s education into a commodity, reduces possibilities for democratic engagement and shrinks the public sector.
http://ednotesonline.blogspot.com/ norm

Ken
My sense of the raising of the culture of accountability and the teacher quality issue is equivalent to turning on a house fan to blow the volcano ash away from Europe. There are just so many issues that take priority over whether there are a few lousy teachers in a school. Not one of us didn’t have a poor teacher or two in our lives and we survived. I ask people to think about their own teachers and rate them in their own minds as to how effective they thought they were.

What I can’t get past is the phrases “effective teacher” “effective performance” “poor performance” until we get some idea of what these terms mean in the real world.
It’s like you all have this vision of schools with loads of incompetents creeping along the halls.
Like there is some absolute, digital way of judging. a 1 for effective teachers and a 0 for the failures. No in between. Like I said, some people have bad days, bad afternoons, bad years. I always seemed to have a bad few weeks in January and tried to figure out why. My guess is it was post Xmas vacation blues and the beginning of intensified test prep for the exams along with being cooped up in school during lunch.

I still haven’t seen anything from the Ed Deformers that gives us a basis to judge. You guys look at the outcomes in terms of scores/data and we look at the outcomes in how the character of our kids develop. I also would talk about some accountability in these terms – how successful am I in getting the kids to feel accountable for their actions. How do you compare one teacher to another on that one?

I notice how you don’t address some of the isssues I raised. Ed Deformers talk about kids coming first but when we talk about police hassling so many kids, innocent or not, sometimes with disastrous results – we get silence. So many of my kids accept that they will be stopped because of how they look. What does growing up in a certain environment do to your hopes? I’ve pointed out that even kids who did not have an achievement gap and whose outcomes would make so many of us look effective still had to struggle in ways that middle class kids did not. Arjun points to the complexity of it all.

Is an effective teacher one who is effective in getting parents to work with them? To get kids who might have emotional issues to deal with school in a more positive way even of there are no hard results other than what you can observe in the way they function in class? It is all to complex and the witch hunt to root out ineffectivness is chasing down a rabbit hole. Better to take the resources wasted on all this excess and use it to support people instead of chasing them. Or worse case scenario- find something useful for them to do outside the classroom. There is plenty of work in a school and a school system away from kids.

I think of Pryzbylewski in The Wire who was an awful cop, politically connected but dumped into a dead end assignment but found out he was good with numbers and puzzles and turned out to be a good behind the scenes guy – until he ended up on the street as a cop very briefly and it was a disaster. There’s some irony when he later becomes a very good teacher being forced off the police force.
Julie Cavanagh

Michael F., I bow to you!!!!! And Norm, you’re not so bad yourself. Couldn’t say any of it any better you two!
Ken

Thanks Michael,

You write: “It is my contention that the deepest, tectonic forces at work in so-called education reform are part of that same tendency to loot and pillage, and that in fact public education and Social Security are seen as El Dorado by many. That’s not a personal attack on any one individual, but an observation about how the system has been set up to work, and how people have been “incentivized” to benefit from what history will show to be an era of social vandalism.”

That’s a strong statement. I agree that “incentives” are a big part of the problem in both finance and education. In both cases, I am most concerned about the special interests that have the greatest financial incentives to exploit the system and the incentives in the system (or lack of incentives) that hinder progress. We disagree about which groups are most problematic in education.

With regards to philanthropy, I hear your concerns. I speculate, though, that “ed deformers” already have many more people on their side than do the unions. However, the unions, I think, have much more money and organization on their side. Ultimately, education reform of the sort that concerns you will probably only occur if and when a significant democratic (small ‘d’) majority support it. As with your comments, of course, my comments here are speculative.
Ken

Thanks Norm.

I hear you that it is hard to judge teachers and that teachers aren’t simply “effective” or “ineffective”. I also agree that there are other important issues in education other than addressing “teacher effectiveness” directly or indirectly (although teacher effectiveness should be very high on any list, in my opinion).

We disagree about the importance of “a few lousy teachers in a school”. I think this is a big problem and certainly worthy of discussion.
Michael Fiorillo

Ken,

We clearly disagree about the moral equivalence between a sociopathic finance industry that leeches off society (and, as Goldman’s Lloyd Blankfein infamously stated, believes it is doing “God’s work” by doing so), and individual teachers who some claim to be ineffective. It is my hope that most of the readers, or at least the teachers, on this site agree with me.

Additionally, we disagree about the role of teacher’s unions, and probably unions in general. My position is no doubt a minority one: I think unions, even corrupt or ineffective ones, provide far more social benefits than even the most benign financier. Sure, George Soros, who is probably among the most thoughtful of the class, and generally does not fund socially malignant programs, nevertheless spends most of his time extracting wealth from society. That’s what finance now does.

What will you say, Ken, when these characters take their fangs out of Greece, Portugal, Spain, Ireland, Iceland, Latvia… and start shorting the US dollar? Will that be a matter of a few bad actors, or just market opportunities? I can’t wait to see you play the ingenue with that one.

As for ed deformers having more people on their side, that is arguable, as the recent events in Florida show. What is inarguable is that there has been a decades-long propaganda offensive against public education, teachers and their unions.

As for the unions having more money on their side, that’s preposterous: how can union political action funds compare to the the billions allocated by Gates (and to be supplemented by Warren Buffettt, he of the immortal statement “Yes, there’s a class war, and my class, the rich class, is waging it, and we’re winning”) Broad, the Waltons, et.al.?

As for organization, the union’s can’t possibly match the institutional reach and resources of the corporate and malanthropist-funded academic/media/foundation/think tank complex that has public education in its sights.

Given what we’re up against, it’s amazing we’re doing as well as we are, and it calls into question public support for the destruction of public education.
Michael Fiorillo

Julie Cavanagh,

On the contrary: I bow down to you for the phenomenal organizing work you, your colleagues and your school’s parents are doing to keep charter school bloodsuckers from taking over your school.
http://curioustwo.com Ken Hirsh

Thanks Michael. Although I strongly disagree with your characterizations, I appreciate you spending the time to clearly and forcefully state your case. Your writing is encouraging me to write more about our financial system. If I do so, I’ll link to that when appropriate.
I noticed that…

The above comments are interesting, thought-provoking, and reache the depth of teachers’ belief. To all my colleagues, who, on a daily basis, are doing the best they can to reach each child in the most “effective” way possible where teaching and learning is both a science and an art, kudos! This recognition also goes to those retired master teachers who never stop caring for the children of NY and for their education.

It hasn’t gotten to the point, that there are too many non-educators, or education policy makers, who have never been in the classroom or have very few years of teaching, opining about the field of pedagogy. I have more than 20 years in the classroom and every year I am confronted with so many challenges. Some of these challenges are familiar because as an experienced teacher I know how to handle them, but there are some challenges that truly new, unusual, and I have to put more thoughts into my pedagogical plan. But, my years of teaching have trained me to devise plans that help me with these unusual situations.

I would like to thank Norm and Jeff S for their years of dedication to the children of NY. They both have taught for over 34 years – that’s over 68 years of experience.

Many years ago I worked in a very large comprehension HS before it was phased out 6 years ago. There were 35 math teachers, averaging 23 years of experience, which totals to almost 805 years of experience. Wow, that’s why experience matters. You show me what small school or charter school has that much experience in the field of pedagogy.

To MF and MM your comments are always on target. I have tremendous respect for your intelligence, directness, and most of all, for your relentless pursuit in fighting for public education and teachers.
http://ednotesonline.blogspot.com/ norm

Ken
First I want to say that I appreciate your coming back time and again to engage in these conversations. It is rare to find an ed deformer who is willing to engage in an open and honest discussion.

Let’s discuss this briefly at this point because I have to leave for a few hours but I didn’t want to see it get lost in the middle of all this back and forth:
“We disagree about the importance of “a few lousy teachers in a school”. I think this is a big problem and certainly worthy of discussion.”

This is not as big a deal as you think but then again you are coming from theory and not practice. Have you asked why so many what appear to be excellent teachers don’t seem as bothered by this as the ed deformers? it is not the blue wall of silence as was noted – many are also critics of the UFT for numerous reasons. The really incompetent teachers are filtered out very often because many just don’t want to keep teaching and feel incompetent. But many also end up in least harm positions and they can function to a great extent in those.

What bothered me were not the incompetents but the lazy ones and they could not exist unless there was a lack of supervision or they had the “pull.”

There are teachers who may be – i don’t even want to use the word but will for now – relatively ineffective compared to others but might be more effective in terms of benefiting the school as a whole. Again a complex issue. Others are effective in discipline but not as effective in teaching reading. SOme are more effective in teaching math. Some are extremely effective in caring and nurturing kids and treat them really well – esepcially kids who don’t get that at home and need it. Of course I am talking elem school which is all I know.
http://curioustwo.com Ken Hirsh

Thanks Norm. I really appreciate the kind words.

I’ve always been surprised that more teachers don’t speak out about the issue of ineffective teachers. In private, of course, many teachers will complain about it. In public, though, very few. It might be the biggest piece of evidence that makes me wonder about my assumptions and encourages me to dig deeper. Is it intimidation? Is it that there is no upside to speaking out and lots of downside? Or is it that the problem is not as bad or simple as the education deformers think? Perhaps a mix? In any case, I hear you and others (over and over again… it’s finally sinking in!) to look closer at the management side of the equation to better understand school dynamics.
Arjun Janah

Ken,

I entered this debate, which is what it seems to have turned into, rather late. I did note some very articulate responses from Diana, Michael, Norm and others to your persistent inquiries.

Ken, I have worked for twenty three years as a teacher in the New York City high schools. Six of these years, I served as a substitute, when in New York, usually for a term or so each year, when on unpaid family leave for my ailing parents.

The remaining seventeen of these years were in full time teaching positions, teaching five science classes everyday, or else, occasionally, fewer classes and labs instead. The number of subjects varied. When I taught five classes a day, I was responsible, in principle, for 5×34 = 170 students, although, during the first few weeks, I had more, until class sizes were reduced to contractual size, with this event only occurring in a timely fashion (if at all) where the local union chapter was effective.

Over time, as the term progressed, there would be an effective reduction of students in less advanced classes, owing to absenteeism from various classes, including illness. But when I was lucky enough to teach physics, as per my license, this was not a significant factor. In those years, especially in my early ones, when I was fortunate to have diligent students, I could expect to have to grade about 150 x5 = 750 homework assignments a week, plus 150 lab. assignments.

Plus, of course, I had to prepare lessons, demonstrations, handouts, quizzes, exams, etc. I almost never, in all those years, had the luxury of teaching one subject alone. So these latter tasks had to duplicated for each subject taught. Union contract rules, instituted only in the 70′s, I believe, limited the number of such such separate “preps” to 4. But newer teachers often did not dare to complain if they got 5, just as they were reluctant to complain about oversize classes. And with good reason, too often, unfortunately. Again, a strong chapter leader (a rarity) made a big difference.

Lab-preps did not count. So I could have any number of those, and was often teaching a combo of bio, earth science, chem and physics labs. Unlike classes, that could possibly be continued the next day (unless one were being “observed”) if interrupted by incidents such as disruptions, genuine difficulties encountered, or even a fruitful line of questioning by an eager student, labs have to be finished, in NY city, within a roughly 40 minute period — this being the time allotted in the laboratory per week to the students and the assigned lab teacher — one who was most often not, for logistical reasons, the class teacher.

A few years ago, joining a new school after being away on unpaid family leave for a couple of years, I found I was assigned to teach two regular classes (in environmental science, far from my subject area) and three labs each day, in bio. I felt I could manage the first, but had doubts about the second assignment — given the extreme misbehavior, even violence, one can encounter from some students in the city schools., especially as a newcomer. This is difficult to handle in a city school laboratory setting, where order, safety and efficiency are essential.

I would also be seeing up to 34x3x5 = 610 students in these bio lab classes each week (in addition to the 34×2 = 68 in my regular environmental science classes, whom I met with each day). I am good with what they call “classroom management”, by dint of years of experience, but in this, I rely on getting to know the students by name. Students also get to know you as a person they can rely on. How to manage this situation I did not know.

Nevertheless, I had little choice. I survived, and even did a good job. NY State was issuing complex new labs that really did not work in the city setting, and a younger teacher had been assigned to manage the fit. She was struggling, but there were many problems. I had to stay back every Friday, and spend a minimum of three to four hours after work to figure out, and amend the labs, so they worked. This involved not only doing the lab myself, but also anticipating (from experience) all the glitches that might arise as students tried to follow the instructions. I put up modified directions on the board, that were used profitably by the other lab teachers, and later incorporated into the labs, for the next year, by the teacher who was assigned.

Now, this has been a bit of a luxury for me, as I am still a working teacher and still have to do all the weekend work that most teachers do. I am due to be observed by a supervisor who narrowly missed being my student in high school by happenstance. But he will have much to tell me about how I should teach. So I had better leave at this point. I have made you aware, perhaps, of just one aspect of the job that we teachers have to deal with — that of sheer, overwhelming numbers. As a finance person, you will see that this cannot truly be dealt with in any meaningful fashion without reducing the student-to-teacher ration below what exists in the city. But that costs money. I have also perhaps raised your awareness as regards the nature of experience.

More next week, if time permits and I have sufficient mental quietude left after being “observed”.

Respectfully, Arjun
Julie Cavanagh

Ken,
In response to, “I’ve always been surprised that more teachers don’t speak out about the issue of ineffective teachers. In private, of course, many teachers will complain about it. In public, though, very few. It might be the biggest piece of evidence that makes me wonder about my assumptions and encourages me to dig deeper.”
As as been mentioned here many times the term “ineffective” is a complicated one. As an “effective” teacher, (with humility I say this knowing those who know me in addition to the parents and students I serve who would agree) I think the reason we do not shout from the rooftops about “ineffective” teachers is because there is no real space to do so, we have no influence, we have no power, and in the current reform debate any thing we would say would be used against us as a whole.
In response to, “In any case, I hear you and others (over and over again… it’s finally sinking in!) to look closer at the management side of the equation to better understand school dynamics.” I would insert into this conversation the idea of ‘peer review’. If we went to a system where teachers are evaluated and supervised by their peers, therefore giving teachers the space to hold eachother accountable, I think we would see far more of a positive impact on the quality of teachers and the profession rather than what we have now, which is a top down, blame based, ineffective evaluation model that is riddled with flaws that encourage political favor, supervisors who are not instructional leaders, and a system that struggles with how to elevate the teaching profession. The fact is, the overwhelming majority of teachers are effective. I work with an amazing group of educators at PS 15 and other education advocates across the city. I am humbled whenever I am in their presence. It is immensely frustrating that the overwhelming majority of us are under attack for the very few who do the bare minimum or perhaps should even choose another profession. This is what is most concerning to me and points to a larger agenda to undermine public education. If ‘ed deformers’ were really concerned about how to attract and keep quality teachers or ‘effective’ teachers, they would not be attacking all of us, but seeking authentic ways to weed out the few, and those authentic methods certainly would not be based on test scores, merit pay, and getting rid of tenure. No data and research supports those methods as effective, but yet they are the cornerstone of the current reform debate.
Michael F, thank you for your kind words about our work. We all have different roles to play in this movement, but I certainly am always in awe of your precise, informed and eloquent writings on these issues.
Richard Skibins

Diana, if layoff volunteers were asked for, then those Leadership Academy principals would give trumped-up “U” ratings to senior teachers, then threaten to have their licences revoked with a 3020a if they didn’t “volunteer” to go.
http://ednotesonline.blogspot.com/ Norm

” Or is it that the problem is not as bad or simple as the education deformers think? ”

You nailed it Ken. There were a few horror stories I remember over the years – maybe a handful – and they didn’t last. Well, one did. We had a guy teaching CRMD (retarded kids) in my school and the admins, who were very benign in this case were too benign. When they were overthrown by the district who put in a political operative as principal, she was able to gain support among some of the teachers because they were horrified at this guy being coddled by the old admins. He went on sabbatical and was replaced for one year by a young dynamic teacher who would have been excessed when he came back. The very idea of this happening led to the principal having a “talk” with the guy who quickly transferred and became someone else’s problem. I don’t think one teacher in the school felt she was wrong to do this and that young teacher became a stalwart for a decade. So I understand the point you make. But this is a rare case and ed deformers seem to think it is almost the Norm – not me of course.

I tell this story to illustrate that in the worst cases teachers did sort of act behind the scenes. If the admins wanted to make a case against him I guess they could have. Today he would be chopped pretty quickly.

When I think of the people I worked with in 2 schools over 30 years, I would say that almost everyone was pretty competent and even using your terms fairly effective – though we would define it differently. Success and failure varied with the class and the numbers and the kinds of kids. I can remember one kid in particular that I utterly failed with – to the extent that her mother put her in another school because I kept calling her at work every day. But my class benefitted with her departure.

I want to echo Julie’s statement about the crew she works with. Everyone I meet from her school seems to be dedicated – and they are a fairly young staff. Yet I bet they would support the layoff by seniority concept because teachers know that basically that is the best of a messy world.

I think the honest ed deformers must take the voice of the teacher into account. I don’t mean the union hierarchy but the people working in the classrooms. These are not just the older teachers but even the younger ones who have been around for 5 years or so. In 1975 when 15000 teachers were chopped, they were recalled in an orderly process. Knowing that people were able to make plans based on this order. When you throw the cards up in the air, you lose a lot more than you gain.

And yes, take a look at a situation where many of us have seen way more supervisors who are ineffective than teachers. In my 40 years in the system the % of excellent supervisors I came across came to a handful while the % excellent teachers was much higher. That is what brings me back to where we started. Teachers have a major stake in having fair and competent admins. and would choose the best people – and get rid of them if they screwed up. The idea that they want someone “easy” is wrong. Teachers resent the hell when they feel a colleague is getting away with something or skating along due to admin favoritism. Democratizing the schools would be the way to true ed reform.

I want to make one more point. We hear about the superstar teacher as an ideal. I’ve heard of cases where the “star” wanted to be treated like one. Also teachers who put down colleagues as not working as hard as them. And those that wouldn’t lift a finger to help someone else. When judging teacher effectiveness, the overall impact on the school can be a factor. Given a choice of someone who brings everyone’s game up while they may not be considered as “good” as others who is preferred? That is the undermining aspect of proposals for individual merit pay. Schools need a high level of cooperation to run well. Get people fighting over who gets money for high scores and that is destroyed.

And by the way, the charter school invasions of public school space has created the same kinds of destructive tensions.
Julie Cavanagh

Norm is absolutely correct on two points above (and many others): 1. PS 15 teachers have had the conversation about seniority rules, and we absolutely want to keep those rules in place. While there certainly are flaws in the system that many of us agree could be remedied w/ peer review or other options in our humble opinion, we fully contend and understand that this is the fairest and most ethical treatment of our hardworking professionals. In addition, we have experienced the downside of seniority rules, last year we lost an amazing teacher to excessing who I mentored. I certainly would not have ‘chosen her to leave first’. However, she became a valuable asset at another great school, and the protections our rights afford us are more important than the consequences we would surely endure if we were not protected. As an educational advocate and activist, I would be absolutely silenced out of fear of losing my job, if I did not have the security of seniority rules and tenure. If we silence teachers from speaking out on important educational issues, that they are experts on because they are on the ground and have a unique perspective and experience, we do this to our peril and undermine our great democracy.
2. On the other point regarding systems like merit pay and this causing division. We at PS 15 have experienced this too. We are part of; I guess you would call it the pilot program, of a merit pay like system, ‘bonus pay’. The last two years we have met ‘goals’ (I put this in quotes because the goals are based on test score/school accountability report data and I think goals based on this are invalid by nature) and the DOE has given all UFT staff in the school a ‘bonus’. Each UFT member generates $3,000 and the school decides (there is a committee comprised of two teachers, the principal and his/her designee) how the money will be allocated. This is the perfect tool for “divide and conquer”… but we are savvy enough to know this so we say, ‘if you generate it, you get it’. There have been temptations to get into the whole, ‘well she or he works harder, he or she is on a testing grade, he or she has more of a class load, he or she works longer hours, teachers should get more than paras… blah, blah,” but we resist, because we know this is the true intention. If educators were driven by monetary gain and praise, we wouldn’t have chosen this profession (as I look at my stack of unpaid bills). Again, a corporate model inserting itself where it has no place; it shows a complete lack of understanding, and in my opinion contempt, for the teaching profession I love and value.

Our Twitter Updates

Overheard just now at a Common Core training: "Is this for third grade?" "Yes, but it used to be for fourth." Context: http://t.co/sToNlRp8 1 hr ago
For some city math teachers, conversion to new Common Core standards may be tough http://t.co/RN55Se2E 3 hrs ago
For more about @OlympusAcademy, whose principal is speaking at #RTTT announcement right now, read our story: http://t.co/1Zb3JLkT 5 hrs ago
P.S. 59, a crowded Manhattan school, is closing its pre-K program to make room for waitlisted students: http://t.co/lbqBlu4D via @DNAInfo 9 hrs ago
For our morning readers: all about a transfer school where students zip toward a diploma at their own pace — online: http://t.co/1Zb3JLkT 11 hrs ago
More updates...

GothamSchools — daily independent reporting on NYC public schools

guest perspective

April 6, 2010

Why Teaching Experience Matters

Tips, questions, feedback?

Follow GothamSchools

Recently Posted Jobs

Chalk It Up

Recent Comments

Events Calendar

RSS Feeds

Our Twitter Updates

Archives

Copyright Notice

May 2012
M	T	W	T	F	S	S
« Apr
	1	2	3	4	5	6
7	8	9	10	11	12	13
14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27
28	29	30	31