Good teachers matter. This may seem obvious to anyone who has a child in school or, for that matter, to anyone who has been a child in school. For a long time, though, researchers couldn't actually prove that teaching talent was important. But new research finally shows that teacher quality is a close cousin to student achievement: A great teacher can cram one-and-a-half grades' worth of learning into a single year, while laggards are lucky to accomplish half that much. Parents and kids, it seems, have been right all along to care whether they were assigned to Mrs. Smith or Mr. Brown.
Yet, while we know now that better teachers are critical, flaws in the way that administrators select and retain them mean that schools don't always hire the best.
Many ingredients for good teaching are difficult to ascertain in advance—charisma and diligence come to mind—but research shows a teacher's own ability on standardized tests reliably predicts good performance in the classroom. You would think, then, that top-scoring teachers would be swimming in job offers, right? Not so, says Vanderbilt University professor Dale Ballou. High-scoring teaching applicants "do not fare better than others in the job market," he writes. "Indeed, remarkably they do somewhat worse."
Even more surprising, given the national shortage of highly skilled math and science teachers, school administrators are more keen to hire education majors than applicants who have math or science degrees. No one knows for sure why those who hire teachers routinely overlook top talent. Perhaps they wrongly think that the qualifications they shun make little difference for students. Also, administrators are probably naturally drawn to teachers who remind them of themselves.
But failing to recognize the qualities that make teachers truly effective (and to construct incentives to attract and retain more of these top performers) has serious consequences. For example, because schools don't always hire the best applicants, across-the-board salary increases cannot improve teacher quality much, and may even worsen it. That's because higher salaries draw more weak as well as strong applicants into teaching—applicants the current hiring system can't adequately screen. Unless administrators have incentives to hire the best teachers available, it's pointless to give them a larger group to choose from.
If public school hiring processes are bad, their compensation policies are worse. Most districts pay solely based on years of experience and the presence of a master's degree, a formula that makes the Federal General Schedule—which governs pay for U.S. bureaucrats—look flexible. Study after study has shown that teachers with master's degrees are no better than those without. Job experience does matter, but only for the first few years, according to research by Hoover Institution's Eric A. Hanushek. A teacher with 15 years of experience is no more effective, on average, than a teacher with five years of experience, but which one do you think is paid more?
This toxic combination of rigid pay and steep rewards for seniority causes average quality to decline rather than increase as teacher groups get older. Top performers often leave the field early for industries that reward their excellence. Mediocre teachers, on the other hand, are soon overcompensated by seniority pay. And because they are paid more than their skills command elsewhere, these less-capable pedagogues settle in to provide many years of ineffectual instruction.
So how can we separate the wheat from the chaff in the teaching profession? To make American schools competitive, we must rethink seniority pay, the value of master's degrees, and the notion that a teacher can teach everything equally well—especially math and science—without appropriate preparation in the subject.
Our current education system is unlikely to accomplish this dramatic rethinking. Imagine, for a moment, that American cars had been free in recent decades, while Toyotas and Hondas sold at full price. We'd probably be driving Falcons and Corvairs today. Free public education suffers from a lack of competition in just this way. So while industries from aerospace to drugs have transformed themselves in order to compete, public schooling has stagnated.
School choice could spark the kind of reformation this industry needs by motivating administrators to hire the best and adopt new strategies to keep top teachers in the classroom. The lesson that good teachers matter should be taught, not as a theory, but as a practice.
初級會計職稱中級會計職稱經(jīng)濟(jì)師注冊會計師證券從業(yè)銀行從業(yè)會計實(shí)操統(tǒng)計師審計師高級會計師基金從業(yè)資格期貨從業(yè)資格稅務(wù)師資產(chǎn)評估師國際內(nèi)審師ACCA/CAT價格鑒證師統(tǒng)計資格從業(yè)
一級建造師二級建造師二級建造師造價工程師土建職稱公路檢測工程師建筑八大員注冊建筑師二級造價師監(jiān)理工程師咨詢工程師房地產(chǎn)估價師 城鄉(xiāng)規(guī)劃師結(jié)構(gòu)工程師巖土工程師安全工程師設(shè)備監(jiān)理師環(huán)境影響評價土地登記代理公路造價師公路監(jiān)理師化工工程師暖通工程師給排水工程師計量工程師
人力資源考試教師資格考試出版專業(yè)資格健康管理師導(dǎo)游考試社會工作者司法考試職稱計算機(jī)營養(yǎng)師心理咨詢師育嬰師事業(yè)單位教師招聘理財規(guī)劃師公務(wù)員公選考試招警考試選調(diào)生村官
執(zhí)業(yè)藥師執(zhí)業(yè)醫(yī)師衛(wèi)生資格考試衛(wèi)生高級職稱執(zhí)業(yè)護(hù)士初級護(hù)師主管護(hù)師住院醫(yī)師臨床執(zhí)業(yè)醫(yī)師臨床助理醫(yī)師中醫(yī)執(zhí)業(yè)醫(yī)師中醫(yī)助理醫(yī)師中西醫(yī)醫(yī)師中西醫(yī)助理口腔執(zhí)業(yè)醫(yī)師口腔助理醫(yī)師公共衛(wèi)生醫(yī)師公衛(wèi)助理醫(yī)師實(shí)踐技能內(nèi)科主治醫(yī)師外科主治醫(yī)師中醫(yī)內(nèi)科主治兒科主治醫(yī)師婦產(chǎn)科醫(yī)師西藥士/師中藥士/師臨床檢驗(yàn)技師臨床醫(yī)學(xué)理論中醫(yī)理論