Sandra Stotsky on teacher quality (with commentary)

Sorry for the late posting on this one. Professor Sandra Stotsky was the Research Bureau's guest lecturer yesterday at a breakfast at Mass College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences. I thought it very cool to see, by my count, one city councilor, two upper level school administrators, and the city manager (!) at an event on teacher quality. As you'll see below, I question some of the information they got, but nonetheless, the interest is good. Note that the Research Bureau also has the video of this posted on their website. (I stand corrected; it isn't up yet!)
My comments, as always, in italics.

Stotsky: examinations for new superintendents in the 19th century

"the Race to the Top application that came out from the US Dept of Ed" made it "very clear that the US Dept of Ed doesn't think that we have the type of teachers we need"

"far more weight given to" improving the teachers we have, rather than getting good new ones" (okay, can I put out there that both might be important? Speaking as someone who has a small role in running a school system, we've got 24,000 kids in Worcester who are going to show up tomorrow morning at school. We need actual teachers in the classroom.)

"not much about how we make sure that those who get in are like those in Finland, Singapore, Korea and so forth" (I'll post on greater length on this later, but I find it interesting how only parts of the systems in these countries are the ones that get spoken of. How they chose to run their schools is VERY different from the national direction of education in the US right now, for example.)

speaks of the point system of RTTT

"a zero sum game in mind...how we ensure that we have an effective teacher for everyone"

only 14 points at the most for states' plans to strengthen their teacher
"not worth more than 14 points...a glittering generality" in MA's application (she's right--this was widely mocked online--but this is actually true of much of what went into every state application on a host of topics.)
in contrast, 21 points for "high quality pathways for teachers and principals," implying that the current ones are not high quality
no points for specific plans to recruit academically competent individuals for a teaching careeer
"this enormous hole is surprising"

on national math panel: "we found that the" best indicator of a high quality teacher was knowledge of the subject area

"no body of evidence for any other quality of an effective teacher"
"it isn't as though researchers haven't tried...all we can find from high quality research...that teacher knows the subject he or she is teaching"

US Ed might have judged the seriousness of an application by the concrete ideas of high quality teachers

"want to fend off the idea that all you need is" to know your subject, there are other things you need to know (I'm glad she acknowledged this, 'though I think her list of other things was a bit short)

"the application didn't ask for it...(the state) would partner with an unspecified You Teach program" to get undergrads who are majoring in math and science to teach for a few years after graduating

"you know that you already have competent people because they've chosen to major in math and science" (really? That's an indication of high quality? Forgive my bias as an English major, but that inherintly makes them smarter? Or better educated?)

"how it would upgrade admissions standards, it did not tell us"

Levine's report in 2006 that most teacher colleges should be shut down, as they do not have rigorous admissions standards and scattered curriculum

most teachers recruited from the bottom 2/3 of the college class (which is most of the college population...) and most elementary teachers from the bottom 1/3 (report?)

comparision with Singapore recruiting top of classes

"this was not always the case...years ago we used to have students from top schools, particularly women..the pool that has moved in to replace those..those women are now lawyers, doctors, and other things..when we look at GPAs for teachers, particularly in elementary schools, who do not seem to have the knowledge, particularly of math and science, particularly for upper elementary schools" (so part of what we're dealing with here--and note that this isn't just in teaching--is that other opportunities have opened up for women)

licensure exams, as compared with other professions "a reasonable body of knowledge" needed to pass the initial exam

(law for bar exam, basic biology, etc, for med; CPA "extremely demanding exams")

exams for teachers are "basically at the middle to high school level...being licenced on the exam that they might have been able to pass in high school" (I'd dispute this, by the way...the language exams , for example, are stunning in scope)

"academically weak licencing test discrimate against urban students who depend far more on their teachers" for academic growth (note that this was, by her title, to be her major point, but her talk as a whole didn't focus that much on the discrimination against urban students)

Ed Reform in 1993

in 1996, 60% of those who took the test flunked "nobody even knew what was on the test, how hard it was"
during the Clinton administration, "a number of them became very concerned about what this said about the rest of the country"
Congress passed a special provision: every cohorent of prospective teachers had to be shown each year their pass rate
"unfortunately, as with many other kinds of laws, that left it up to states" to choose what test to give (because it's against the law for Congress to set national curriculum...it isn't as though Congress was shirking)

Mtel....speaks of how "strong a test" it is...adopted by Connecticut, Minnesota
"made a difference in Massachusetts"
"can't do it alone with standards..have to have an effect somewhere...have to have teeth"
A bad test with good standards, a good test with bad standards...
"you could have good tests based on good standards, which is what we've had in this state for many years" (really?)

all demographic groups have risen in this state, "the entire boat is rising"

"we know that an academically stronger teaching core, makes a difference"
"what have some critics tried to challenge...many undergraduates...at schools of ed fail these tests"

pass rates for elementary school teachers by subject area; only up on a website for Massachusetts "there's no other state that has asked to have that information up on a website"

pass rates for some tests is rather low; "whose fault is it? is it the fault of the test?" (AHHHH...well, you see: it could be; you might remember I posted on this. Sometimes the tests are wrong. I have to say that I find it rather disturbing that someone in education, who presumably writes exams, doesn't acknowledge even the possibility of bias and weakness in tests, not to mention fifty years of research questioning the neutrality of standardized tests. )

"what it is doing, is trying to protect children from incompetent teachers"

"a completely different philosophical orientation"
have there been requirements for elementary teachers to take math courses?

"not the fault of the test...the test is the message simply telling you" of faults in the system (funny to see such strick adherence to research, right up until we get to the test, which is an article of faith)
"it isn't because there are problems with the entire structure of the test"
"pitiful number who pass chemistry...asked a grad assistant to look at the exam" assistant said it was a freshman college exam (based on her personal experience...?)

"you don't know how to understand how the pass rates are so low..where are they coming from?"
"this is a mystery, we don't know, we don't have the research"
"tests are not the problem"
 (I'm not exaggerating this, by the way: she really repeated this several times.)
RFP for teacher test development next spring for a five year contract

"the DESE needs to hear from more than 'the field'...which has an interest in making the test easier and lowering the cut scores" (really?
"needs to hear from business community, school committees, and others" (while I'd heartily disagree with the lowering aspect, I'd agree that the DESE needs to hear from lots of voices on this, as well as any other decisions they make. They don' t hear enough from citizens.)
new set of standards, Common Core: does the assessment need changing?

Partnership for 21st century skills (businesses looking for school business): "such undefinable topics as creativity, critical thinking, problem solving"
require a lot of instructional time away from "academic subject matter...it is a secondary application of these skills"
she insists you need "actual academic learning" in order to get to critical thinking
(Actually, these things need not be separated; if we're doing the academic subjects right--and not drill and kill--we should be teaching critical thinking and such as we teach the subjects. To dismiss critical thinking with an airy wave of one's hand as 'not core' is to leave our future citizens unable, for example, to evaluate appropriately election year commentary. Or lectures on teacher quality.)

"I know there will be political pressures from the field..to open up the field to a 'broader group'...ask education schools to be held accountable...faculty in schools of ed"

"I am not for holding teachers accountable for something they should have taught in their training programs...there's something that the education schools should be held accountable for"

reviewing tests..."broaden" represenation"

"public interest represenation" on review of teacher test

The complaint will come "but then you'll knock out more teachers who want to become teachers"
Yes, but "we produce far too many" teachers :"hordes upon hordes of teachers, most of whom can't find jobs" (I have to say, I'd like to see numbers on this one. Part of this is that every teacher doesn't equal every other teacher, and there are definite shortages in some areas of education.)
vacancies anticipated: allow that many teachers
"unless you set a higher bar, you will not get a higher" quality of candidate
Questions in the next post