This goal – recruiting and retaining talented people into teaching – is shared by most everyone, but it is among the most central emphases of the diverse group that might be called market-based reformers. Their idea is to change compensation structures, performance evaluations and other systems in order to create the kind of environment that will be appealing to high-achieving, less risk-averse people, as well as to ensure that those who aren’t cut out for the job are compelled to leave. This will, so the argument goes, create a “dynamic profession” more in line with the high risk, high reward model common among the private sector firms competing for the same pool of young workers.

No matter your feelings on TFA, it’s more than fair to say that their corps members fit this profile perfectly. On paper, they aren’t just “top third,” but top third of the top third. TFA cohorts enter the labor market having been among the highest achievers in the best colleges and universities in the nation. Getting accepted to the program is very, very difficult. Those who make it are not only service-oriented, but also smart, hard-working and ambitious. They are exactly the kind of worker that employers crave, and market-based reformers have made it among their central purposes to attract to the profession.

Yet, at least by the standard of test-based productivity, TFA teachers really don’t do better, on average, than their peers, and when there are demonstrated differences, they are often relatively small and concentrated in math (the latter, by the way, might suggest the role of unobserved differences in content knowledge). Now, again, there is some variation in the findings, and the number and scope of these analyses are limited – we’re nowhere near some kind of research consensus on these comparisons of test-based productivity, to say nothing of other sorts of student outcomes.
[...]
But, to me, one of the big, underdiscussed lessons of TFA is less about the program itself than what the test-based empirical research on its corps members suggests about the larger issue of teacher recruitment. Namely, it indicates that “talent” as typically gauged in the private sector may not make much of a difference in the classroom, at least not by itself. This doesn’t necessarily mean that market-based policies won’t lure great teachers, but it does suggest that, if we’re going to enact massive changes in personnel policy to attract a certain “type” of person to teaching, we might reexamine our assumptions on who we’re trying to attract and what they want.

Via.

As I enter my first year of teaching, I am frustrated — like many teachers in America — by the lack of respect for my profession.

I know I will face the “shorter days, more holidays, and long summer break” comments that have long been directed at teachers, but I can handle those. (My Dad preached Socrates when I was a kid — “I know nothing, except the fact of my ignorance” — and I’ve bought into this philosophy.) People who assume teaching is easy don’t understand the complexities of the profession. But when I read commentary from people inside the education reform movement, it seems clear that some of them choose to ignore the facts.

Some education reformers dismiss and often insult the vast, peer-reviewed literature written by education professors, teacher researchers, and others. What is so maddening is that these reformers know that the research exists, choose not to give it a second of their time, and then have the gall to say teachers aren’t putting students first. By refusing to give credence to research that comes directly from classrooms, reformers are effectively silencing teachers. This is the kind of disrespect I cannot stomach.

[readon2 url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/the-concerns-of-a-first-year-teacher/2011/08/03/gIQA70L6sI_blog.html"]Continue reading...[/readon2]

Recruiting the best?

The concerns of a first-year teacher