There is a shared delusion driving education reform. A Kool-Aid being served up in school districts, teacher colleges and the education bureaucracy.
The delusion is that everyone assumes better teaching means students learn more.
The delusion takes two forms. Some people are actively convinced the delusion is true, and that policy can take wing from this departure point. Others are mere passive enablers, willing to believe by default that the delusion is probably true, or at least that it's not worth seeking an alternative explanation.
What if it doesn't? Where is the data directly linking improved teaching to improved learning?
Or, more precisely, what if improved learning coincides or correlates with improved teaching, but there's no significant causal link between putting a better-trained teacher at the front of the room and getting a better result on student assessments?
Now, before you hit the comment button, permit me to stipulate:
- By "bad students," I mean students who perform poorly on standardized assessments, and particularly those students whose state test scores don't truly represent what they know.
It's always and everywhere a good thing to improve teaching, just like it's a good thing to keep your tires properly inflated and to maintain a balanced diet. But it's also the case that teaching is not the sole engine pulling the school train, just like a car with perfectly inflated tires may yet stall, and someone can get sick despite eating their fruits and vegetables. Teachers who are highly qualified in their subjects, especially at the secondary level and particularly in mathematics, are probably going to do a better job, on average, than teachers who lack those qualifications. Dollars to doughnuts, there are studies out there directly contradicting the ones I cite, but are there really independent studies (read, neither a specific political agenda nor financial interest in a particular product) over large populations and a significant time period, showing a causal link? I doubt it.NCLB and the education establishment place the entire onus for student learning on teachers
-- more teacher education, more professional development, more performance evaluations, filing lesson plans, submitting assessments for approval, tying pay and retention to student performance on NCLB-mandated tests -- all without direct evidence.
Much of what's being implemented in our schools shows classic post hoc ergo propter hoc thinking and non-systemic evaluation, so that correlation appears to be causation. Just because two things happen in sequence doesn't mean the first one caused the second, and things that happen at the same time don't necessarily share causes.
I'm a teacher. I work hard and am open to new ideas and training. I don't threaten to strike, though I understand why the teachers in Chicago went out.
But my students' performance is the result of numerous inputs -- parental support, commitment to learning, what they ate for breakfast -- and that includes whether the student really tries.
Should I be rewarded for the work I do, or rewarded/penalized for the work of my students?
Clabaugh, G. & Rozycki, E. (1990). Understanding schools: the foundations of education. New York, NY: Harper & Rowe.
Goe, L. (2007). The link between teacher quality and student outcomes: a research synthesis. National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality, retrieved online.
Wayne, A. & Youngs, P. (2003). Teacher characteristics and student achievement gains: a review. Review of Educational Research 73 (1), 89-122.
Support HuffPost
Our 2024 Coverage Needs You
Your Loyalty Means The World To Us
At HuffPost, we believe that everyone needs high-quality journalism, but we understand that not everyone can afford to pay for expensive news subscriptions. That is why we are committed to providing deeply reported, carefully fact-checked news that is freely accessible to everyone.
Whether you come to HuffPost for updates on the 2024 presidential race, hard-hitting investigations into critical issues facing our country today, or trending stories that make you laugh, we appreciate you. The truth is, news costs money to produce, and we are proud that we have never put our stories behind an expensive paywall.
Would you join us to help keep our stories free for all? Your contribution of as little as $2 will go a long way.
Can't afford to donate? Support HuffPost by creating a free account and log in while you read.
As Americans head to the polls in 2024, the very future of our country is at stake. At HuffPost, we believe that a free press is critical to creating well-informed voters. That's why our journalism is free for everyone, even though other newsrooms retreat behind expensive paywalls.
Our journalists will continue to cover the twists and turns during this historic presidential election. With your help, we'll bring you hard-hitting investigations, well-researched analysis and timely takes you can't find elsewhere. Reporting in this current political climate is a responsibility we do not take lightly, and we thank you for your support.
Contribute as little as $2 to keep our news free for all.
Can't afford to donate? Support HuffPost by creating a free account and log in while you read.
Dear HuffPost Reader
Thank you for your past contribution to HuffPost. We are sincerely grateful for readers like you who help us ensure that we can keep our journalism free for everyone.
The stakes are high this year, and our 2024 coverage could use continued support. Would you consider becoming a regular HuffPost contributor?
Dear HuffPost Reader
Thank you for your past contribution to HuffPost. We are sincerely grateful for readers like you who help us ensure that we can keep our journalism free for everyone.
The stakes are high this year, and our 2024 coverage could use continued support. If circumstances have changed since you last contributed, we hope you’ll consider contributing to HuffPost once more.
Already contributed? Log in to hide these messages.
