Join the conversation

...about what is working in our public schools.

Message to Educonomists: You Can't Ignore the Important Stuff

vonzastrowc's picture

Emily and Bryan Hassel have an idea: Don't get too hung up on plans to make teachers better. Instead, figure out how to help the best teachers reach far more students. After all, they argue, the top 20 percent of teachers are three times as effective as the bottom 20 percent.

Try as they might, though, they cannot escape the need to support teachers through good old fashioned staff development, curriculum and assessment. It's time the education economists paid much closer attention to these critical areas, which are just so déclassé these days.

Of course, the Hassels' argument raises all sorts of questions. How do you identify the top 20 percent of teachers? Do we trust test scores? Will teachers stay in the top 20 percent from year to year? Are the "top" teachers good in every kind of school? Are they effective with every kind of student?

But the Hassels face an even bigger challenge. Their plan will require nothing short of a massive investment in all those things their fellow educonomists find oh-so tedious: Teacher training. New curricula. Much, much better tests. If we pursue the Hassels' brave new reforms the way we pursue most reforms--on the cheap--then we're going to be in a whole heap of trouble.

The Hassels, like so many of their ideological brethren, seem to believe that great teachers are born, not made. Hence their relatively dim view of staff development. (I've always found it curious that so many reformers who insist that every child can learn believe teachers are ineducable. Every child has limitless potential, they say, but don't waste your money on developing teachers' talents.)

The Hassels offer several ideas for spreading the best teachers around. The best teachers can manage more than one classroom with lesser teachers working for them. The best teachers can teach online to reach far more students than they can in brick-and-mortar classrooms. Or the very best could be beamed via television or "hologram" to thousands or millions of students, with lesser teachers facilitating learning online or in classrooms.

Now, to the Hassels' credit, they recognize that their great edifice still rests on a sandy foundation. They admit that we lack reliable means of identifying the best teachers. They admit that the best teachers may become less effective in their new roles. And they admit that even the best teachers will need new curricula and tools to be succeed.

So what happens if we build the Hassels' brave new world without big investments in staff development, curriculum and assessments? I shudder to think of it.

Take, for example, the importance of better tests. The Hassels envision a complex economy where test scores are the coin of the realm. This is more than just a metaphor to them. They actually speculate that private investors could buy "teacher futures" and make money on rising test scores. Teachers' stock would literally go up and down.

You'd think our recent adventures on Wall Street would make the Hassels a bit squeamish about this vision for the future. Their vision dramatically raises the stakes of good assessment. Just imagine. Unless we overhaul our tests, the Hassels' education economy would create a bubble far more dangerous than the one that just destroyed jobs and savings.

And what about staff development? How do we prepare teachers to become managers, on-line educators or front-line workers? How do we transfer their talents to a wholly new context? What happens to "the best" teachers if we fling them into an entirely new pool? In a sink-or-swim environment, even the best will sink.

The Hassels actually make some very important points. We have to give teachers much more room for professional growth. Technology may well transform teachers' roles and bring the very best within reach of the students who need them most.

But their work also bears a hidden message for the educonomists: All roads to reform lead through better curriculum, staff development and tests. Let's hope the educonomists hear it.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post


Recently I had to email a

Recently I had to email a blogger with a large following. She got quite a few people outraged over an Onion story in her blog post. I told her that the Onion is a joke webesite and the stories are meant to be funny... They are not meant to be taken seriously.

And now I have to ask this: Is this paper really real? "3X" teachers? The authors didn't think about the pant size jokes that would engender? At least they didn't call them XXX teachers, but gimme a break.

I think the paper is a joke, especially as evidenced by the "3X" thing, but also by the suggestion that we need to pile more work on the most effective teachers (thus making them more effective, right??) and the idea that teachers are commonly measured in "quintiles" in the first place.

This paper is about as rich as one I read in which it was postulated that if we just even out everyone's "out of school factors," we'd all get roughly the same education. The paper writer even had the nerve to make up the term "OSF" to refer to the difference in "life experiences" children have.

PLEASE tell me this is a joke. Surely most education writers are not that out of touch with reality.

To me, the "3X" teacher

To me, the "3X" teacher sounded more like a hot new car: the T3X, which can go from 0 to 60 students in just minutes--in all terrains, city or rural, suburban or ex-urban.

Economists like to turn people into fixed variables. It makes it easier for them to do their work. Still, the Hassels do acknowledge a lot of the complications in the final portions of their paper, so they do make an honest effort to face reality. And I do think the idea of giving teachers better career paths and more room for growth is an important one--and idea they embed in their report. So I'm not sure the report really seems as farcical as the Onion.

That said, those who would put their ideas in practice--if they go whole hog--would likely ignore all those nagging problems with implementation. We've sure seen it happen before!

There are characteristics

There are characteristics that good teachers, great teachers, best teachers, basically all share and are not dissimilar -the following website may be useful or interseting and to many good teachers inspirational...
http://www.orhanseyfiari.com/arigreatteachers.html

Chinese says if you plan for

Chinese says if you plan for 100 years then build a school. That is the importance of school. The present system of education needs a complete reformation. And it must start by giving priority to good teachers. As they are the real guide of children to their destiny. But it should not mean to increase the work pressure rather to give them sufficient space to enhance and spread their quality of teaching among both the students as well as teachers.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options