Another aspect of requiring advanced degrees is the continuation of student loan debt. I work in the mortgage industry and see many teachers with student loan payments that exceed their car payments. If a teacher is married to another teacher, monthly payments can equal or exceed the mortgage payment they are applying for.
The system in my state requires the continuing education to advance up the pay scale. This system guantees income for universities on the backs of the teachers.
Am I misinterpreting the first graph or do high school teachers seem to get worse with time, to about the same degree that elementary and middle school teachers improve? This is surprising to me
I'm curious to see if you can cut that data between unionized and non-unionized teachers. I wonder if that plays a role at the high school level, and not as much at the elementary and middle school level, given the nature of the content that has to be taught.
Thank you! That's what I suspected - too much job security likely becomes somewhat stultifying. Also probably leads to selection bias in terms of who remains.
Could be that the HS-teachers get stuck in their routines after some years, while their students actually change over the decades (and the content of their topics, too). Growing experience with the small kids otoh may well improve results. At 25 yrs you may well be able to identify with the teens, you don't really remember how it was to be 8.
It’s not that odd. HS teachers stay in their jobs long after they’re burnt out; or they don’t keep up w changes in the world well (technology!).
I would argue, too, that it depends on the degree and the subject taught. Many subjects aren’t tested. Advanced art, music, or drama degrees? I know my masters in art education expanded my mediums that benefitted my students. Could you test that? Probably not quantitatively. Qualitatively. Though!!
This makes some amount of intuitive sense. Why should the ability to pass calculus III or do advanced matrix manipulation be correlated with someones ability to teach HS algebra?
There is no real mechanism by which the benefits of a teacher with collegiate-level knowledge would even show up in metrics designed to assess a student's grasp of k-12 level knowledge. The latter sort of knowledge builds on the former, not the other way around.
If one considers the actual scenarios in which a teacher with a subject-relevant degree would have an advantage over someone with only a HS diploma and a teaching certification, then it quickly becomes clear that a teacher with knowledge "surplus to requirement" would only benefit those students seeking knowledge "surplus to requirements". There is no reason to expect that a teacher's ability to "teach towards the test" should be correlated with their ability to answer questions beyond the bounds of that test.
The benefits of teachers with higher education would probably show up more in AP scores and students having a better performance in college. However, it seems wrong to say its specfically an "issue" of college expectations. If shop class made a grand return, complete with a standardized test for "basic practical skills any HS graduate should know", then there's no real reason to think Master Electrician hired on as teacher would do better at "teaching towards the test" than a competent general contractor.
Granting all this, parents are still looking for signals of good teachers—it probably doesn't matter to them if those are correlational rather than causal? All schools are going to say, “we have excellent teachers”. And parents don’t get multiple trials.
The credentialism is most certainly a fraudulent way for academia to feed itself. Masters degrees for teachers K-12 are an academic money mill which is detrimental to all.
In addition, a teacher may gain a tenure track appointment to teach his Trade by getting a degree in an entirely unrelated field, for example a fully ASE certified auto technician needing to get a 4 year degree in business in order to have a full time job to teach automotive mechanics. True Story. This type of standard is common in the vocational schools. Some will settle simply with an unrelated associate degree, but advancement requires more education in the unrelated field.
The problem with this article’s thesis, to me, is the assumption that students’ standardized test scores represent good teaching, that the goal of school is to produce people who score well on multiple choice tests. I leave it up to others to decide whether that result measures good teaching. Personally, I think there’s a whole bunch of things great teachers do and important outcomes that aren’t measured by standardized tests.
I’ve spent time looking at teachers, teacher education, their backgrounds, and beliefs, trying to figure out how they should be educated. It’s incredibly complex, like most things involving people, especially when you try to tease out individual variables and measure them (independent variables). It’s easier to measure degree attainment or gpa (hence their presence in the literature); it’s harder to measure “enthusiasm” or “likes kids” or “believes in their abilities.”
But, then, agreeing on outcomes (dependent variables) is hard, too. What’s most important? Test scores? Enthusiasm for school or a subject? Finishing school? Getting a job? Income ten years later? Involvement in environmental or political activity? Just being a content, productive member of society? Views about educational goals change often and, again, some are easier to measure than others.
I think the best teachers know their subject (even elementary teachers), like their students as much or more as the content they’re teaching (even college teachers), and use their knowledge of both to challenge students in ways that students find difficult but ultimately doable, building both confidence and abilities together. We like students leaving school who have the skills and motivation to keep learning on their own, forever. I think.
Teachers matter. Schools matter. Parents matter. Society matters! … And figuring out how to measure all these things matters. I’m glad you’re trying!
You are going to forever see what you want to see. Test scores are actually a good comparative measure of interventions. Most of the test score is going to be "family" or residual, but against that background a few points in test scores does actually tell you something.
It actually isn't complicated. It's just that the numbers don't say what you want.
Go hire all the teachers who are enthusiastic and like kids that you want.
You could be right. Most people “see what (they) want to see,” and I’m probably no different. FWIW, I did write about liking kids—who wants a teacher who doesn’t? But I also wrote the best T’s know their subject, and know how to use their knowledge to challenge kids in ways they find difficult but doable (which requires understanding what the kids can do). That, in turn, is different from understanding textbook content. It’s a deeper understanding. I promise I am not saying it’s only about liking kids.
Teachers should not be required to get degrees. How many of the greatest minds in American history were taught by teachers who had just completed high school themselves? Read the last two chapters of Laura Ingalls Wilder's book "Little Town On the Prairie" to get a glimpse of what an American education used to be.
I believe teaching has fallen victim to the idea that it needs professionalization, if I may use the term.
There may be some selection bias in that the teachers who are better tend to stay. I don't think that will be a huge factor, but the data does not eliminate it. Similarly, If teacher training or recruitment has deteriorated over the years, then teachers trained 25 years ago might have been a little better to start out with, rather than gotten better over the years.
That doesn't mean it's not just correlation. Huge Scandinavian cohorts of draftees for required military service show that unmarried parents affects children, but not the death of a parent. If you would have been a good parent if you lived, that seems to be enough. Don't overlook genetics in the "family" effects.
Who would want Walter White as a chemistry teacher? And if you watch Breaking Bad: he was bad at hs teaching. - 3 of my teachers had PhDs ( 2 biology, 1 music). Rarely helped their teaching.
Is there a relationship between teacher IQ, test scores, or GPA and effectiveness? What about degrees in the subjects they are teaching, rather than education degrees?
Another aspect of requiring advanced degrees is the continuation of student loan debt. I work in the mortgage industry and see many teachers with student loan payments that exceed their car payments. If a teacher is married to another teacher, monthly payments can equal or exceed the mortgage payment they are applying for.
The system in my state requires the continuing education to advance up the pay scale. This system guantees income for universities on the backs of the teachers.
Am I misinterpreting the first graph or do high school teachers seem to get worse with time, to about the same degree that elementary and middle school teachers improve? This is surprising to me
That is what it suggests. It's odd.
I'm curious to see if you can cut that data between unionized and non-unionized teachers. I wonder if that plays a role at the high school level, and not as much at the elementary and middle school level, given the nature of the content that has to be taught.
I linked a RTW study which gets pretty close to the right estimand for you. RTW led to small benefits for students.
Thank you! That's what I suspected - too much job security likely becomes somewhat stultifying. Also probably leads to selection bias in terms of who remains.
Could be that the HS-teachers get stuck in their routines after some years, while their students actually change over the decades (and the content of their topics, too). Growing experience with the small kids otoh may well improve results. At 25 yrs you may well be able to identify with the teens, you don't really remember how it was to be 8.
It’s not that odd. HS teachers stay in their jobs long after they’re burnt out; or they don’t keep up w changes in the world well (technology!).
I would argue, too, that it depends on the degree and the subject taught. Many subjects aren’t tested. Advanced art, music, or drama degrees? I know my masters in art education expanded my mediums that benefitted my students. Could you test that? Probably not quantitatively. Qualitatively. Though!!
Me too, this is really weird! I'm surprised there is no commentary on that
This makes some amount of intuitive sense. Why should the ability to pass calculus III or do advanced matrix manipulation be correlated with someones ability to teach HS algebra?
There is no real mechanism by which the benefits of a teacher with collegiate-level knowledge would even show up in metrics designed to assess a student's grasp of k-12 level knowledge. The latter sort of knowledge builds on the former, not the other way around.
If one considers the actual scenarios in which a teacher with a subject-relevant degree would have an advantage over someone with only a HS diploma and a teaching certification, then it quickly becomes clear that a teacher with knowledge "surplus to requirement" would only benefit those students seeking knowledge "surplus to requirements". There is no reason to expect that a teacher's ability to "teach towards the test" should be correlated with their ability to answer questions beyond the bounds of that test.
The benefits of teachers with higher education would probably show up more in AP scores and students having a better performance in college. However, it seems wrong to say its specfically an "issue" of college expectations. If shop class made a grand return, complete with a standardized test for "basic practical skills any HS graduate should know", then there's no real reason to think Master Electrician hired on as teacher would do better at "teaching towards the test" than a competent general contractor.
Intact family structure.
Having both parents married and in the home is the single best predictor of student performance.
1. Evidence?
2. How do we know it's not just correlation? Maybe there is an instrument that causes families to break up, like the accidental death of a sibling?
It is just correlation
Granting all this, parents are still looking for signals of good teachers—it probably doesn't matter to them if those are correlational rather than causal? All schools are going to say, “we have excellent teachers”. And parents don’t get multiple trials.
The credentialism is most certainly a fraudulent way for academia to feed itself. Masters degrees for teachers K-12 are an academic money mill which is detrimental to all.
In addition, a teacher may gain a tenure track appointment to teach his Trade by getting a degree in an entirely unrelated field, for example a fully ASE certified auto technician needing to get a 4 year degree in business in order to have a full time job to teach automotive mechanics. True Story. This type of standard is common in the vocational schools. Some will settle simply with an unrelated associate degree, but advancement requires more education in the unrelated field.
No
(teacher here, public school, middle school, 26 years)
The problem with this article’s thesis, to me, is the assumption that students’ standardized test scores represent good teaching, that the goal of school is to produce people who score well on multiple choice tests. I leave it up to others to decide whether that result measures good teaching. Personally, I think there’s a whole bunch of things great teachers do and important outcomes that aren’t measured by standardized tests.
Enjoy: https://www.cremieux.xyz/p/schooling-effects-beyond-test-scores
I did :-)
I’ve spent time looking at teachers, teacher education, their backgrounds, and beliefs, trying to figure out how they should be educated. It’s incredibly complex, like most things involving people, especially when you try to tease out individual variables and measure them (independent variables). It’s easier to measure degree attainment or gpa (hence their presence in the literature); it’s harder to measure “enthusiasm” or “likes kids” or “believes in their abilities.”
But, then, agreeing on outcomes (dependent variables) is hard, too. What’s most important? Test scores? Enthusiasm for school or a subject? Finishing school? Getting a job? Income ten years later? Involvement in environmental or political activity? Just being a content, productive member of society? Views about educational goals change often and, again, some are easier to measure than others.
I think the best teachers know their subject (even elementary teachers), like their students as much or more as the content they’re teaching (even college teachers), and use their knowledge of both to challenge students in ways that students find difficult but ultimately doable, building both confidence and abilities together. We like students leaving school who have the skills and motivation to keep learning on their own, forever. I think.
Teachers matter. Schools matter. Parents matter. Society matters! … And figuring out how to measure all these things matters. I’m glad you’re trying!
You are going to forever see what you want to see. Test scores are actually a good comparative measure of interventions. Most of the test score is going to be "family" or residual, but against that background a few points in test scores does actually tell you something.
It actually isn't complicated. It's just that the numbers don't say what you want.
Go hire all the teachers who are enthusiastic and like kids that you want.
You could be right. Most people “see what (they) want to see,” and I’m probably no different. FWIW, I did write about liking kids—who wants a teacher who doesn’t? But I also wrote the best T’s know their subject, and know how to use their knowledge to challenge kids in ways they find difficult but doable (which requires understanding what the kids can do). That, in turn, is different from understanding textbook content. It’s a deeper understanding. I promise I am not saying it’s only about liking kids.
That sounds fair. I likely jumped the gun on that one.
It would be useful to rerun this research in a first class education system like Shanghai where all teachers have advanced degrees.
Without variance in degree attainment, we can't estimate the effect of degrees.
How can you compare outcomes if ALL teachers have advanced degrees?
Teachers should not be required to get degrees. How many of the greatest minds in American history were taught by teachers who had just completed high school themselves? Read the last two chapters of Laura Ingalls Wilder's book "Little Town On the Prairie" to get a glimpse of what an American education used to be.
I believe teaching has fallen victim to the idea that it needs professionalization, if I may use the term.
There may be some selection bias in that the teachers who are better tend to stay. I don't think that will be a huge factor, but the data does not eliminate it. Similarly, If teacher training or recruitment has deteriorated over the years, then teachers trained 25 years ago might have been a little better to start out with, rather than gotten better over the years.
DYOR. Just ask any AI to provide links, e.g., "single best predictor of academic performance is married parents, provide link"
https://hechingerreport.org/proof-points-family-structure-student-achievement/
That doesn't mean it's not just correlation. Huge Scandinavian cohorts of draftees for required military service show that unmarried parents affects children, but not the death of a parent. If you would have been a good parent if you lived, that seems to be enough. Don't overlook genetics in the "family" effects.
Who would want Walter White as a chemistry teacher? And if you watch Breaking Bad: he was bad at hs teaching. - 3 of my teachers had PhDs ( 2 biology, 1 music). Rarely helped their teaching.
And certainly not Education Degrees.
Is there a relationship between teacher IQ, test scores, or GPA and effectiveness? What about degrees in the subjects they are teaching, rather than education degrees?
A quite small one. Check out my earlier article on Romania and the citations therein.
And regarding degrees in the subjects they're teaching, click into some of the links in the post. I did discuss this!
I agree that advanced credentials do not seem to meaningfully contribute to teacher value added. However, among folks with a bachelor's degree, there is evidence that teachers that have a teaching credential have higher value added than those that do not. See https://caldercenter.org/publications/four-years-pandemic-era-emergency-licenses-retention-and-effectiveness-emergency. Further, relaxing licensure decreases average value add of teachers, albeit while increasing supply. See https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w34232/w34232.pdf.