Does the current push for "Value Added" measures mean that education has finally figured it out, or is this yet another silver bullet that will fail -- and perhaps do more harm than good along the way?
While that is an interesting question, a number of prior questions need answers:
1. What exactly do we mean by 'value'?
2. Who adds 'value,' and how do they do it?
3. How can we enable the women and men now teaching to add more 'value'?
4. How can we attract people who add value to go into teaching?
5. At the end of the day, what do we value?
Recently I was introduced to Masha Tarasyuk, who spoke no English when she immigrated from the Ukraine at age 6. Masha told me that one teacher at her public school in the Bronx took her under her wing, supported her when she got down in the dumps and never stopped believing in her. Masha eventually graduated from Barnard and the Fordham School of Education and now is a Teach for America corps member at the High School for Medical Professionals in New York. She's giving back, helping others just as that teacher helped her (and Masha is in her third year, by the way, even though the TFA term is just two.)
Surely that teacher 'added value' to Masha's education, but, judging from the way Masha told the story, the value had less to do with her academic achievement and more to do with the emotional connection.
Unless you have been living under a rock, you have to be aware of the recent value-added study by economists from Harvard and Columbia, positing that students who have truly effective teachers for a few years of their education end up making lots more money. Much of their findings are conjecture or at least extrapolation, and the authors were careful to warn against basing policy decisions on their study.
The economists measured 'value' with test scores, of course, because that's what is available. Bubble tests results are how we keep score, at least for the moment. And if the kids in Teacher X's classroom always seem to do well on those tests, while the students in Teacher Z's classroom always seem to do poorly, why shouldn't we draw some conclusions about the value each teacher is adding?
It is a stretch to connect better test scores to attending a better college, getting a better job and eventually making more money, but even if the connections are flimsy, we surely need more teachers who can motivate their students to do well.
Nick Kristof, the well-respected columnist for the New York Times, ignored the caveat about policy recommendations and made some: pay effective teachers lots more and fire ineffective ones. But it didn't take Kristof's words to energize politicians like New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, New York's Andrew Cuomo and New York City's Mayor Michael Bloomberg, all of whom are pushing value-added measurement as a way of doing what Kriistoff recommends.
That's a Republican, a Democrat and an Independent, if you're keeping score, which suggests that 'value-added' is either a non-partisan idea whose time has come -- or a mad rush to judgment.
But let's dig deeper? What do truly effective teachers do that adds value? Can those skills be taught?
The father of "value-added" measurement is Dr. William Sanders, now nearly retired in North Carolina but still very much engaged. He has not been fond of some of what I have been writing in this blog about bubble tests and, ever the gentleman, asked if I would be open to having a conversation.
Which we had recently.
A good deal of what follows is based on our 96-minute phone meeting, several days ago. What Dr. Sanders wanted to explore was the 'how' of value added. What is it that excellent teachers do that adds value to their students' learning? Can a trained observer see what excellent teachers do that no-so-good teachers do not?
Here's where it got interesting. Bill told me that teams of observers cataloguing the classroom behaviors of teachers from both groups could not find differences in their behavior. 'Look again,' he told them. Still no luck, they reported. 'Look some more,' he directed.
Eureka. The truly effective teachers, his observers finally figured out, were able to provide what's called 'differentiated instruction' (treating kids individually according to their needs) and able to disguise what they were doing, so that the children were not aware of the different treatment.
These teachers, Bill said, don't see a classroom of 25 students; instead, they see 25 different kids and figure out the best ways to reach them. And then they camouflage the different treatment lest some kids feel like Robins and others like Crows in those infamous reading groups.
They do not spend hours or days on test preparation. (Administrators, please read that sentence again!)
Do some teachers intuitively know how important it is to disguise what they are doing? If not, how did they learn to do that? He's a fan of Teach for America because, he says, the data tells him that those teachers are more likely to be truly effective than teachers from traditional schools of education.
What's the evidence, I wanted to know? The old Tennessean cited his research in Memphis, where, he said, for three years in a row the cadre of TFA teachers outperformed teachers who attended Vanderbilt, Middle Tennessee and Tennessee, using student achievement scores as the measure of performance.
Bill suggested that it was not the TFA summer training that makes the difference as much as the caliber of their recruits. When society opened up more opportunities for women, he reminded me, the entering ACT scores of those enrolling in education and home economics fell dramatically. Since the late 1960s, he said, talented young women are likely to enroll in other departments. Today, women make up half or more of those studying to be lawyers, doctors and veterinarians.
"TFA is bringing capable people back into the teaching pool," he told me. If Bill is correct, then one sure-fire way to 'add value' in education is to recruit more people like the men and women who apply to Teach for America.
How do we entice them to become classroom teachers? With about one million teachers approaching retirement, TFA's corps of 15,000 teachers is not the answer. We have to appeal to hundreds of thousands of talented young men and women and convince them that teaching is a respected and rewarding career.
Ask yourself if what's going on in the public arena now is likely to attract people into teaching. Are the heavy-handed campaigns by politicians like Governors Christie and Cuomo (and the Governors of Wisconsin and Ohio) helpful? Is Mayor Bloomberg's effort a step in the right direction? Is Michelle Rhee's campaign to restrict collective bargaining and tenure likely to persuade talented young men and women that teaching is an appealing career? Are union leaders who oppose charter schools 'on principle' adding value to the teaching profession? When union leaders insist that teachers cannot be held accountable for student learning, are they elevating the teaching profession?
As the lawyers say, asked and answered.
Surely an important part of the value of an effective teacher is her ability to connect with individual children, her willingness to become emotionally attached to her students as individuals. (I write about this at some length in The Influence of Teachers.)
Those teachers need the time and space to make connections, but today teaching seems to be all about higher test scores. In an earlier piece, we explored the impact of test pressures on young readers:
Maybe it's time to figure out the impact on young teachers, too?
Because evaluating teachers using student achievement scores is here to stay, it's in teachers' interests to argue for better measures of achievement. We need better ways of assessing the value that teachers add to the lives the children they teach, beyond test scores.
What do we value?