Why great teachers matter to low-income students
April 17, 2010 at 7:44 am 6 comments
Really compelling piece arguing that “Different teachers get very different results with similar students,” that quality of teaching is the biggest difference between low-achieving and high-achieving students, even in low socioeconomic status settings. In particular, they argue we need smarter teachers, then reward their strong performance. They are implicitly arguing that pedagogical content knowledge matters less than knowing the content knowledge in the first place.
In the debate over how to fix American public education, many believe that schools alone cannot overcome the impact that economic disadvantage has on a child, that life outcomes are fixed by poverty and family circumstances, and that education doesn’t work until other problems are solved.
This theory is, in some ways, comforting for educators…
Problem is, the theory is wrong. It’s hard to know how wrong — because we haven’t yet tried to make the changes that would tell us — but plenty of evidence demonstrates that schools can make an enormous difference despite the challenges presented by poverty and family background.
via Joel I. Klein, Michael Lomax and Janet Murguía – Why great teachers matter to low-income students.
Entry filed under: Uncategorized. Tags: public policy, teachers.
6 Comments Add your own
Leave a comment
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed
Computing Ed Research - Guzdial's Take 
1.
Gary Litvin | April 17, 2010 at 9:37 am
Mark,
An interesting article, thank you for posting the link. Compare with the recent article in the Times, U.S. Falls Short in Measure of Future Math Teachers, (April 14, 2010):
“America’s future math teachers, on average, earned a C on a new test comparing their skills with their counterparts in 15 other countries, significantly outscoring college students in the Philippines and Chile but placing far below those in educationally advanced nations like Singapore and Taiwan.
It is especially troubling.”
2.
Tom Hoffman | April 17, 2010 at 9:43 am
The fact that Boston has higher achievement than Detroit shows the unimportance ouf outside school factors? Couldn’t it equally well show the opposite?
They make a strange and frankly dishonest argument here.
Also, I don’t think there’s much room for constructionism and “lifetime kindergarten,” or kindergarten at all, in Joel Klein’s vision.
3.
Alfred Thompson | April 17, 2010 at 10:09 am
I think that most of us have at least one teacher in our own education who was above the rest. The lucky people have several like that. These are the teachers who really inspired us, who taught us the most, and who really made our education more meaningful. But I find that many teachers do not want to admit, at least not out loud, that there are some teachers who are better or worse than average. To do so would open the door for real evaluations and ultimately differentiated pay.
The myth I hear expressed time and again is that all teachers should be paid the same because they are all doing the same work. And that is true to some extent but some people just do it better. Sometimes a lot better. Sometimes, obviously, a lot worse. Many teachers do not trust their administrators to be fair judges of teacher quality though. All too often this distrust is warranted. Other times teachers are uncertain of their own quality of teaching. We know that in many fields women tend to underestimate their ability while men over estimate it. Teaching is a field that is dominated by women so we should not be surprised that people who may be more concerned about how they would fare in a fair evaluation are avoiding being evaluated.
The press for evaluation teachers on student test scores is an attempt to add some objectivity into the teacher evaluation process. If this were being done right it might work. But of course it is not being done right. Comparing how a teacher does with one group of students does with a totally different group is completely flawed and invalid as a tool. that is what No Child Left behind does and so it should be no surprise that intelligent teachers reject it.
It is a complex problem that refuses a simple solution. That being said it is one we really need to address.
4.
weilunion | April 17, 2010 at 2:23 pm
I agree whole heartedly with the notion that it is great teachers that can have positive impacts on students of low income, limited English skills, or newly arriving immigrants.
The problem, of course, is that the labrynth of profit being set up by Eli Broad, Walton, Gates, The Fisher Family (The Gap), REed Hastings (NetFlix) and other bloated billionaires and their supplicants does not allow us to teach. It forces the material conditions of “dril baby dri” on our students and teachers, profiting the for-profit visions of Broad, and yes, Klein in NY, Rhee in DC, Bobb in Detroit, Ackerman in PA, Steve Barr and Green Dot in LA and of course the list coulds go on.
If we are not given the preparation time, the conditions at work that allow us participation in the powr over our daily teaching lives, then we can never hope to be ‘that teac her’ that made a difference.
The system must be changed and not the privatizer’s way. However, until we stop the Eli BRoad graduates and the philanthro-pirates in their quest to strip us of both time, professionalism (as we are reduced to clerks or audtiros in our classes) we will never be able to teach or test for authentic learning and civic responsibility.
The charter school charlatans, the school closure artists and the Race to the Top crew who wish to hand over our profession to corporations, testing companies, text book companies, and a curriculum owned and operated by the purveyors of low expectations and thus onerous curriculums for kids, must be combatted community by comunity.
I have taught second grade in south central Los Angeles to children who did not know if they would be fed when they got home from school. I have taught kindergarten and first grade to migrant children living in automobiles on rances and farms where they then wake up and as serfs, work all day for the corporate lord.
They were all able to learn for they were provided with both a challenging curriculum of relevancy thta was connected to the inquiries in their lives and they were given a safe haven to be young — public schools.
Now, with the actual organizational management and configuration of schools (there are public schools being built without playgrounds) being controlled by autocracy connected to Race to the Top and its minnions and with the stripping of music and art and dance programs from urban schools in favor of Wal-Mart internships we must turn our attention to demanding not just challenging curriculum and teachers, but we must also demand that our schools remain public and that the fingers and wallets of the billionaires do not determine the minds of our young.
Please read about the multiple struggles against privatization in all parts of the nation at http://www.dailycensored.com.
My name is Danny Weil and I write for this publication on line. You can see my articles and the gains were are making on the front page but also, go to Author’s Posts at the top of the site, click, find my name and then click again and you will find dozens and dozens of articles on issues brought up above.
the struggle now is to fight against privatization and thus for authentic teaching and learning, and against poverty itself, the result of thirty years or more of Reaganomics and war.
Please join us and see what is going on all over the nation while the corporate national news abdicates its responsibility in reporting on the daily lives, struggles and victories of both teachers and youth!
Danny Weil
5.
Tyson | April 18, 2010 at 12:42 pm
Tom makes a good point. The article cites the poor performance of Detroit several times, as well as Milwaukee, Los Angeles, D.C., Miami, and Cleveland. Detroit has the highest percentage of children living in poverty in the nation. Cleveland is #3, Milwaukee #7, Miami #9, D.C. #15, Fresno #18, and L.A #32. Of the cities cited for their superior performance, Houston is ranked #17, Boston #33, New York #30, Charlotte #58. The trend of this data seems to suggest the alternative argument: living in a culture of widespread poverty will have an impact on student achievement.
Source: http://www.seattlepi.com/data/databases/census-poverty.asp
6.
weilunion | April 18, 2010 at 1:32 pm
The trend of this data seems to suggest the alternative argument: living in a culture of widespread poverty will have an impact on student achievement.
Tyson, living in a widespread culture of poverty is under-achievement so how can we expect achievement in a system of capitalism where underachievement is translated into no wages, low wages, no health care, no safety net, no parental guidance, no affordable housing, no fiar wages and no right to organize unions or confront uncivil society with working people’s achievements?
You are right: capitalism breeds underachievement in every aspect of its culture, insitutions, economic systems and daily life in general.
Capitalism is synonymous with underachiement and class and race based warfare neo-liberal policies — unl;ess one is in the board rooms,underachievement is a scurge, but in the board rooms of capital not only is it praised praised, but rewarded with huge bonueses, executive pay and moral collapse..
Danny Weil