I am not sure how “value added” by teacher is calculated, but it needs to be controlled for by the intellectual aptitude of the students, otherwise it is useless.
Variation in scores is more determined by the quality of the student than the quality of the teacher or school. Comparing test scores among teachers in any given year tells you very little. Comparing how much test scores increased for the same student from previous years is more useful.
"The policy that dramatically passes the cost-benefit test is “deselection,” better known as firing bad teachers."
My brother and sister, ten and eight years older than me, had all sorts of stories about a ridiculously bad economics teacher (in secondary education). When it was my turn to go to that school I realized none of the stories were exaggerated. And all students knew. His classes were a joke. A few years after graduating I came across a different teacher from that school and somehow the lousy econ teacher came up. The man was still around, but no longer allowed to teach any classes (what he did do I don't remember, but I expect not much). Turns out all other teachers also knew that he was useless. They had heard all the stories from students over the years. How could they not have. The guy had even been sent to additional workshops and trainings and whatnot, nothing helped. He spent 23 years 'teaching' at the same school, and more before that elsewhere, and only his retirement saved the next generation of students from having to sit through his classes without learning anything beyond what they got from the textbook. And he wasn't even the worst one (but the even more outrageous character had been hired on a one year temp contract, so at least there was one we never heard of again except through the anecdotes). Why did they keep him around? Hard to fire, hard to find a replacement, is my guess.
I don't think it's that easy to find objective criteria for firing bad teachers. Subjectively it is quite obvious - a few teachers really make kids unhappy and apathetic, while most others usually are good influence. But that's hard to measure, rather subtle. The parents will notice something but without certainty, the colleagues will also notice a difference. The children will probably know, but their judgement may not have the incentives that adults do - like, the teacher doesn't let us use our smartphones...
Good luck ridding public school system of bad teachers. They are part of a protected class. And their colleagues and school administrators know who they are.
On a more fundamental level, Freddie deBoer has presented some reasons to think that "teacher quality" metrics are all bullshit: for the same teacher, measured quality can vary widely from year to year for no apparent reason. I'm not finding the piece where he argued that though, which is disappointing to me... I was sure it was relatively recently featured on his substack. I think it's probably a chapter in his book "The cult of smart" but I'm not sure.
Our intrepid scholar need not develop his idea friendly pay data. Teachers are offered money because they are a major constituency and funding source of the Democratic Party. 'nough said.
I am not sure how “value added” by teacher is calculated, but it needs to be controlled for by the intellectual aptitude of the students, otherwise it is useless.
Variation in scores is more determined by the quality of the student than the quality of the teacher or school. Comparing test scores among teachers in any given year tells you very little. Comparing how much test scores increased for the same student from previous years is more useful.
"The policy that dramatically passes the cost-benefit test is “deselection,” better known as firing bad teachers."
My brother and sister, ten and eight years older than me, had all sorts of stories about a ridiculously bad economics teacher (in secondary education). When it was my turn to go to that school I realized none of the stories were exaggerated. And all students knew. His classes were a joke. A few years after graduating I came across a different teacher from that school and somehow the lousy econ teacher came up. The man was still around, but no longer allowed to teach any classes (what he did do I don't remember, but I expect not much). Turns out all other teachers also knew that he was useless. They had heard all the stories from students over the years. How could they not have. The guy had even been sent to additional workshops and trainings and whatnot, nothing helped. He spent 23 years 'teaching' at the same school, and more before that elsewhere, and only his retirement saved the next generation of students from having to sit through his classes without learning anything beyond what they got from the textbook. And he wasn't even the worst one (but the even more outrageous character had been hired on a one year temp contract, so at least there was one we never heard of again except through the anecdotes). Why did they keep him around? Hard to fire, hard to find a replacement, is my guess.
As a former teacher I agree. A small salary increase and more firings is a good way to go.
Social desirability bias is so very, very socially undesirable.
I don't think it's that easy to find objective criteria for firing bad teachers. Subjectively it is quite obvious - a few teachers really make kids unhappy and apathetic, while most others usually are good influence. But that's hard to measure, rather subtle. The parents will notice something but without certainty, the colleagues will also notice a difference. The children will probably know, but their judgement may not have the incentives that adults do - like, the teacher doesn't let us use our smartphones...
No magic bullet am afraid.
Good luck ridding public school system of bad teachers. They are part of a protected class. And their colleagues and school administrators know who they are.
On a more fundamental level, Freddie deBoer has presented some reasons to think that "teacher quality" metrics are all bullshit: for the same teacher, measured quality can vary widely from year to year for no apparent reason. I'm not finding the piece where he argued that though, which is disappointing to me... I was sure it was relatively recently featured on his substack. I think it's probably a chapter in his book "The cult of smart" but I'm not sure.
OK this is a mostly useless comment. Sorry.
Our intrepid scholar need not develop his idea friendly pay data. Teachers are offered money because they are a major constituency and funding source of the Democratic Party. 'nough said.