Learn About: 21st Century | Charter Schools | Homework
Home / Edifier


The EDifier

November 9, 2011

Response: Are Teachers Overpaid?

Filed under: funding,Public education,teachers — Tags: , — Mandy @ 10:31 am

Last week, The Heritage Foundation’s Jason Richwine and Andrew Biggs addressed why they feel that teachers are overpaid. Since teachers are more likely to hold another job to pay the bills than any other profession in America (according to a study conducted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS study), I disagree.  

Below you’ll find some of my responses to Richwine and Biggs:

 “A teacher who receives a given salary for nine months of work is clearly better compensated than someone who earns the same salary for a full year’s work.”

  • Response: The Organization for Economic and Cooperative Development (OECD) found that American teachers spend more hours per year working than do teachers in any other country (Education at a Glance 2011 - OECD).  On paper, teachers work about 7.5 hour days with 30 minute lunch breaks, teach for 180 days, and work for 195 days. However, the reality is that teachers have homework. According to the BLS study, 79 % of American public school teachers begin their workday at 7am and 51% conduct another full day’s worth of work over the weekend. Teachers get 10 weeks off in the summer, in addition to holiday breaks, but this time is often used for professional development workshops, setting up classrooms, adjusting to a change in assignment or grade level, and once again, planning.

“After full accounting, benefits for teachers are shown to be significantly more generous than those paid to employees of large private-sector establishments.”

  • Response: Comparing benefits is complex since each state handles (each district as a matter of fact) perks very differently. However, the report did not take these differences into consideration when comparing private and teacher benefits.

“Public school teachers earn less in wages…than non-teachers with the same level of education….The wage gap disappears when both groups are matched on cognitive ability rather than on years of education.”

  • Response: Just as in business, where the ability to communicate and network is as valuable as academic ability, effective teachers have abilities that go beyond the SAT scores used by this report. However, testing out this theory would require increasing, not decreasing, teacher salaries. Research into shortages of STEM teachers, for instance, shows that students with higher SAT scores and GPAs head into the higher-paying, private sector jobs available.

“Reducing teacher compensation…could be put toward classroom materials…”

  • Response: According to last year’s study by the National School Supply and Equipment Association (NSSEA), “public school teachers in the United States spend more than $1.33 billion on school supplies and instructional materials” (NSSEA – Publications: Industry Reports). On average, teachers spend $552 on supplies per year (currently less with the suffering economy), assuming that the average PTA is spending $936 per class. Teacher spending can actually triple in cases where the PTA does not spend as much.  As someone who worked at a school (that didn’t have paper for a period of time) and at a teacher resource store, I have witnessed teachers not even think twice about paying out of pocket to compensate for a lack of resources. Reducing teacher salaries would decrease classroom supplies, since teachers are often the ones that pay for them.

In conclusion, America has grown more and more focused on international tests that compare our students to those of other industrialized countries. We are inspired by these countries’ high math scores, work ethic, and use of technology.  This inspiration has spurred reforms such as holding our teachers more accountable, but we have yet to be inspired by their treatment of teachers. According to the OECD’s study, teachers in other industrialized countries make an average of 117% more than American public school teachers and, in Korea, teachers make a whopping 221% more.

If we even have to address whether our teachers are being overpaid, we have failed (at the perception of what the job is and should be) and are far from where we need to be. –Mandy Newport





November 4, 2011

The not-so-good news second– NAEP reading

Filed under: Achievement Gaps,Middle school,NAEP,Public education,Report Summary — Jim Hull @ 11:02 am

Earlier this week, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) released the results of the 2011 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in reading for 4th and 8th graders.

Overall, there was little or no change from the 2009 scores. However, achievement at both levels has consistently been on the rise since 1992. During this same time period, the Black/White achievement gap narrowed at both the 4th and 8th grades. Although there has been some gains in reading over the past two decades, those gaisn pale in comparison to the the gains being made in math.

The findings

Fourth Grade State Level

  • At the state level, public school students’ scale scores were higher in 2011 than 2009 in four states (Alabama, Hawaii, Maryland, and Massachusetts).
    • Two states saw decreases in their scores (Missouri and South Dakota).
  • The percent of students reaching the Proficient level in 2011 ranged from 19 percent in the District of Columbia to 50 percent in Massachusetts.
    • Three states (Louisiana, Maryland, and Pennsylvania) significantly increased the percent of their public school students reaching the Proficient level from 2009 to 2011.
  • Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Virginia achieved the highest scale scores, while the District of Columbia, Alaska, Louisiana, Mississippi, and New Mexico earned the lowest scale scores.
  • When it came to educating minority students, Black students who attended Department of Defense schools (DoDEA) scored higher than Black students in any other state or jurisdiction. DoDEA schools, along with Maryland, did the same for their Hispanic students.

Fourth Grade National Level

  • Nationally, scores did not increase between 2009 and 2011. As a matter of fact, scores have remained unchanged since 2007.
    • However, since the first year of NAEP in 1992, scale scores in reading have increased by nearly a half a year’s worth of learning (4 points). 
  • The percent of fourth-graders scoring at or above NAEP’s proficient level has increased slightly since 1992 (29 percent in 1992 vs. 34 percent in 2011).
    • Moreover, the percent of fourth-graders scoring below NAEP’s basic level has decreased slightly from 38 percent in 1992 to 33 percent in 2011.
  • Since 2009, achievement gaps have remained relatively unchanged, because there was no significant change in performance for White, Black, or Hispanic students.
    • The Black/White achievement gap was 26 points while the Hispanic/White gap was 24 points.
    • However, since 1992 the Black/White achievement gap has decreased from 32 points to 25 points, which has reduced the gap by about 20 percent. 

Eighth Grade State Level

  • At the eighth grade level, 10 states (Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, North Carolina, and Rhode Island) improved their scores from 2009 to 2011. No state had a decline in scores. 
  • Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New Jersey obtained the highest scores, followed by Vermont, Montana, New Hampshire, and DoDEA schools. On the other hand, Alabama, California, the District of Columbia and West Virginia lagged furthest behind.
  • Just as in the fourth grade, eighth graders in DoDEA schools outperformed Black students in all other states/jurisdictions. DoDEA schools also had the highest-scoring Hispanic students.

Eighth Grade National Level

  • Nationally, scores increased by one point from 2009 to 2011 and have increased by five points since 1992.
  • The percent of students reaching NAEP’s proficient level has increased from 29 percent in 1992 to 34 percent in 2011. The percent scoring below NAEP’s basic level decreased from 31 percent to 24 during the same time period.
  • As at the fourth grade level, the Black/White achievement gap remained statistically unchanged between 2009 and 2011, although Black students increased their score by three points.
    • But between 1992 and 2011, the gap has narrowed by five points.
  • On the other hand, the Hispanic/White narrowed by two points between 2009 and 2011 and by four points since 1992.

For more information on NAEP, check out the Center’s report The Proficiency Debate: A guide to NAEP achievement levels. – Jim Hull

NAEP Reading Report

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2011/2012457.pdf





October 21, 2011

The local crunch

Filed under: funding,Public education,School boards — Tags: , — rstandrie @ 4:40 pm

I came across an interesting report the other day entitled “The Local Crunch.” Written by the Pew Center on the States,  it argues that states are both cutting funding to, and passing more responsibilities on to, local districts.

In light of the Center’s “Cutting to the Bone” report on funding, it made me wonder what the recession will mean for the balance of money and power between state, local, and federal governments — especially with programs such as “Race to the Top” spurring specific reforms (in some cases, with or without the money).

What kind of changes have you seen in local funding and reponsibility? How has your district handled any changes? And how do you think this affects participation in federal programs such as Race to the Top? –Rebecca St. Andrie





October 5, 2011

How does your district compare to Finland?

Filed under: International Comparisons,Public education,Report Summary,research — Tags: , , , — Jim Hull @ 8:24 pm

Last week the Web site Global Report Card (GRC) was launched by the George W. Bush Presidential Center. It enables the public to compare their school district’s academic performance in math and reading to that of students in 25 developed countries around the world, including top-achieving Finland, Canada, Japan, and Singapore.

Although the Web site is easy to use, actually making such comparisons is not. There are significant limitations in making fair comparisons of districts across states, never mind across countries. However, Jay Greene and Josh McGee, who created the GRC, have postulated that their comparisons of Boston to Finland (for example) are fair and reliable.

You can put me in the skeptical camp on this one. Not only are they comparing results across countries, they are doing it across grade levels as well. For U.S. school districts, they use scores from state assessments from all tested grades, which is grades 3 through 8 and 10th grade in most states. Other countries’ results are based on the international assessments in which they participated, which would at most include 4th, 8th and 10th grade in math and 4th and 10th grade in reading.

Keep in mind different assessments with significantly different purposes and given in different years were used in different grades and subjects. For example, 4th and 8th grade math scores are derived from TIMSS, which is designed specifically to measure how well students have learned what they were expected to be taught in school. Tenth grade reading and math scores come from PISA, which measures how well students can apply their math and reading knowledge to real life problems, no matter if they attained that knowledge in school or not. To add even more complexity to the comparisons, not all 25 countries participated in each of the assessments at each of the grade levels. Hence, districts’ results on their state assessments across multiple grade levels are compared to each country’s results across different assessments that not all comparable countries took part in.

You may remember I was skeptical in a post earlier this year of another report that compared the U.S. to other countries and that comparison was based on one grade level, in one year, on one assessment for each country. And then countries were only compared to U.S. states who had only taken one assessment, in one grade level, in one year. A far more straightforward comparison than the GRC, yet still statistically questionable.

Both report cards, however, attempt to make important comparisons that – if fair and reliable — would provide valuable information on how our students compare to their peers in other countries. Yet, we don’t know how reliable the comparisons actually are, especially at the district level, where smaller districts appear to have a distinct advantage over larger districts with similar demographics.

However, maybe the GRC with all its question marks will lead to accurate international comparisons at both the state and district levels. Because it really is an important question to answer whether our students in our best districts are as prepared as students in the highest performing countries. The answer could have a tremendous impact on the focus of our education reform efforts. – Jim Hull





September 23, 2011

Are our top students being left behind?

Filed under: Achievement Gaps,Public education,Report Summary — Tags: , , , , — Jim Hull @ 1:35 pm

It’s déjà vu all over again. Back in 2008 the Fordham Institute claimed in this report that our nation’s best students were being hurt by current education reform efforts, particularly NCLB. Fast forward to earlier this week where Fordham released another report to once again try to show that our education reforms are being targeted at our low performing students at the expense of our top students. The similarities don’t end with both studies examining the performance of high achieving students. In both reports Fordham’s conclusions don’t fit what their own data says.

In the 2008 study Fordham argued our top students were being left behind because their gains were not as large as the gains low performing students made post-NCLB. I argued then that their own data didn’t fit their claim. Once again, Fordham’s claim that our top students are being left behind doesn’t fit their own data. As a matter of fact, according to Fordham’s report the gap in math scores between low- (those scoring below 10th percentile) and high-performing (those score above the 90th percentile) did not significantly change as students moved from 3rd to 8th grade or from 6th to 10th grade. The good news is that all students made consistent gains. Unfortunately for low-performing students, their performance still lagged way behind. The story is a bit different in reading where gaps did close between the lowest and highest performing students. However, Fordham sees this gap closing as a negative even though high performing students continued to make significant gains between the 3rd and 8th grades.

Just as I argued in 2008, this is how gaps should be narrowed, where everyone improves but the lowest performers improve at a faster rate. However, Fordham didn’t agree with me then and I’ll safely assume they won’t agree with me now. We will just have to agree to disagree because I don’t believe the data shows our best students are being short changed simply because our lowest performers are making more progress than our highest performing students.

Now that doesn’t mean our schools or our education policies should focus solely on our lowest performing students. Educators and policymakers need to ensure that all students have an opportunity to reach their highest academic potential before they go onto college or the workplace. Yet, neither Fordham study provides compelling data that our schools are short changing our highest performing students.

Yes, educators and policymakers need to focus on our highest achieving students. International test scores show we have a much smaller proportion of advanced students than the leading countries such as South Korea and Finland. But the same international tests show we also have a much larger proportion of very low performers than most other industrialized nations. And students with such low achievement have little chance to go onto any sort of postsecondary education or find a good job that pays a living wage and offers benefits. So we need to at least sustain the gains our highest achievers are making since many will be our country’s future innovators, policymakers and business leaders. At the same time, we need to accelerate the gains our lowest achieving students are making so they at least have the minimal skills necessary to either go onto earn some sort of postsecondary degree/certificate or find a good job. Doing so is not a zero-sum game. If we provide our teachers with the training, resources, and support they need, they can improve the performance of all students. – Jim Hull





« Newer Posts — Older Posts »
RSS Feed