Why argue about teacher salaries and certification?

It's frustrating getting into a debate with people who either don't know their stuff or just refuse to admit that their analogies don't hold water. I recently got into a debate with some teachers about the value of certification.  One of them told me that she'd never send her kid to a school with non-certified teachers.

So, I began to put together my list of things that made no sense about their arguments. The first thing that these two people told me was that teacher certification is the same as for a lawyer or a doctor.

I'm not going to cite statistics because anyone can look them up with a simple internet search.  They aren't buried in obscure journals or in the footnotes of an academic paper somewhere.

So, bottom line.  It's simply not true.  You cannot compare the average GRE scores of teachers to those going into a number of other fields, including test scores of doctors and lawyers on LSATs and MCATs.  In fact, teachers generally score lower than average for all fields.

The pass rate is also significantly higher for teacher certification exams than for the Bar exam, CPA exams and certification exams for M.D.s and dentists.

The teachers also argued that their technical knowledge was equivalent to a doctor or a lawyer.  I'm not even sure it's even worth arguing about that.  Certainly, being a teacher can be difficult, but comparing an elementary teacher's knowledge and an M.D.s knowledge is hardly something we have to do is it?  Even comparing a high school chemistry teacher's required knowledge to an M.D.s knowledge isn't close.  I have a few friends who are or have been high school chemistry teachers and none of them would claim technical knowledge close to that of a doctor.

It's probably also worth noting that we don't require licensing of many engineers--many of whom design various structures that could harm humans if not done well.  Certainly, teachers can harm children if they are not good at teaching.  However, if an engineer designs a faulty bridge, she is unlikely to hold a position very long.  If a teacher can't teach children or leads them astray with faulty logic or allows them to graduate from school without adequate preparation for life, there isn't a good mechanism for stopping that in many school districts.

Another point is that there are plenty of examples of non-certified people in many professions who could practice those very well.  A certification is not proof that someone can do a job nor is non-certification proof that someone cannot do a job.  Patch Adams is a movie about an unlicensed physician who opened a successful medical clinic. People can present their own cases in court. That doesn't mean that I'd hire just anyone to represent me in court.  It does mean that a person with outstanding logic skills who studies the law in depth on a particular subject can very well be better prepared than a licensed attorney who is practicing outside of his or her specialization.

The final point is about IQ.  While IQ has a bad rap in some circles these day, there is still some value in looking at a general picture of IQ in this case.  The research shows that the average IQ of a teacher is below average for graduate students.

Why is this discussion important?  The entire discussion about certification related to teacher pay and an argument that teachers were just as capable and deserving of high pay as doctors.  Many states have struggled with teacher salaries.  Teachers' unions always ask for higher salaries.  Teachers are often compared to other higher paying professions (of course, they are never compared to lower paying professions).

I love teachers as much as the next person.  I believe that teaching is a valuable profession and that good teachers should be paid pretty well.  I also think that the reasons for paying good teachers well have nothing to do with certification.  Until the average teacher demonstrates both the intellect and the success that a doctor, lawyer or engineer must demonstrate to get into and finish grad school, a teacher's salary cannot logically be compared to any of those professions. 

There may be other reasons besides IQ and test scores to pay teachers very well.  I, for one, think there are, but only if those teachers have demonstrated the same ability to teach students as a doctor has to properly diagnose and treat major illnesses.  If the teacher has the ability to teach students such that his or her students have the potential to produce greater benefit to society, then that teacher is worth much more money than average.

Charter school funnies spotted on twitter today

NewMexiKen 11:32am via Reeder

"But [education reform] never has been about education. It's been about destroying the public schools ..."

Nevermind that the source of the quotation is not given.  This suggests that no one in the ed reform movement has any desire to educate kids.  And I wonder if this person intends to be taken seriously.  

Besides, look at the picture. 

Seen on Twitter, again: another answer for today

DanielColosimo 6:08am via Twitter for Android

Do charter schools cherry pick? blogs.ajc.com/get-schooled-b… #ed523

Mr. Colosimo, the fact that there are fewer kids with disabilities in many charter schools does not necessarily imply that charter school cherry pick.  It may, in fact, imply that parents cherry pick the best services for their kids.  If they realize that it would be very difficult for a charter school to serve their child, then they choose another option.  It's parent choice.  This is not unusual and happens in public school districts where parents have a choice between various public school choices.  In fact, where I live, the choice can be as simple as which public high school has a better band program or vocal music program.  Often charters do not have experience with specific disabilities.  A couple of our local districts that have good relationships with their charter schools actually look at the charter schools as other choices within the district.  They don't dwell on the things that the charter schools don't do.  They dwell on the things that charter schools can do for kids.  Then if the charter school doesn't perform, they shut them down.  That's the way it's supposed to work.  The fact that it doesn't work that way everywhere suggests more about the systems in place than it does about charter schools.

Spotted on Twitter: Comments about charter schools answered

readdoctor Jul 24, 10:04pm via web

philly.com/philly/educati… Charter schools should not be a license to steal!

Hey, readdoctor, they aren't.  These are exceptions and all of us in the charter school world who believe in good charters believe the oversights that allow such stealing should be stopped.  Fraud is difficult to detect.  Things like this happen in school districts and other parts of government as well.  

  ritacolleen Jul 24, 10:39pm via web

@Politics_n_Beer @TCBGP Not ignore the problem. Not embarrass students. Not convert every school to charter. Fix those schools w/problems.

ritacolleen, Educators have been trying to fix those schools with problems and they haven't done a good job.  That's why charters are trying to do something different (in most cases).  The definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results.  Charter schools are not a panacea, but they could be a proving ground for some successful approaches to improving education.  

Charter schools and attrition: what is the truth?

Saw this on Twitter today. 

LanceHill2011 9:27am via TweetDeck

@DianeRavitch The secret of every “successful” charter school: the Pedagogy of Attrition. Make every school an elimination tournament.

So, where is the data for this claim.  I work with many Colorado charter schools, and I know the leaders of almost every charter school in the state.  At least here, this isn't the case.  Most charter schools, especially the "successful" ones, have low attrition rates.  

It's easy to spread stereotypes (especially negative ones), but much more difficult to examine the truth.  It's also much more difficult to examine the truly successful schools and admit that they are successful because they are great schools, if you are predetermined to believe that there is no way that there could be a truly great charter school.  I've found that I have to let so much of this nonsense roll off my back, otherwise I really begin to boil about these kinds of crazy comments.  Still, it's fun to let myself boil a little bit before responding.  I wouldn't want to completely ignore the fact that some things said by charter school opponents are simply ludicrous.

 

Lay-offs blamed on charter schools?

The New York Times says that charter schools are one of the reasons for lay-offs in public schools.  Depending on which side of the aisle you are on, this could be seen as a sign of victory or a sign that charter schools are an even greater evil that previously realized.

The fact remains that in a free country avenues of choice should be sought.  In any sector if a competitor arises that either does a better job or at least is perceived to be doing a better job, people will use that competitor.  This means that lay-offs in the original company or type of delivery method will occur.  Just as we do not use rail transportation as we used to, public schools that do not keep their students will not be used as much.

This is not a reason that charter schools should not exist.  Remember that if we are concerned about jobs, charter schools also employ people.  Those people would not be employed if their students went back into the public schools.

It seems to me that this is a smoke screen.  Charter school opponents obviously only care about one class of people's jobs, not everyone's job.  This isn't a universal appeal to some moral standard.  It's simply a cry for help and a bail out rather than an understanding that something has to change.  Even if the real long term change doesn't include charter schools, that doesn't mean that it should include all of the laid off employees getting their jobs back.  In fact, it may mean change radical enough that further lay-offs are necessary.  I'm not sure because I'm not convinced that anyone who has the power to make the necessary changes knows what the necessary changes are.

In the mean time, let's not panic.  Lay-offs are part of life.  No one likes them in the short term.  I'm not suggesting that they are fun.  But if life were only about fun, then, in my thirteen year-old's opinion, school wouldn't be necessary at all.  Perhaps we don't need school in the traditional sense at all.  Now, that's an idea that really might result in lay-offs.

An even more radical proposal than my own

A while back I wrote about my ideal high school.  It would be without grade levels and other traditional aspects of a high school.  It would be free flowing and teachers would be much more like mentors.  In some ways my optimal high school would be a lot like Carpe Diem High School in Yuma, Arizona and soon to be in Indianapolis, Indiana.

However, I read this Ten Things in School that Should Be Obsolete and even I had to stop and think a bit.  No computer labs, no libraries, and the list goes on.

Things that really frost me: #1 form over substance

This isn't necessarily a series on charter schools or even public education, in general, but the way our government operates affects the way education operates.  In Colorado, there seems to be an informal review, especially directed at charter schools, of board budget approval resolutions to ensure that the resolution complies with state law.  Of course, there is no investigation or review of whether or not the boards adopt good budgets.  I mean, that would take effort.  The wasted time on form over substance in governmental oversight is ludicrous.  So, what will be the result of this review?  Will schools be reprimanded?  Will it affect future decisions about renewal?  I'm pretty sure the result will simply be a slap on the wrist and further instruction to schools on how to adopt a budget properly, and that's not all bad, but it does mean a lot of effort for not a lot of benefit.  While some charter schools (and, perhaps, districts) don't really understand what they are adopting, the vast majority that I know do understand what they are adopting and the implications of their budgets, even if they don't adopt it in the proper statutory format. 

All of this to say that there are many ways to present a budget, and the fact that the state requires a specific format for the resolution and the budget is a bit absurd.  I'm sure it has something to do with uniformity and comparative use, but does anyone actually compare them?  As long as the state receives their copy in their format, isn't that adequate? 

I suppose I've worked in private industry too long so that executives actually receive a budget and monthly and ad hoc reporting in formats they understand and can use to make good decisions, not for bureaucratic purposes that value form more than substance.

The Economist suggests that the best studies say charter schools do perform better

In this article in The Economist, the author says that studies that have examined those who win the charter school lottery fare better than those who don't and end up staying at their traditional schools.  It stands to reason that the only obvious differences between these students would be 1. that some won and some lost the enrollment lottery, and 2. that because of that they either went to a charter school or didn't. 

The article also addresses other issues surrounding the benefits of charter schools.