So John Merrow of Taking Note discusses “teacher churn” . Merrow, who I don’t really object to much, is a bit like another veteran education reporter Jay Mathews in that he’s superb at hard reporting but should avoid analysis. (At least Merrow hasn’t been responsible for massive grade fraud and wasted taxpayer dollars. Thanks, John!)
… somewhere between 30% and 50% of all new teachers leave the profession within their first five years…The churn, which seems to be increasing, has had a profound impact on our teaching force. As recently as 1987, schools were hiring only about 65,000 new teachers a year. By 2008, the last year I found data for, schools were hiring 200,000 new teachers. As a consequence of the churn, one-quarter of our teachers have less than five years of experience, and that’s a huge change: In 1987 the modal ‘years of experience’ was 15—we had more teachers with 15 years of teaching experience than any other. Today the modal teacher is a rookie in her first year on the job.
And in fairness, his flawed reasoning here isn’t any worse than the crap that most policy advocates, particularly on the reform side, go through.
But flawed it is. One, we are hiring more teachers. Two, more teachers are leaving the profession after a few years….but wait. No, we don’t know that more teachers are leaving the profession, as a percentage of the population, since 1988. It’s a bit like an SAT inference question, isn’t it?
Teacher turnover has been an area of study since at least the late 70s. Murnane is a name that pops up often. An early paper by Linda Darling Hammond calls for more data collection, challenging the then received wisdom that teacher turnover and teacher quality were problems that would inevitably lead to shortages—heavens, that sounds familiar. I don’t in fact know that teacher turnover is worse (and trying to hunt that data down is the kind of research that leads to increased lag time between my posts), but certainly it’s been an area of study for close to forty years.
So while Merrow doesn’t actually state that turnover is increasing, he does imply that turnover, or “churn”, is why we’re hiring more teachers. But that’s obviously not the only possibility. The late 70s to early 80s were a tough time for teachers, as the boom generation finally left K-12 education and the “baby bust”, coupled with fiscal issues, led to layoffs. The following echo boom would have required more teachers.
Reduced class size initiatives, the huge increase in special education mandates, charter growth—all of these would lead to increased teacher hiring without entailing turnover. Charters rarely take away enough students from a single school for a one-to-one teacher exchange, and of course charters are allowed to cap growth (nice work if you can get it).
No reason to think the increase in teacher hiring has been caused by increased churn, then.
Given that Merrow hasn’t even really built the case for increased teacher churn, it makes sense that his culprit is totally off.
But I nominate schools and colleges of education as the primary beneficiaries of churn. After all, someone has to train the replacements. Consider one state, Illinois: In 2012, its institutions of higher education graduated over 43,000 education majors, presumably the majority of them trained to be teachers. Illinois K-12 schools employ about 145,000 teachers. If 20% leave in a given year, that creates 29,000 vacancies–I.E., jobs for 29,000 replacements.
Right, it’s ed schools! They aren’t turning out bad teachers because of their own incompetence, but because it feeds the need for their service!
Except, um, ed schools already overproduce elementary school teachers. (I don’t think they do so deliberately—my sense is a lot of unmotivated women who just want a degree go this route without ever really intending to be teachers. No evidence, but there’d be a lot more complaining if that many teachers each year couldn’t find employment.)
Besides, ed schools benefit from the “step and column” pay structure, in which teachers are paid both by time and acquired education. Most pay scales dramatically slow the “step” increases after year eight to ten, deliberately pushing teachers towards professional development. Teaching is apay to play occupation—the state makes us pay to jump through a bunch of hoops. Ed school benefits from the whole process, not just the entry point. No increased steps, no column. No incentive for massive churn.
As I’ve observed before, teachers and cops have a lot in common and wow, check out the research on cop turnover. Like teachers, policing is a state government job that requires intelligence, doesn’t have a huge amount of upwards growth, but offers qualified people an interesting challenge or a safe job, depending on their inclinations and abilities. And both occupations turn out to be harder than they appear to the outsider, thus leading to what I assume is a higher than average degree of turnover for a professional occupation. Thus I don’t see any sinister cause for teacher churn.
Please God, spare us all from the Linda Darling Hammond solution of more, longer training.
All that said—and in this next part, consider my tone descriptive, not prescriptive—I pointed out in the Chris Christie piece above that teachers are clearly targeted in a way that cops aren’t, despite the fact that they’re more expensive, work fewer years and take longer pensions (or disability) and just as hard to fire.
A growing conventional wisdom is forming among the elites—the opinion makers, business leaders, political leaders—that teaching should be a short term job, that they aren’t worth the government expense. While they probably feel this way about cops, too, current memes dictate respect to the men (and they are, usually, men) who fight—crime, terrorists, fires, and the like. Teachers, on the other hand, are mostly like elites except not as smart—because otherwise, they wouldn’t go into teaching—and far more female. Hence the emphasis on their supposedly weak qualifications and determined ignorance of all evidence showing the qualifications aren’t weak. To put it in political terms: the center-left is supportive of cops and critical of teachers in a way that’s relatively new. The bulk of the people defending teachers and criticizing cops (these days on stop and frisk) are way, way to the left.
Acceptable targets change over time. Teachers moved up the chain, cops moved down. Makes sense, really—the crime rate was an issue in 80s and early 90s, then crime rates improved. Meanwhile, we’d spent twenty years thinking that affirmative action and equal opportunity would end the achievement gap and that didn’t pan out—time to blame teachers.
So teachers should hunker down, I guess—attentions and fashions will change again.
Certainly, reformers are trying to discourage long-term teaching careers. I see no evidence that cops, judges, firefighters, professors, or lawyers, to pick a random sample, are studied for “effectiveness”, much less found to be more “effective” with years in service. Nor do I see any mention of police use of sick leave, judges’ work load, or state university academics use of sabbaticals. Somehow, the fact that teachers don’t “improve” with time on the job is put forward again and again as evidence that they should be paid differently than any other government worker. And it’s hard to see Andrew Rotherham’s otherwise ludicrous obsession with teaching pensions as anything but an attempt to increase the sweetener for short-termers at the expense of lifers, to encourage teachers to find another line of work after a few years.
But hey, that’s how reformers make their bones.
The problem with teaching is that all “sides” of the debate accept as a given that we are failing to educate our kids, that we could do a much better job. In fact, we aren’t failing, and there’s no evidence we could be doing much better. But so long as everyone agrees that “schools are failing”, teachers will be on the firing line, and “churn” will be seen as either desirable or not based on absurd expectations and beliefs.
Cops were rescued from public condemnation by a dramatic reduction in crime—which they may or may not have contributed to. Teachers won’t be rescued by a decreased achievement gap. We’ll just have to wait for a new scapegoat to another big policy problem. Alternately, for society to accept that we’ll never end the achievement gap.
Which means we better wait for another policy problem. Hey, folks, did you know that firefighters don’t actually fight fires?
June 4th, 2014 at 4:49 pm
[…] Source: Education Realist […]
June 4th, 2014 at 6:02 pm
The change in modality from 15 years of service to 1 year of service is significant. What the reporter also leaves out is how many teachers with more than 5 years of service leave prior to retirement. There may be, and there is anecdotal evidence that suggests, an effort by school districts to force out older teachers. You make an excellent point when you stated that John Merrow’s article leaves out too much information.
June 4th, 2014 at 8:13 pm
One reason to obsess about teacher pensions rather than state college professors or judges or police or firefighters is simply that there are so many of them, surely more than those four put together.
In a better world, there would be concern about all of them.
June 4th, 2014 at 10:01 pm
I have written about older teachers before (being that weird thing, a relatively new older teacher) and yes, I think that’s happening. Good point about another omission.
Roger, I understand but when you look at all government workers, all of which have this same issue, they start to add up to populations that come somewhat near, or even exceed, teachers.
June 5th, 2014 at 12:15 am
“Hey, folks, did you know that firefighters don’t actually fight fires?”
Or rather I knew that the vast majority of the time the fire fighters in my city dispatch it is a medical emergency. But I’m less than 0.5 miles from our training station and my son was *VERY* interested in firefighting when young.
And my city dispatches a bit smarter than some of the cities in the linked article.
June 5th, 2014 at 12:18 am
“In 1987 the modal ‘years of experience’ was 15—we had more teachers with 15 years of teaching experience than any other. Today the modal teacher is a rookie in her first year on the job.”
Why does John Merrow think *mode* is relevant here? A mode of 15 years suggests that there was a big surge of hiring 15 years ago … which seems unrelated current turnover. Wouldn’t median be more relevant?
June 5th, 2014 at 12:34 am
Actually, that’s a good point. But he’s not the one pushing modal. I’ve read it before. Really good point. Now I have to remember where I saw it.
June 5th, 2014 at 10:41 pm
Most of the teachers i know who leave grow tired of the administration and the parents. Many of the ones who stay are clearly hanging on for the pension. Like the 2 who could tell me to they day or month until retirement.
June 5th, 2014 at 11:58 pm
How is “hanging on for the pension” any different than working to the maximum age for SocSec, exactly?
June 6th, 2014 at 4:33 am
I am not a teacher, but work for a school, anecdotally I would say a high churn is correct based on my experience. When I first started working in schools 17 years ago it seemed like about 25% of teachers were in their first 5 years, 25% had over 20 years, and about half fell in between. Now it is about 50% are in their first 5 years, and under 10% over 20 years. The teaching population is definitely younger. Most don’t see being a classroom teacher as a long term goal. They are gunning for non classroom assignments such as a subject coach, some sort of district coordinator, or an administrator.
As for teachers being expensive. The district I work for spends over $12k per student for education. It would be nice to see the actual break down of where the money actually goes. I would guess that less than half that goes to pay salary and benefits for the people that work on the campus from bus driver to principal.
June 11th, 2014 at 4:52 am
LA Judge strikes down tenure:
June 11th, 2014 at 5:33 am
Yeah, I noticed. My take is a bit different.
June 12th, 2014 at 4:42 pm
One article I read about that said that one year with one really bad teacher can set back a person’s lifetime earnings something like $50,000 (though that’s like maybe 3% overall).
I suspect that number is bullshit for a variety of reasons, but I also suspect that the few actually bad teachers do tend to concentrate at poorer, predominately minority schools, because wealthier districts have informal but effective ways of encouraging bad teachers to move on.
So the judge is partially correct when he says that non-whites are more likely to have bad teachers. On the other hand, I suspect that the damage caused by a bad teacher is (a) less than that $50,000 reported, and (b) not as bad overall when dealing with a mostly black or hispanic population. (Though it may be bad for the more academically-inclined of such students.)
June 12th, 2014 at 5:58 pm
That’s the Chetty study, which I write about here: https://educationrealist.wordpress.com/2012/01/10/value-added-non-even/
June 12th, 2014 at 4:44 pm
Forgot to add – I think that the number of actually-bad teachers is far lower than either the plaintiffs or the judge are assuming or claiming, for reasons you and others have discussed elsewhere.
June 14th, 2014 at 6:13 am
Are you going to blog on this? I know your take on tenure, but this ruling is a bit narrower than just not allowing tenure.
June 14th, 2014 at 2:46 pm
Are you on twitter? I’ve been talking about it there, and I’m not sure when or if I’ll blog about it here. Some comments:
Throughout the trial, I was literally stunned not only by how weak the case was, but by how terrible the defense was. There were *tons* of rebuttals to many of the crap points, and the entire rationale was ludicrous to start with. And really–bringing kids on to say “My teacher sucked”. Really?
So the fact that the judge seemed affected by all this was clue #1 that everyone involved–plaintiffs, defense, and judge—were absurdly incapable of discussing the case on anything approaching logic.
The defense didn’t challenge Chetty’s absurd data. I was gobsmacked. First, the amount was absurdly small. If anything, it proved that teachers’ impact was quite similar. Second, he used tax databases which means that the kids most likely to fall off the grid–the bad results–weren’t in the data.
Next–any district that wants to can put together a proposal to get an extension on the two years tenure. It just has to be evenhanded, not up to the administrator (which is why the recent attempt by SJUSD was thrown out). No one EVER mentioned this.
I am stunned the plaintiffs felt confident of Deasy, because LAUSD was incompetent to the point of they’ll probably get sued in the handling of the Berendt case. All they had to do was notify the credentialing commission and he would have lost his credential and been prevented from teaching. Instead, they paid him $40K–and it’s not the first time they’ve done that. It’s pretty clear they are trying to hide their pedophiles and so pay them off. Deasy was there for that. And not only did the plaintiffs put him on, the defense mentioned NONE of this.
Incompetence all round.
I’ve seen enough legal experts point out the two things I am most struck by in the decision that I know my lack of legal education is not a factor in my assessment. 1) Treu has no fact base. 2) Treu’s emotional language calls his neutrality into question.
If I sound upset, it’s not because of the challenge to tenure, in CA or anywhere else. I’m upset because I am stunned at the amount of time and money that went into such an incompetent case. I’m upset that reformers are so utterly unconscious of how moronic the case is. And I’m upset because I’ve been saying for a while that in all social policy (not just education) the courts are a HUGE frigging problem, and this case just spells that out in spades.
I’ll see if I can hunt down the articles I thought did a good job of assessing it.
June 14th, 2014 at 2:51 pm
Here’s Benjamin Riley’s analysis, which is really good:
June 17th, 2014 at 2:00 am
Thanks for the details (and, no, I’m not on twitter).
July 26th, 2016 at 8:06 am
[…] between these two jobs since the early days of this blog. But the final observation comes from an essay that was otherwise unrelated to the topic (I’m a tad unfocused, […]
March 22nd, 2021 at 3:19 am
[…] who predicted that cops would eventually take teachers’ place in the hot seat because “acceptable targets change over time”. If nothing else, rest assured that American history shows people don’t take kindly to whackos […]
October 23rd, 2021 at 3:44 pm
[…] Merrow, a solid education reporter who should stay away from analysis proves me right once […]