Over at Gotham Schools, New York City parent and occasional Core Knowledge Blog commenter Matthew Levey points out an inconvenient truth about teacher quality as an reform lever: the numbers are fanciful. He imagines an educational utopia in the Big Apple, where the perfect teacher assessment tool has been invented, the state assembly “rescinds the tenure provisions of the Taylor law, and the UFT cooperates.” Even in this best of all imagined worlds, it’s still not enough.
New York City alone would need to recruit and hire 27,000 superb teachers by Year Three for teacher quality to work as a reform lever, raising logistical problems we’re not ready to solve, he says.
“Knowledgable reformers know we cannot build and maintain an army of superteachers ready for 10- or 20-year careers in Red Hook, Mott Haven and Washington Heights. While teacher quality is important, can the city responsibly assume that it will be able to develop effective tools, win (or roll) over the unions and fix today’s Albany disaster?
Curriculum reform, Levey concludes, must play an equal role in reform efforts. In New York City, he writes, curriculum can be developed and replicated at almost no marginal cost, “earning a far greater return on investment than merit bonuses for every qualifying teacher or hiring 10,000 high-quality teachers.” Where teacher quality is a long-term, expensive, and politically difficult fix, he notes, curriculum is “fast, cheap, and also effective.”
“Teacher quality advocates may ask: ‘How does a good curriculum help a poor teacher?” I would rephrase the question: “Does a good curriculum make a poor teacher worse?” Lesson planning, delivery of instruction and classroom management — how to teach — are daunting enough without having to develop good content every week. A solid, coherent curriculum improves the odds for new or struggling teacher, and allows master teachers to focus on their kids’ needs or mentoring colleagues.”
Levey doesn’t mention it, but it’s difficult to imagine why our best and brightest would agree to take up the chalk to begin with at pay levels far below other professions, at a time when the President thinks firing entire staffs of schools is a good idea, and ill-informed ed reform Aldo Raines are braying for teachers’ scalps. In short, we’re making the teaching profession ever less compelling, which doesn’t inspire confidence that our army of superteachers can be mustered without an absurdly large infusion of public money (another nonstarter). Levey concludes his analysis with a call for New York City to use its enormous leverage to lead the charge on curriculum reform. “The content we want our kids to learn is the fraternal twin of teacher quality,” he writes “and it is high time we stopped treating it like a redheaded stepchild.”
Absolutely true. As a first year teacher, I had a somewhat-scripted (and phonics-based, and effective) reading curriculum for my first graders. It grouped the children by readiness levels, moved them along, and by the end of the year I had exactly one non-reader in a class of 30. This in a very low SES, African-American and Latino school. And it was very time-efficient. There was plenty of time to read great children’s literature, do hands-on science, etc etc.
Comment by JB — March 16, 2010 @ 10:28 am
We need to abandon the quest for a superteacher, and replace it with a team approach. We need systems where being a good, caring, competent educator is enough to be an effective teacher. Curriculum is a crucial part of such a team.
Comment by john thompson — March 16, 2010 @ 12:56 pm
Boy, Robert. I couldn’t have said it better myself.
Though I kind of wish I had, truth be told.
Comment by NYC Educator — March 16, 2010 @ 8:27 pm
“Teacher quality advocates may ask: ‘How does a good curriculum help a poor teacher?” As Levey suggests, good curriculum can help every other teacher. I wonder how many teachers currently rated “poor” would actually thrive with a stronger curriculum and associated reports.
And amen to John’s comment about the team approach.
Comment by Claus — March 16, 2010 @ 9:54 pm
Curriculum also enhances accountability. Or could. Reading tests are essentially cumulative exams of factors often beyond teacher’s control. If you devised reading tests with the reading passages based on curricular content taught in a particular year (E.D. Hirsch has been suggesting this for some time), it would have a beneficial effect on learning (teaching to the test would make sense) and the tests would be a more valid barometer of teaching ability.
Comment by Robert Pondiscio — March 16, 2010 @ 10:08 pm
Curriculum is essential, but not necessarily cheap and efficient. For one thing, to get a first-rate curriculum in place will take a bit of a struggle, and maybe it won’t come from the central offices themselves. Second, it will require quite a bit of teacher preparation. Yes, students should learn Greek, Roman, and Norse mythology, but that means the teachers should know their mythology inside out–not only the tales but the literature that draws on them. Even highly prepared teachers will need ample time for review and research. Teacher preparation programs should include courses devoted to the curriculum.
With respect to the “team”–yes, the team idea is fine as long as it doesn’t push out quiet and independent thought. Sometimes the concept of the “team” is used to justify incessant talk, groupwork, meetings, and disregard of dissenting voices, and overall noise without careful consideration of ideas. When I hear people say “There’s no ‘I’ in ‘team,’” I think, “uh-oh, that sort of team.” A team approach can be good if it’s not all team, if teachers have much that they can decide and do on their own. Of course this also depends on the situation. A high school teacher solely responsible for the Shakespeare courses will naturally have more autonomy than a first-grade teacher responsible for teaching the same material as five others down the hall.
Comment by Diana Senechal — March 17, 2010 @ 10:07 am
I’m not going to say much about Death and Life of the Great American school System until I’ve read and reread it, except to say I’m learning a bunch. I’d only paid attention, for instance, to History Standards in the 90s controversy and now I’m getting a fuller picutre. Reading Ravitch explains so much about the Making a Great Teacher debate. She does such a great job of explaining both the need for Standards, as well as to avoid the groupthink of so many curriculum alignment and pacing reforms.
And that gets to Diana point. Alignment will never be as possible for high school, and I’d just add to her comment that the way a high school teacher introduces Shakespeare and the pacing will be influenced by whether the students read on grade level, or whether they are five years below. The older the students and the more they’ve diverged while going down lifes many paths, the more teachers need the freedom to use their intuition regarding curriculum and pacing.
Getting back to Ravitch, we need to discuss the difference between her accurate description of a Left-Right Alliance with Leftwing pedaguagy tied to Rightwing Market strategies. We need the synthesis (that she embodies) of common sense and research, of Standards and the resistance to Orwellian groupthink, and our traditional and liberal-minded values. A synthesis implies that human judgement is in the equation.
Comment by john thompson — March 17, 2010 @ 1:07 pm