Schooling Scholars on Classroom Success

[proud2BlibKansan]

These days everyone seems to think teachers need improving—even people who uncover evidence to the contrary. A group of economists from Berkeley, Harvard and Northwestern recently made headlines when they published a study that was ostensibly about the relationship between teacher quality and student success as adults. The economists made three observations. The first is that when children are assigned to kindergarten classes randomly, test scores in some classes are higher than in others. The authors argue that these differences must be due to differences in teacher performance (as well as peer effects). The second observation is that children who attend high-score kindergarten classes earn more money in their adult life. Based on these two observations, the economists conclude that we should invest in raising the quality of teachers, and The New York Times goes a step further and argues that teachers should be paid according to their performance.

However, the economists also made a third observation that they dismissed as having no bearing on their conclusions: Children who attend high-score classes in kindergarten perform only negligibly better on standardized tests than other students in later years. Why? The authors claim this finding isn’t important. As Raj Chetty of Harvard, one of the economists who produced the study, told the New York Times, “We don’t really care about test scores. We care about adult outcomes.”

Obviously the authors do care about test scores, but only the ones that fit their hypothesis. If a child scores higher than her peers at age 5 but not in later years, why would she earn more than her peers do at age 27 (the age of the adults in the study)? Obviously it is not what she had learned in school that increased her earnings. But if not to begin to prepare their students for academic work in subsequent years, what should kindergarten teachers teach, then? And if academic performance in later years does not matter, what should teachers of any other grade teach? When placed in context, it becomes clear that rather than highlighting the value of teachers’ performance, what this study really does is cast doubt on the value of kindergarten education as a panacea for poverty.

The most interesting numbers in this study are those that the authors do not discuss, because they make it possible to compare the students in the study with students in general. The students in the study were 27 years old in 2007, and their average wage was $1,232 a month. Those who attended the highest-scoring class earned on average about $1,330, and those among all students in the study, regardless of which class they attended, who received nearly perfect scores on the standardized test earned on average about $2,080 a month. In 2007, the average wage for all 27-year-old full-time workers in the U.S. was $2,792, and the top 10 percent among these workers earned $4,800 more. Even the median wage was 20 percent higher than what these top kindergarten achievers were making. Clearly sending your kid to the best kindergarten class will not save her from poverty, and neither will exceptionally high scores on kindergarten standardized tests. What should these parents have done differently?

more . . . http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/schooling_scholars_on_classroom_success_20100820/

[Hannah Bell]

1. These children lived in Tennessee, and the very best thing their parents could have done = MOVE.

[End Of The Road]

2. We test Kindergartners?

Worse yet, we evaluate K teachers on the performance of their students?

How utterly depressing.

I remember learning to write my name (with a crayon), singing songs, nap time, etc. from Kindergarten - way back in the day, of course.

Maybe it was a sign of things to come, since my current monthly income is $0!

[proud2BlibKansan]

3. It's worse than that

We test preschoolers now. Head Start kids take standardized tests.