Seniority Does Not Equal Value
Posted: December 18th, 2010 | Author: Jon | Filed under: Education | Tags: bill gates, ccsso, Education, reform, speech | No Comments »Last month, Microsoft founder turned philanthropist Bill Gates gave a speech to the Council of Chief State School Officers, a US-based nonprofit made up of elementary and secondary educational administrators. While a transcript of the speech is available on the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation’s website, most people only heard about the event from a poorly-written New York Times Article entitled “Gates Urges School Budget Overhauls.” Unfortunately, this article glosses over the entire point of Gates’ speech, choosing instead to highlight his controversial comments about restructuring educational budgets without any kind of explanation:
In a speech on Friday, Mr. Gates — who is gaining considerable clout in education circles — plans to urge the 50 state superintendents of education to take difficult steps to restructure the nation’s public education budgets, which have come under severe pressure in the economic downturn.
He suggests they end teacher pay increases based on seniority and on master’s degrees, which he says are unrelated to teachers’ ability to raise student achievement. He also urges an end to efforts to reduce class sizes. Instead, he suggests rewarding the most effective teachers with higher pay for taking on larger classes or teaching in needy schools.
The poor coverage of Gates’ speech lead to some understandably vitriolic but ultimately misplaced outrage on social networking sites like Twitter. The point that Gates tried to make in his speech, and the one that was ultimately missed by the New York Times article, is that school budgets are still constructed based on old and outdated ways of thinking about education. In light of recent advances, Gates advocates a move to a data-driven free-market based approach to improving the educational system for all involved.
Until very recently, it was nearly impossible to objectively measure student achievement, because students are dispersed geographically and come from a wide range of economic, social and religious backgrounds that impact their styles of learning and interactions with both teachers and other students. The introduction of standardized testing, while controversial, has allowed researchers to eliminate these disparate variables and isolate for the one factor that we’re actually interested in: the difference that one year’s worth of study has on student intelligence and accomplishment. After all, what is a school if not a place that we send our children to become more educated and informed members of society?
Once we can isolate for achievement, we can map it against the various factors that might influence it, including teacher salary, seniority, and education level; classroom size, and the ratio of adults to students in a classroom environment. These variables can then be altered and their configurations tested in order to optimize student achievement, thus producing a more efficient educational system that churns out smarter individuals who are more capable of contributing to society in a positive and meaningful way. At the same time, we can be certain that the money that is poured into educational reforms is spent wisely, and can be directly mapped to student advancement.
As Gates points out, these are important concepts, because the American educational system is reeling quickly towards a crisis of both funding and inadequacy. Reforms are required across the board for three main reasons:
- Since the 1970s, the cost of maintaining the educational system has increased dramatically, while measurable student achievement has stayed essentially flat.
- In the same period, graduation rates have dropped from 2nd in the world to 16th.
- The United States now ranks behind 16 countries in scientific achievement, and behind 23 countries in mathematics achievement among students.
Combined with the stresses of the recent financial crisis, schools are being squeezed between a rock and a hard place. They need to change the way that they do business, but can’t afford to do so. This has lead school administrators to react to shrinking budgets by cutting personnel, using old and outdated equipment and text books, and closing down poorly performing schools. Although each of these strategies may help a district to balance its budget in the short term, all impact students negatively over time.
Gates’ argument is that this problem can be sidestepped by addressing the way that we pay teachers for their efforts. As would be expected, a large portion of the educational system’s operating budget is dedicated to teacher salaries. With this in mind, we must consider the two primary components of personnel costs: student to teacher ratios and instructor compensation models. Gates suggests that by changing the way that these two factors are considered, we may be able to better allocate funding, and ultimately, improve student learning.
Past reform efforts have concentrated on reducing classroom sizes. In 1960, the average classroom in the United States put one teacher in front of 26 students. Today, that number has changed dramatically, with one teacher now in charge of just fifteen students. The argument in favour of this movement has been that students benefit from more face-to-face time with teachers. Standards-based testing has shown that this simply isn’t true: There is little correlation between smaller teacher to student ratios and higher student achievement.
Gates also points out that current pay structures reward teacher seniority instead of great teaching. Teachers who have been in the system longer tend to make more money, under the assumption that they get better at their jobs over time. Again, this isn’t necessarily true: studies show that after their first five years of teaching, most teachers don’t increase the positive effect that they have on student achievement, regardless of how many more years they spend teaching thereafter.
Gates argues that by stopping our race to shrink classroom sizes and taking some time to reconsider the elements that influence teacher’s salaries, we can spend educational funding in a more positive manner. In particular, he suggests that teacher salaries be linked to the performance of their students, thus rewarding great teachers and providing constant incentive of lackluster teachers to improve. He makes a point of noting that this pay restructuring wouldn’t mean lower salaries. The average salary of all teachers could stay the same, but those who perform well would be better compensated for their efforts, creating a positive feedback loop that ultimately benefits students. In addition, Gates advocates that the best teachers be paid extra for taking on more or troubled students, which means that his new proposal could even benefit traditionally troubled poorer neighbourhoods.
“Conservative estimates suggest that we can save more than $10,000 per classroom by increasing class size by just four pupils. If we pay some of that money to our best teachers for taking in more students, we accomplish three goals at once – we save money, we get more students in classrooms with highly effective teachers, and we give our best teachers a real raise, not just for being good, but for taking on more work.”
For me, the most important part of this speech was not the claim that Gates made, but rather the reasons behind it. Once you understand why he’s advocating larger classrooms, you can see that the motivations behind such a statement are pure, and start to understand what he would like to accomplish. Essentially, he is attempting to build an economy around great teachers that rewards the best and encourages the others, while always striving to increase student achievement. That’s an admirable goal.
