Uncertified Teachers Performing Well, Study Finds

There's something in this study for everyone. The most important take-away for me is further proof that teachers who graduate from our traditional education schools don't help students learn any better than those who enter teaching through alternative routes -- hardly surprising, given how dreadful these schools are on average. This raises the obvious question: if these schools don't lead to greater student achievement, then why on earth do we continue to require that teachers spend huge amounts of time and money attending them?!

Attached are two slides from The Hamilton Project. The second one confirms the latest study -- that type of certification has no bearing on student learning. The first confirms what Randi Weingarten says in the article below (sort of):
The president of the city teachers union, the United Federation of Teachers, Randi Weingarten pointed to another finding that supports one of the union's longstanding arguments: that experience is a defining factor in good teaching.
"The most successful teachers are the ones who have experience and have been mentored or given other supports to help them learn how to teach in their earliest days in the profession," Ms. Weingarten said, adding that the study "also reaffirms that regardless of whether someone has been certified in the traditional way or in a new way, you can't just plop them into the school system and see if they sink or swim."

Yes, experience matters -- but ONLY for the first two years! The data I've seen shows no difference between a 3rd-year teacher and a 20th-year teacher -- contrary to what Randi would have you believe (she would argue that a 20th year teacher is better, in order to justify the lockstep pay system, in which a teacher is paid more for each year of seniority, even though this appears to have no benefit to students).

I must admit that the data was puzzling to me at first -- I would have expected student achievement to rise as a teacher became more experienced through at least five years and maybe even 10. This is true in other professions: a 10th year doctor, lawyer, consultant, investment manager, etc. is significantly better than a 3rd-year one. So why doesn't this appear to be true in teaching? I suspect it's caused by the dysfunctional nature of the SYSTEM, which causes the benefit of experience to be canceled out by other factors, such as: a) A lot of teachers get more and more burned out over time; b) With little support and no reward for excellence, the best teachers leave -- either to go into another profession or teach at a private school; c) Conversely, the least competent teachers (who presumably don't have other good career options and/or couldn't get a job at a private school) NEVER leave -- and the system does NOTHING to identify and remove the least effective teachers.

Note that Randi didn't comment at all on this (because she'll oppose it to the death, despite its obvious merit):

The Department of Education said the findings supported their argument that teachers who perform better should be paid more. The department said it would be allocating funds "to pay more to teachers who contribute more, including pay differentials that help make sure our high-needs schools get lead teachers as well as math, science, and special education teachers."
--------------------
Uncertified Teachers Performing Well, Study Finds
BY SARAH GARLAND - Staff Reporter of the Sun
November 20, 2006
URL: http://www.nysun.com/article/43827

Uncertified teachers end up performing just as well in the classroom as certified teachers and alternatively trained teachers like Teaching Fellows, a study to be released today says.