Myth-Takes in Reform Efforts

Dr. Tabitha Grossman recently made a presentation to Louisiana’s Blue Ribbon Commission for Educational Excellence. In her remarks she made reference to the importance of teacher quality, as she does in documents referenced herein, saying that teacher quality is the largest single factor impacting student achievement. I would like to point out a major mistake in her reporting of research, and one that rises to such a level as to raise questions of whether such a mistake is possible given her credentials, or whether this was simply another, in a long line of “myth-takes” by prominent researchers based on ideology.

Dr. Grossman is listed as the author of “Building a High Quality Workforce: a governor’s guide to human capital development” (hereinafter referred to as The Guide) which was produced by the National Governor’s Association Center for Best Practices, Education Division, where Dr. Grossman holds a position as Senior Policy Analyst.

On page 1 of The Guide, the following quote appears:

Teacher effectiveness is the primary influence on student achievement, followed by principal effectiveness.1 Given this reality, state efforts to improve student achievement should focus on workforce policies and practices, and on workforce funding decisions that improve the quality of the education workforce. To do this, governors should consider a comprehensive human capital approach that strategically invests in teachers and principals and that, in turn, can improve student outcomes.

The reference given in the above quote is: 1. The Wallace Foundation, Becoming a Leader: Preparing School Principals for Today’s Schools (New York: Wallace Foundation, 2008). The quote below is the only location in that entire document on the relative importance of teacher and principal influences on student achievement. See if you can note the not-so-subtle differences between Dr. Grossman’s passage and the passage from the Wallace Foundation document.

The importance of effective school leadership and the accompanying need to provide principals with more appropriate training to meet today’s needs are getting long-overdue attention. Teachers have the most immediate in-school effect on student success. But there is growing agreement that with the national imperative for having every child succeed, it is the principal who is best positioned to ensure that teaching and learning are as good as they can be throughout entire schools, especially those with the highest needs. (page 1)

Any researcher specifically referencing another publication has a responsibility to accurately capture the essential elements of the publication being referenced, even if the researcher wishes to disagree with the findings outlined in the document. In this case, Dr. Grossman somehow confuses “…the most immediate in-school effect on student success” with her statement that “Teacher effectiveness is the primary influence on student achievement.” The two statements are not at all synonymous. If Dr. Grossman had merely made such statements in her spoken presentation to the BESE, one could argue that she simply made a mistake. Having included the statement, and the reference, in a written document does compound the error. But she doesn’t stop with the one reference.

On page 3 of The Guide, in a section titled “Why is a Human Capital Strategy Necessary?” Dr. Grossman again emphasizes the point she made earlier, by making a very clear statement. “Research shows that teacher quality is the primary influence on student achievement.5” Putting aside the question of whether such a statement should actually provide some reference to actual research, this statement might again have referenced the Wallace Foundation study cited above, but Dr. Grossman this time provides the following reference: “5. Organisation (sic) for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD), Attracting, Developing and Retaining Effective Teachers—Final Report: Teachers Matter (Paris: OECD, 2004).” In its overview of this report, the OECD authors include the following on page 2:

Three broad conclusions emerge from research on student learning. The first and most solidly based finding is that the largest source of variation in student learning is attributable to differences in what students bring to school – their abilities and attitudes, and family and community background. Such factors are difficult for policy makers to influence, at least in the short-run.

The second broad conclusion is that of those variables which are potentially open to policy influence, factors to do with teachers and teaching are the most important influences on student learning. In particular, the broad consensus is that “teacher quality” is the single most important school variable influencing student achievement.

The first paragraph above makes it difficult to accept Dr. Grossman’s use of this document as a reference… since it makes clear that “the largest source of variation in student learning is attributable to differences in what students bring to school….” While it goes on to state “such factors are difficult for policy makers to influence, at least in the short run” we should be careful not to make the incredible ‘leap of faith’ that Dr. Grossman appears to have made. Just because taking policy actions directed at what students bring to school may be difficult, it does not then follow that “research shows that teacher quality is the primary influence on student achievement.” (I will be shortly providing a post on what we CAN do about some of the out-of-sachool factors!)

What is troubling about Dr. Grossman’s compounding of what I call “myth-information” is that it becomes part and parcel of public and political efforts to develop policies holding schools accountable for circumstances beyond their control, while carefully hiding from the public the actual research results which clearly point to the greater impact of out-of-school factors. These factors, pointed out in the OECD report cited earlier, are best summed up in the words of the group, “A Broader, Bolder Approach to Education.”

Evidence demonstrates, however, that achievement gaps based on socioeconomic status are present before children even begin formal schooling. Despite impressive academic gains registered by some schools serving disadvantaged students, there is no evidence that school improvement strategies by themselves can substantially, consistently, and sustainably close these gaps. A Broader, Bolder Approach

Through the creation (or repetition) of a myth about teacher quality being the most important factor in student achievement, Dr. Grossman, et al. develop the groundwork for such policies as “pay for performance” and the “competitive compensation” proposals so enamored by those who see as socialist evils, unions, teacher pay scales, and civil service policies.

Such “myth-informed” policies cannot have the impact suggested by Dr. Grossman and others, since the impact of teachers on student achievement is much smaller than her statements suggest. In fact, policy makers would do well to heed the suggestions of the signatories to “A Broader, Bolder Approach” by focusing on issues related to out of school factors as well as in school factors. In future posts I will outline some of my proposals in these areas.