Anybody Can Teach

So writes Nicholas Kristof in a Sunday column in the New York Times. He says that if we let anyone with some knowledge about a subject teach, it would improve teacher quality right away.

That's a nice idea, but it won't happen, and Kristof's proposal will do nothing to improve teacher quality. But it will stir the hornets in Washington and elsewhere, and shift the debate away from things that will improve teaching.

Let's take it piece by piece:

*Kristof writes that Meryl Streep would teach drama if only barriers to teaching, like certification and licensing were removed. And Colin Powell would teach social studies. He wants to relax certification so these two and other midlife career changers could get jobs in schools.

But they won't teach. The Streeps and Powells of the world won't enter teaching. There won't be a rush of the best and brightest into schools. Instead, things will remain as they are: a wide range of people will become teachers, people with different backgrounds and interests and motivation. None will know for certain about researched methods for helping students grasp content knowledge and skills. Some will get lucky and discover the right way. Some won't. But relaxing standards so Meryl Streep could teach won't change that.

I'm not a big fan of the bureaucracy and rules for certification as they exist. But I also know throwing it all out the window won't necessarily improve teaching.

*Kristof includes this amazing statistic:

The upshot is that between 1971 and 1974, 24 percent of teachers had scored in the top 10 percent on their high school achievement tests. Now only 11 percent have done so.

I have no idea where this came from. I've email him to find out. I can't locate such a statistic, and don't know anyone who as ever seen this.

But let's say it's true. That would mean that a teacher in the classroom today, with a little more than 25 years experience ought to be the best teacher in the building, because that's the teacher most likely to have the high achievement score. But there is evidence (and I confess I don't have it at my fingertips) that teacher experience is not related to student achievement. And in some cases, it is negatively related to teacher experience.

*Kristof notes that elite, expensive private schools let anyone teach.

Phillips Exeter Academy, for example, says that 85 percent of its faculty have advanced degrees but probably only a handful are certified. (Since it is private, it doesn't worry about certification or even keep track of which teachers are certified.)

At Exeter, for example, biology is taught by a former doctor. Japanese is taught by a former businessman who worked in Japan. And a history teacher arrived with no teaching experience but has published five books.

But think about it. What kind of kids go to these schools? Let's take all those uncertified, experts and put them into a Bronx high school and see how well they manage. One administrator I know said you could take all the kids from his elite district, teach them nothing for a year, and they'd still score above grade level.

UPDATE: I just found the Teach for America study that Kristof mentions. Here's what Kristof says:

Teach for America participants get only an intensive six-week training session, yet they excel in the classroom. One study found that classes with a Teach for America participant learn an extra month of math over the school year, compared with classes with a traditional teacher.

But that's not what the study says. The study linked here says that students with TFA teachers do slightly better in math than those students with other teachers in the same school. The "other" teachers tend to be uncertified, to have little or no teaching experience, and to not be educated in a school of education. TFA teachers, on the other hand, get an intensive summer program on teaching methods, pedagogy, the kind of stuff they teach in Ed Schools.

Eduwonk thinks Kristof proves what some other are saying.

I think Kristof and Eduwonk are missing the point.

In many cases, it's not obvious how to present content and skills to kids in ways that they can grasp and learn. If it were, anyone could teach. But all of us have had lousy, smart teachers.

I believe that just as there are skills that allow people with knowledge of anatomy to practice medicine, and people with knowledge of physics to be engineers, so too are there skills that help people with knowledge of math, literature, history, etc. to be teachers.

What really needs to happen is that Ed Schools work on improving teacher education. And Kristof's column obscures that important solution. It is happening already. The graduating class of teachers from my university this weekend was impressive. They know a lot about how to teach and about the knowledge and content they will be offering through their practice. And they also say they have much more to learn. They do.

But in the meantime, I wish Kristof would explain what he would do to actually improve the practice of teaching, rather than just conduct some kind of trial and error experiment with other people's children. There's been enough of that already.

UPDATE: Another link about this column, at The Stopped Clock. Let's Get It Right notes the other thing that made me roll my eyes about this column: Kristof writes, "Maybe it helps to be brilliant and to have studied teaching, but mostly it is personality." Oh, please. So we need former engineers who are also entertaining.

Here's another link from Barnett Barry of the Teaching Quality group.