Today's post is by Simon Johnson
There are many things that our next Minister of Education could do if they wanted to make education better:
- Give more children access to high-quality ECE
- Reform NCEA
- Refurbish or rebuild our many failing school buildings
- Encourage schools to pool their human and financial resources and collaborate to improve learning
- The average learner will live to be 100 years old – and will need educating for many different careers over their lifetime [1]
- Mid-skilled occupations, of the sort that the average Kiwi relies upon, will increasingly be automated. More and more workers will need to interact with AI as a core part of their job.
- Students will have to compete with increasing numbers of English-speaking workers from developing markets who demand a substantially lower wage than their Kiwi counterpart.
I suggest that our ambitious Minister should focus on one thing: encouraging more high-quality teachers to teach in New Zealand’s poorest schools.
Why does this
matter so much? The evidence is quite clear: improving the quality of teaching
– and of the teachers doing the teaching – is the single biggest lever for
improving student outcomes [2]. In particular, the effect of being taught by a particularly poor teacher is
almost catastrophic for the student involved: the best evidence is that being
taught by a teacher in the bottom 5% of effectiveness will reduce an average’s
student performance by ~40%, compared to being taught by a teacher of average
quality [3]. It is clearly utterly imperative to reduce the number
of students being taught by such teachers.
There are (simplistically)
two ways that this could be done [4]. The Ministry of Education could find ways to ban these failing teachers from
the profession (In the jargon, this is ‘deselection’ [5]).
But any Minister who followed this course would be in a political fight of the
highest order: no teacher (and certainly no teaching union) would like to work
under the threat of ‘deselection’. Moreover, whatever your opinions on firing
poor quality teachers as a principle [6], it is a silly policy in New Zealand’s current situation: we struggle to recruit
enough teachers to work in low-decile schools as it is [7]. Out on the front line, the ‘pool’ of available
teachers is shallow – few head teachers
in low-decile schools have the luxury of choosing between several maths teachers
to fill their vacancies. Introducing the threat of later firing is not going to
encourage many people to join the profession. Instead, we must compete these
low-quality teachers out of the profession. We must increase the depth of the
recruitment pool – increase the number of high-quality
teachers – and hence provide headteachers with more genuine choices in
recruitment [8].
As we do so, we
must also change part of the incentive structure. At the moment, the pool of
teachers is not evenly distributed across the system: high-decile schools find
it easier to recruit for vacancies and, on average, attract higher quality
teachers [9]. The reason for this is simple: teachers are paid according to a national pay
scale. There are no financial rewards for choosing to work in a low-decile
school. Indeed, there is an implicit financial reward to teaching in high
decile schools. A decile 10 school has about 60% greater income than a decile 1
school, as a result of parental donations (‘school fees’) [10]. Although a high decile school can’t spend this on teacher pay directly [11], they can spend it on the things which make a teacher’s life more attractive:
the better classroom facilities, the new swimming pool, the additional school
trips. Compounding this, high decile schools have fewer children with the most
extreme forms of educational need, and have the pick of high-quality school leaders and supportive parents. Although some
teachers are motivated by the challenge of teaching in low-decile schools, many
are not: given the imbalance in incentives,
it isn’t really much surprise that many high-quality
teachers choose not to work in the schools which need them most. Any attempt to
improve the depth of the teacher recruitment pool must be closely tailored at
ways to encourage more teachers to work in low-decile schools.
Enter Teach First.
Teach First New
Zealand recruits teachers in a completely different way to existing training
institutions. Modelled on similar programmes in other countries, its basic
premise is that teaching is a craft that can be learnt (to some degree) ‘on the
job’. Accordingly, they recruit graduates directly from university (without
completing the normal year-long teacher certification) and, after an 8-week training course, find them work in
low-decile schools. The scheme to date has been small, with only a handful of
new teachers being trained each year, and has not been without its
controversies: Teach First and the Ministry of Education got into legal
difficulties when they failed to comply with various pieces of education and
employment law which regulate how teachers are recruited. However, there has been
relatively little controversy about the quality of the programme: an initial
qualitative study conducted by NZCER
and the University of Auckland found the quality of teachers produced by
the programme was generally very good, which is in line with international
experience where Teach First teachers tend to be as effective (although not
more effective) than conventionally trained teachers.
One particular feature
of the Teach First programme is worthy of our particular attention: it seems to
attract teachers who want to teach in low-decile schools. Once they complete
the 2-year training programme, Teach First alumni are under no obligation to
continue teaching in low-decile schools. Indeed, with the brand-stamp of ‘Teach
First’ on their CV, they would be in a good position to take teaching jobs in
other schools. And yet they continue to teach in low-decile schools in
significant numbers: about 50% of those who complete the Teach First programme remainas teachers in low-income schools aftertheir programme.
This is
remarkable and could – if done at scale – make an incredible difference to
low-income schools. Any programme that increases the size of the ‘pool’ of
people willing to teach in these schools, despite all of the incentives which
encourage them to teach in higher-decile schools, will increase the competition
for a fixed number of teaching roles and will reduce the number of sub-standard
teachers who are hired merely to fill a vacancy. Teach First to date has shown
that there is a pool of socially minded potential teachers amongst our
university graduates who are willing to ignore their rational interests
(financial and non-financial) to teach in low-income
schools.
The first order
of business is to ensure we are fully recruiting in this market: we should step
up our efforts to identify these potential teachers and recruit them into
teaching. For all the difficulties that Teach First has as an organisation
(including, most recently, the withdrawal of the University of Auckland as its
academic partner), it seems to be the organisation that is best placed to find
these teachers. Our new Minister of Education should sanction an expansion of
Teach First. It should be allowed to recruit as many teachers as it can find –
on the proviso that it manages its programme in a way that keeps the proportion
of its alumni who teach in low-decile schools stable (at around 50%), whilst
also maintaining its existing quality and performance standards [12]. Further, the Minister should work with
Teach First to remove any bureaucratic barriers that are preventing them
finding a new academic partner. A critic of Teach First will rightly point out
that Teach First is expensive (it costs about 50% more to train a teacher
through Teach First versus conventional training channels [13]).
However, I suggest that this a price that – ultimately – we can afford to pay,
in order to get more high-quality
teachers in schools where they are most needed [14].
So far, so easy.
The problem is that Teach First is tiny. Under any conceivable expansion plan,
only a small sliver of New Zealand’s teachers would ever be taught by Teach
First. This is probably right – the on-the-job method of learning that Teach
First uses may not be right for every potential teacher. Instead, the Ministry
of Education should learn from Teach First to improve its own recruitment
efforts for recruiting teachers to low- income schools. Teach First recruits
teachers in a fundamentally different way to traditional institutions: it
offers a sense of ‘mission’ and purpose, as well as a structured set of
mentors, coaches and peers who remain with the teacher as they begin their
teaching career, offering advice and encouragement as the new teacher
encounters the difficulties of being a new teacher. In an ideal world, the
Ministry would launch its own recruitment strategy incorporating these elements
which Teach First have shown to be successful, with the addition of a financial
incentive, possibly a student loan rebate, to increase the pool of people
willing to teach in low decile schools. This would be a new role for the
Ministry - it means they are actively intervening in the teacher labour market
in a way that they haven’t done before – but it is an idea which would have
real benefits for low-decile schools by increasing the size of the pool of
teachers they can recruit from. Doing so would not be the most eye-catching
initiative for a new Minister but it has the advantage that it might just have
a significant difference, quickly, for the young New Zealanders who need it
most.
Simon Johnson is a former Treasury official and
management consultant. He now lives in India where he is working on teacher
quality and retention. He writes in his personal capacity and has no
party-political affiliation, nor any connection with Teach First NZ. [Editor's note: Simon is still very tall, and very British.]
[1] Gratton and Scott (2016) ‘The 100 Year Life’
[1] Gratton and Scott (2016) ‘The 100 Year Life’
[2] Hattie (2009) ‘Visible Learning’
[3] Hanushek (2009) ‘Teacher Deselection’
[4] A third alternative would be to improve the quality of the lowest
performing teachers through in-service professional development. I am not
discussing this here, not because I consider it unimportant (it clearly is
vitally important) but because I am assuming that it has limited potential to
help the least effective 5% of the teaching force.
[5] I am not clear why Hanushek invents this euphemism for ‘firing’ [Editor's note: if anything, 'deselection' sounds far worse, almost robotic in its clinical coldness].
[6] And, to be clear, I am in favour it, all other things equal (which
they definitely are not).
[7] I really wish that the data exists for me to show this empirically.
However, at the time of writing, my OIA request has not been successful and I
cannot show this more than anecdotally.
[8] This assumes headteachers can distinguish between a high and low
quality candidate at interview – a vital point which is worth much fuller
discussion than I can spare here.
[9] See note 7
[10] For more, see our article from the last election cycle: https://www.mcdp.nz/2014/09/a-policy-day-capping-school-donations.html
[11] This would be ‘bulk funding’.
[12] The MoE should insist on this being written into the contract with
Teach First.
[13] See, for example, http://ppta.org.nz/dmsdocument/77,
conforming with the wider literature.
[14] That is not to say that we should write a blank cheque. For
example, I would be very happy to introduce some form of bonding, where Teach
First participants have to pay back a portion of their costs if they leave
teaching (or low-decile teaching) before a certain number of years. My point is
that a short-term additional cost in improving the size of the teaching
profession will have long-run advantages if it is can remove low-skilled
teachers from the classroom.
No comments:
Post a Comment