Transferring Top Teachers has Benefits (no surprise) - but is this as good an idea as it seems?

More holiday reading…    

A front page article in the Nov.13th EdWeekly reported the not particularly surprising results of a seven-year study which concluded that "elementary teachers identified as effective who transferred to low-achieving schools under a bonus-pay program helped their new students learn more, on average..." Although the logic is somewhat circular, this does seem to support the common-sense idea that we ought to find ways to get our best teachers into the schools where they're most needed.

As an aside, I would note that this a bigger concern in large districts in which resources are often unevenly distributed from one school to another. (One might ask how this is allowed to happen - one possibility is that these districts are simply too large to be managed effectively -  but that's an argument for another day.)

The study also suggests that getting teachers to transfer into low-achieving schools  is easier said than done. Even with a $20,000 incentive, spread over two years, only about 5% of eligible teachers were willing to switch schools.

For me, this reinforces something I've long maintained: that for most teachers - even, and perhaps especially, the ‘good’ ones - it's not (just) about the money. A significant measure of teacher job satisfaction comes from the quality of their work environment. In fact, this was another finding of the study: it's important to teachers that they are "surrounded by like-minded peers and leaders".  Few people want to be on an island by themselves.

A conclusion worth noting: 'effective' teachers had, on average, four more years of experience than teachers overall. So experience appears to count for something.

And finally, a finding that, for me, turns the entire study on its head: the results varied significantly from one school to another, with some schools showing no improvement at all. In some schools, apparently, even the 'most effective' teachers struggle to make a difference. 

So perhaps this idea isn’t so reasonable after all.  First, few school districts - especially not where this might actually matter- have this kind of money to spend.  (Ask Philadelphia.)  Especially since not even $20,000 per teacher appears to be enough. Second, even if you could bribe (encourage) enough teachers to move, it won’t make much difference if you don’t first do something about the teaching and learning environment in the school.

As the authors concluded: "the onus is on districts to improve working conditions and make lower-performing schools attractive places to work."

It seems to me that our resources would be better spent creating school environments in which teachers feel respected and supported - such that everyone (teachers and students) wants to be there – and on quality professional development with the goal of making every teacher effective.  (This requires teamwork, not superstars.)

p.s.:  No mention in the article on the nature of the tests that were used as the basis of the study, what the tests were purported to measure, their reliability or validity.