No Good Teachers? (Part 1)
Yesterday, I was listening to my younger brother, the Immortal. He's a bass-baritone with a de profundis kind of voice, especially when suffering from the 'flu – but that's a purely incidental factor in this post. The Immortal said, "I can tell you that there are hardly any good teachers in this part of the world."
Shock. Horror. Outrage. These are common responses to such a statement. The Elvish Historian responded first, "Yes, but you have to decide first on what makes a good teacher, and that's exactly what I was asked the day before." You will note that the Elvish Historian, no mean teacher himself, showed none of the common responses.
All this was interesting to me. With the ghosts (and present spirits) of many economists looming over me, I began to ponder on whether armchair economic theory might, through 'common-sense' reasoning lead to this assertion on teacher quality. My conclusion was that it might very well be true in some ways and for certain reasons.
For a decade now, I've been researching the concepts of teacher quality and the philosophy of education. These concepts are actually whole areas of knowledge (or unknowledge) and notoriously intractable to intellectual efforts. But my basic argument works like this.
Imprimis, students in this part of the world are told these days that sheer hard work, determination and other personal qualities of character, when applied to books and physical endeavour, will result in success. They are also taught that this is the foundation for creativity. If this is so, then the student can generate successful outcomes without the aid of external factors. In fact, in some states, the idea seems to be that the state depends only on itself for success (despite having educational institutions that show this is not possible); and hence by extension, the student must count only on intrinsic ability and the willingness to work like a slave. If this is not true, then how is it not true?
Secundus, if the first point is not completely true, then some people say that the student needs a coach or mentor to show them how to produce (and by extension, creatively produce) such successful outcomes. If this is so, then the coach must know how to produce such successful outcomes. Coaching, to be seen as effective, must therefore produce results with significantly less effort. However, it is quite possible that coaching and mentoring can only raise the outcome quality (beyond that produced by maximal hard work and character) by a small degree; i.e. the external effect is subject to the law of diminishing returns.
Tertius, from empirical observation, the first point is largely true; if one sets a distinction grade or equivalent at 85%, and character-driven hard work will get you 90%, then all a teacher has to do is ensure that the candidate works hard. The candidate need not reflect or cogitate much, since there is an opportunity cost (how many problems can you drill yourself through vs the amount of time you spend thinking deeply on material which is not tested in that form). If you set up a system in which teachers are enforcers of work ethic, and peer and societal pressure maintain that ethic, then deep thinking is wasteful at the 90% level and economics dictate that the system's typical level is sufficient. Consumers will not pay much for more than what is required.
Quartus, having established in point 1 that students are encouraged to think of the factors of production as being largely under their control, and in point 2 that premium teaching may not raise quality beyond that which hard work and character produces, point 3 really says that most teachers do not need to teach in order to bring about a reasonably successful result. This means that a system set up such that 1, 2 and 3 are true will automatically generate a largely mediocre teaching force. So how is it possible to produce premium teacher quality?
Here are some possibilities, if you want to produce a premium 'brand' of teacher quality which is economically viable.
Could this terrible scenario be true? By economic theory, if humans can get away with it, and it brings corporate or personal gains, they will do it. And if economic results are used to justify the claim of success, then the complex and meandering economic argument becomes circular and automatically wins. It is therefore possible for the scenario to be true.
Yes, but is it true?
Let's look at it from point of view of Teacher X, an hypothetical homo economicus teacher.
"If I make them do sufficient homework and cover the syllabus in class, not encouraging too much reflection but allowing enough so that the marginal cost is justifiable, my students will score in the top 10%. I will get at least a C grade which will give me a premium above the base pay for minimal effort. To get a B grade requires me to read and digest the equivalent of $200 worth of books a month and spend time equivalent to another $600. It is not worth it. However, if I do things which are seen to be above and beyond my teaching duties but are not as wasteful as reading, digesting and thinking, I might even get an A grade. Hmmm..."
How about Teacher Y, an hypothetical homo habilis teacher?
"If I use a lot of technology, it will show that I am up-to-date and that students who have not made the grade are not putting in enough effort. If I make use of whatever comes to hand to accomplish my tasks, regardless of whether it is I who have accomplished those tasks, if the provenance is unseen, I will look good. If I apply statistical measures and assign 2x the amount of necessary work, knowing that at least .57 of the work will be done (and hence 1.14x the necessary), I will have successfully managed the success of my students to everyone's delight."
And perhaps, let's look at Teacher Z, an hypothetical homo mentalis teacher.
"If I encourage my students through the use of visual and oral 'evidence' to show them that they can all conceivably be in the top 1%, they will think they are abnormal not to be in the top 1%. After all, if one member in the class can do it, all have that potential. And if they slip up, they will still be in the top 2%. It cannot be wrong to use positive imagery and other psychological effects; studies have shown that they will work, especially when deployed en masse and that they will all likely end up with better self-esteem anyway – the more brutal the course survived, the stronger the survivor boost."
It is true, I suppose, that some renegade teachers adopt extreme positions on what constitutes teaching and educational quality. But none of these three hypothetical examples is based on a specific real individual. My argument is not that teachers are incompetent. My argument is that given sufficient economic support, teaching competency may not be the most important determinant of the success of a given institution in producing successful educational outcomes. If it isn't so important, people won't bother developing it. Incentives go some distance towards correcting the potential problem, but they might not be sufficient.
And I still haven't answered my brother's assertion. Which I believe is untrue in the sense that I have personally observed a number of pretty good teachers. Then again, if I am a subcompetent observer, those teachers might not be good at all.
Shock. Horror. Outrage. These are common responses to such a statement. The Elvish Historian responded first, "Yes, but you have to decide first on what makes a good teacher, and that's exactly what I was asked the day before." You will note that the Elvish Historian, no mean teacher himself, showed none of the common responses.
All this was interesting to me. With the ghosts (and present spirits) of many economists looming over me, I began to ponder on whether armchair economic theory might, through 'common-sense' reasoning lead to this assertion on teacher quality. My conclusion was that it might very well be true in some ways and for certain reasons.
For a decade now, I've been researching the concepts of teacher quality and the philosophy of education. These concepts are actually whole areas of knowledge (or unknowledge) and notoriously intractable to intellectual efforts. But my basic argument works like this.
Imprimis, students in this part of the world are told these days that sheer hard work, determination and other personal qualities of character, when applied to books and physical endeavour, will result in success. They are also taught that this is the foundation for creativity. If this is so, then the student can generate successful outcomes without the aid of external factors. In fact, in some states, the idea seems to be that the state depends only on itself for success (despite having educational institutions that show this is not possible); and hence by extension, the student must count only on intrinsic ability and the willingness to work like a slave. If this is not true, then how is it not true?
Secundus, if the first point is not completely true, then some people say that the student needs a coach or mentor to show them how to produce (and by extension, creatively produce) such successful outcomes. If this is so, then the coach must know how to produce such successful outcomes. Coaching, to be seen as effective, must therefore produce results with significantly less effort. However, it is quite possible that coaching and mentoring can only raise the outcome quality (beyond that produced by maximal hard work and character) by a small degree; i.e. the external effect is subject to the law of diminishing returns.
Tertius, from empirical observation, the first point is largely true; if one sets a distinction grade or equivalent at 85%, and character-driven hard work will get you 90%, then all a teacher has to do is ensure that the candidate works hard. The candidate need not reflect or cogitate much, since there is an opportunity cost (how many problems can you drill yourself through vs the amount of time you spend thinking deeply on material which is not tested in that form). If you set up a system in which teachers are enforcers of work ethic, and peer and societal pressure maintain that ethic, then deep thinking is wasteful at the 90% level and economics dictate that the system's typical level is sufficient. Consumers will not pay much for more than what is required.
Quartus, having established in point 1 that students are encouraged to think of the factors of production as being largely under their control, and in point 2 that premium teaching may not raise quality beyond that which hard work and character produces, point 3 really says that most teachers do not need to teach in order to bring about a reasonably successful result. This means that a system set up such that 1, 2 and 3 are true will automatically generate a largely mediocre teaching force. So how is it possible to produce premium teacher quality?
Here are some possibilities, if you want to produce a premium 'brand' of teacher quality which is economically viable.
- Treat it like a luxury good with special outcomes. For example, say that 10% of your cohort will go to the top 1% of educational institutions in the world. This is no idle boast if you have rigged the cohort. Consider what happens when a population rated at top 5% in the world is winnowed down to the top 5% of that 5%. That would put them in the top 0.25% in the world. 10% of that is 0.025%. You can claim 'luxury good status' with minimal additional effort, charge a premium, and label it 'premium brand teacher quality'.
- Just charge more and provide more opportunities with the funds that are raised by charging more. The fact is that individuals in a given elite group will vary in terms of where their potential is most usefully deployed. By offering more opportunities, you increase the chance that members of the group will find their optimal deployment of effort. This means more successful outcomes of different kinds. Since there are more successful outcomes, you must be using premium effectuators of such success, presumably teachers.
- Use simple statistics. Your students produce results generally in the top 5% (see first bullet above). The average teacher in your school might be considered to produce at that level, within a normal distribution. These assumptions mean that 50% of your teaching force is producing within the top 5%, and quite possibly, the remaining 50% of your teaching force is still producing in a very flat, long distribution which is effectively overwhelmingly above-average for the world. You can then claim premium effectuator quality.
Could this terrible scenario be true? By economic theory, if humans can get away with it, and it brings corporate or personal gains, they will do it. And if economic results are used to justify the claim of success, then the complex and meandering economic argument becomes circular and automatically wins. It is therefore possible for the scenario to be true.
Yes, but is it true?
Let's look at it from point of view of Teacher X, an hypothetical homo economicus teacher.
"If I make them do sufficient homework and cover the syllabus in class, not encouraging too much reflection but allowing enough so that the marginal cost is justifiable, my students will score in the top 10%. I will get at least a C grade which will give me a premium above the base pay for minimal effort. To get a B grade requires me to read and digest the equivalent of $200 worth of books a month and spend time equivalent to another $600. It is not worth it. However, if I do things which are seen to be above and beyond my teaching duties but are not as wasteful as reading, digesting and thinking, I might even get an A grade. Hmmm..."
How about Teacher Y, an hypothetical homo habilis teacher?
"If I use a lot of technology, it will show that I am up-to-date and that students who have not made the grade are not putting in enough effort. If I make use of whatever comes to hand to accomplish my tasks, regardless of whether it is I who have accomplished those tasks, if the provenance is unseen, I will look good. If I apply statistical measures and assign 2x the amount of necessary work, knowing that at least .57 of the work will be done (and hence 1.14x the necessary), I will have successfully managed the success of my students to everyone's delight."
And perhaps, let's look at Teacher Z, an hypothetical homo mentalis teacher.
"If I encourage my students through the use of visual and oral 'evidence' to show them that they can all conceivably be in the top 1%, they will think they are abnormal not to be in the top 1%. After all, if one member in the class can do it, all have that potential. And if they slip up, they will still be in the top 2%. It cannot be wrong to use positive imagery and other psychological effects; studies have shown that they will work, especially when deployed en masse and that they will all likely end up with better self-esteem anyway – the more brutal the course survived, the stronger the survivor boost."
It is true, I suppose, that some renegade teachers adopt extreme positions on what constitutes teaching and educational quality. But none of these three hypothetical examples is based on a specific real individual. My argument is not that teachers are incompetent. My argument is that given sufficient economic support, teaching competency may not be the most important determinant of the success of a given institution in producing successful educational outcomes. If it isn't so important, people won't bother developing it. Incentives go some distance towards correcting the potential problem, but they might not be sufficient.
And I still haven't answered my brother's assertion. Which I believe is untrue in the sense that I have personally observed a number of pretty good teachers. Then again, if I am a subcompetent observer, those teachers might not be good at all.
Labels: Economics, Education, Statistics
etched with acid at 5:00:00 pm
2 Comments:
Impressive post, impressive thoughts! =)
Hehe I like how you presented this entry using economic principles. "Good" is too vague a word lah, most students judge their teachers simply by whether they learn well under them, while different students have different learning styles. I'd hate anyone to teach me the Krebs cycle diagrammatically.
Post a Comment
<< Home