The main thing I noticed, only having read the article, is that the results the authors note seem to be completely independent of whatever knowledge or skills the tests measure? That is, they are independent of the validity of the standardized tests. No? I mean, wouldnt they kind of have to be? And if that's the case, what matters in producing the observed results is very different from what we typically think of as "teaching," but is instead connected to things like motivation, focus, and other dispositional qualities -- and not at all, or in some sidelong ways to things like knowledge, math and writing skills, and so on.
Or not?
J
On Jan 6, 2012, at 11:04 AM, Wojtek S <wsoko52 at gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/06/education/big-study-links-good-teachers-to-lasting-gain.html?ref=education
>
> WASHINGTON — Elementary- and middle-school teachers who help raise
> their students’ standardized-test scores seem to have a wide-ranging,
> lasting positive effect on those students’ lives beyond academics,
> including lower teenage-pregnancy rates and greater college
> matriculation and adult earnings, according to a new study that
> tracked 2.5 million students over 20 years.
>
> The paper, by Raj Chetty and John N. Friedman of Harvard and Jonah E.
> Rockoff of Columbia, all economists, examines a larger number of
> students over a longer period of time with more in-depth data than
> many earlier studies, allowing for a deeper look at how much the
> quality of individual teachers matters over the long term.
>
>
> [WS:] Two comments.
>
> 1. With the n = 2+ million, any difference is significant.
>
> 2. An alternative explanation of the findings is plausible - good
> teachers tend to be attracted to good schools i.e. schools whose
> students tend to value education and thus benefit from education more
> than those who do not value it. So the effect of teacher quality on
> student lives is spurious - both could be caused by the value students
> place in receiving education.
>
> But as JK Galbraith once commented, economists are in the business of
> providing needed conclusion to those in a position to pay for them.
> With few exceptions, I would not give a rat's ass for anything written
> by an US economist, no matter how they cook their numbers.
>
> Wojtek
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk