Consider this Washington Monthly piece, for instance, which argues that "Teachers across the country earn grad degrees to get raises. Turns out those degrees don’t improve student learning—they just fatten universities’ bottom lines."
Ah, yes, an old issue here at this blog!
Back in September 2011, I warned readers: "Two words to keep in mind: graduate degrees." I wrote there:
Look at yourself at the mirror and ask this question: "Does one really need a master's degree to teach at the elementary school level?That was in 2011.
And then, follow it up with this: "Do instructors at community colleges need doctorates to teach the classes?"
There is a good possibility that your instinct says that a master's degree is not needed for elementary school teachers, and that community college faculty don't need to have the "PhD" tag either.
It is also highly probable that you think it might be a good idea if teachers have those respective advanced degrees.
Now, ask yourself, this: will student learning be increased just because it is an elementary school teacher with a master's degree, or a community college instructor with a PhD?
Here is the Washington Monthly in its January/February 2020 issue:
“Most of the research is that there’s either no statistically significant difference, or small significant differences, in teachers with master’s degrees,” said Thomas Kane, an economist and professor of education at Harvard. Matthew Chingos, an education-policy expert at the Urban Institute, has described it as “one of the most consistent findings in education research.” Kate Walsh, president of the National Council on Teacher Quality, put it more bluntly: “It’s as conclusive as research that finds smoking causes lung cancer. It’s as conclusive as the research on climate change.”Compare with what I wrote here in 2011:
There is nothing in the literature that shows that student learning is enhanced merely because the teachers have those higher credentials. In fact, the higher credentials by themselves do not make good teachers. The advanced degrees are neither necessary, nor sufficient, conditions for improved student learning. These are simply distractions!So, why then the push for graduate degrees? I will quote from my own post first:
The problem comes up because teachers, their unions, and the schools have set up a system in which teachers get a salary bump if they have advanced degrees. ...And what does the Washington Monthly say?
Now, think about higher education as an industry. If you are a higher education professional, you realize that there is an economic incentive for second grade teachers also to get master's degrees. You then expand into offering those programs
Nixing the automatic master’s pay bump, which many experts advocate, would likely face intense resistance from teachers’ unions. It would also draw quiet resistance from a less obvious source: the universities awarding degrees. Data from the Department of Education shows that education master’s degrees are the second most commonly awarded master’s degrees in the country, after MBAs. That makes them an important and reliable source of tuition revenue—as long as teachers feel the need to get them.Seriously, what the hell is wrong with us?!
My bottom-line was:
Taxpayers subsidize the public universities that offer those graduate degree programs. That is right: we pay for the generation of most of those advanced degrees. These graduates then earn more because of the very degrees, when those degrees are not even required!That is no different from this argument that teachers ought to be paid more:
This money should still go to teachers—it just shouldn’t be tied to an expensive, time-consuming degree with no tangible benefit. Simply giving all teachers higher salaries, says Roza, would be better than having teachers go into debt to get degrees.Make teaching great again, dammit, instead of wasting money on unnecessary diplomas!
No comments:
Post a Comment