RSSMake the Analogy Better
Feb 27th, 2007 | By Eric Hoefler | Category: Education/LiteracyI’ve seen a number of “argument by analogy” examples in the last month or so related to the ongoing NCLB debate (and have made a few of these arguments myself). All arguments of this sort are, of course, inadequate, but they can also be helpful.
However, I started thinking about the teacher/doctor analogy today. (I’ve seen it in a few different places, and I’m intentionally not linking to any one of them because I’m not indicting anyone in particular here.) The analogy runs a couple’a ways: 1) if teachers were held to the same standard as doctors, they’d be forced to improve, and their ineptitude would be highlighted more than it already is; or 2) if doctors had to work under the same conditions and restrictions as teachers, their success rate would be low, too.
But this analogy, regardless of the “side” it’s supposed to support, is just bad. Consider this:
Teacher (public school)1
Average Years of Training/School: 5 years (4 years of undergraduate school, 1 year for teacher licensure)
Average Salary: $45,920 on the high endDoctor (general practitioner)2
Average Years of Training/School: 11-16 years (4 years of undergraduate school, 4 years of medical school, and 3 to 8 years of internship and residency)
Average Salary (after two years): $156,000
That’s a difference of $100, 000 and at least 6 years of training (much of which is spent in an internship/residency program). Depending on which report you read, it seems that many new teachers leave teaching before most doctors even complete their residency. 3
Clearly, any comparison between a teacher and a doctor must acknowledge this significant imbalance. Therefore, asking a teacher to perform at the same level and with the same degree of success as a doctor is absurd. Additionally, doctors are dealing with physical ailments and their remedy. Teachers, on the other hand, are dealing with mental, emotional, and developmental concerns. Even though there’s still much to learn in medicine, it seems clear that we understand the body better than we understand the mind and related aspects: personality, emotions, physchology, and how the brain learns or forms memories, for example. 4
I make these somewhat-obvious points explicit because they affect how we think about school reform. We (as a nation) say we want improvements. Indeed, it seems we want schools to do the job of nurse, psychologist, parent, and police along with the teaching, and do it all flawlessly. But we don’t seem willing to do what it takes to get these results.5
I agree that we need better teachers in the classroom (which is not to say there aren’t already many excellent teachers out there … we just need many more). In fact, I think teacher certification programs should be more rigorous, and that a more substantial “internship” period should be established (where new teachers are co-teaching with experienced teachers for at least a full year, not merely “student teaching” or meeting over lunch in a “mentor” program). I think teachers should be required to keep current on research related to education and their discipline (an amplified version, perhaps, of “recertification”). I think teachers who won’t or can’t continually improve should be fired. Unfortunately, none of this will ever happen unless these initiatives are sufficiently funded and teachers are offered much greater monetary reward to match the greater requirements.
If we want teachers to be as successful and highly trained as doctors, we must be willing to pay for this.6 When men can make millions chasing balls, and actors can make millions pretending to be other people, and “techies” can double my salary by doing half my amount of work (this is by their own admission), and highly-trained professionals in medicine and law can be sufficiently compensated to make their time worthwhile and the high demands on their performance justified, why are we still so resistant to paying teachers for what we’re asking them to do? 7
Raise the requirements for teachers? Definitely. Ask them to be as skilled and knowledgeable in the field of education as doctors are in the field of medicine? Sure. But only if you’re going to adequately compensate them, too. Otherwise, you get what you pay for.
The physical life of individuals rests in the hands of doctors, but the mental life of generations rests in the hands of teachers. And we’re bickering over cost-of-living increases?
- U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics: Teachers [back]
- U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics: Physicians and Surgeons [back]
- The National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future report that one-third of new teachers leave the classroom after three years, and nearly half leave after five. On the other hand, the National Center for Education Statistics reports an attrition rate of only 10% overall. [back]
- Do psychologists have to give AYP reports? Also, I wish I could write some prescriptions for my students’ learning difficulties and send them off to take the pills at home … and I hope that’s not how you treat homework … [back]
- Yes, I know the argument that we have to stop using inadequacies in the system, in NCLB, in society, etc. as an excuse for poor performance. And in theory, I agree with that argument. The problem is, that argument only goes so far in practice, theorize and bluster all you like. When you’re done, look around. In practice, we (as a nation) have the system that we have because we haven’t yet done what’s required to make it better. We’ve demanded that it improve, and we’ve called plenty of attention to the problems, and we’re finding all kinds of easy, expensive, and inadequate ways to prove that it’s a failing system … but we’ve done little to change the system. And demanding that the system change itself doesn’t count. “Physician, heal thyself,” comes to mind. [back]
- For example, I completed a Masters in English. And yes, the $4,000 increase in my salary as a result was nice, but that takes me from $48,000 to $52,000. Nothing earth-shattering there. And if I earned a PhD? The difference in salary between a Masters and a PhD is about $2,000! How about compensation for this continued education? My county is willing to pay $350 per semester. That’s almost one class. [back]
- I have a theory about this, actually. It has something to do with the traditional view of teaching as something only women do, and therefore a profession that only supplements another salary (since all women are, ya’know, supposed to be married). The monetary and social stigma is a residue of this sexist view of work in general and the job of “teacher” in particular. [back]
Related posts (auto-generated):
- Another Stab at Teacher Salaries PayScale is a service that offers salary and compensation profiles for a wide range of jobs, and they’ve just added a service called GigZig...
- No Surprise to Me TMAO brought my attention to these prepared remarks of California Democratic Congressman George Miller, chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee. TMAO quotes...
- Time Off A few quotes from the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research about teacher pay are listed below, and I’m annoyed enough to want to list...
- Fourteen Percent Mike Petrilli, in a recent post on the Flypaper blog, comments on a study in Philadelphia that measured the impact of a “healthy-eating” initiative...
- The Problem is Gaining National Recognition I first heard about The New Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce on Will Richardson’s blog. He tells us that the full...
If you ever get a PhD would you consider becoming an academician? I think the pay might be better (although I’m not 100% sure, some Arts and Letters Colleges pay very little I’m told), and I think you’d make an awesome professor. Think about all that you could do with your innovative ways with college students! Just wondered if you might consider that…
Also, this observation you made is I think very true (and unfortunate).
“…traditional view of teaching as something only women do, and therefore a profession that only supplements another salary (since all women are, ya’know, supposed to be married)”
There is a teaching method that has been proven to be effective - Direct Instruction (note capitals).
Why don’t schools use it?
(Incidentally, you talk like the problem is with teachers, when most of the problem actually appears to be with the schools’ bureaucracy.
Direct Instruction can be effective for specific purposes: namely, bringing students who are struggling with basic skills and knowledge to a deveopmentally-appropriate level. Beyond that, though, DI can lead to more harm than good. (One example that comes to mind is a recent blog post on LeaderTalk.)
I would say that schools use a sloppy method of DI in too many cases, but that’s based only on my own experience.
And I do think part of the problem is with some teachers. Part of the problem is with bureaucracy and administration. Part of it is with the parents. Part of it is societal … etc.
My constant point is that there are many factors contributing to the problems in education, and my constant frustration is with public talk and legislative action that keeps oversimplifying the problem and refusing to consider any complex, nuanced approaches toward a solution.
I don’t have all the answers, but I’m looking for people who are willing to do some serious, thoughtful, balanced searching.
Eric - what’s that post on LeaderTalk? Do you have a link? What’s the other evidence that Direct Instruction is harmful outside specific areas? I haven’t heard any. The guy who developed it initially started by teaching his own kids (non-disadvantaged), and then got interested in what worked with them and what didn’t.
The evidence is that direct instruction as a general term doesn’t say much about effectiveness. Direct Instruction, the form, has a lot of field-testing beind it, as the developer found out all the ways not to teach something. For example, one of the vital points is to not give any instruction that is ambigious, as from experience at least some kids will interpret an ambigious instruction the wrong way. A sloppy version of direct instruction won’t have been tested for such details.
As far as I can tell teachers are engaged in something like medical care for someone in an intensive ward, or designing an aeroplane. Sloppiness will increase the error rate (luckily kids are smarter than the metal and plastics and whatnot that go into aeroplanes, so some kids will learn despite sloppiness).
Hi Tracy,
The link is there, it just doesn’t show up unless you hover over it (sorry about that).
I don’t mean to sound like I’m against direct instruction or Direct Instruction, it’s just that I don’t believe in any “magic bullets” … in other words, I don’t think there’s any one correct approach. Students need a variety of teaching approaches, dependant on their level of development, the subject matter, and the particular skills / knowledge / understanding the students are trying to master.
Some people seem not to be comfortable with this level of flexibility. I attribute that to a fear of accomodating instruction to fit specific situations (not just generally, but on a day-by-day, student-by-student basis). Some people hear this as an invitation to be sloppy with instruction, unreflective and unplanned. That’s just a failure to understand this concept. At any rate, it is tough to do well, and I’m nowhere near mastery, but I think it’s an important approach.
My understanding of DI is that it is very effective for teaching specific, discrete skills and knowledge. I think that’s great. However, that’s not the approach I would take if my goal was to encourage creativity, problem-solving, critical analysis, or the ability to ask skillful questions. (See this recent article in EdWeek for a related perspective, or my post on “Coyote Teaching” for one take on disruptive educational approaches.)
Also, please understand that I’m not trying to say creativity, etc. is more important than basic skills and knowledge. My particular teaching context involves upper-level high school students, most in advanced classes, many pursuing the school’s four-year arts program. For those students, there are still times when DI is a helpful method … but many times when it is not.
My point is only that appropriate variety is key.
I agree that slopiness is bad in any context, and I am in no way equating varied or disruptive approaches to instruction with slopiness.
Finally, I think this post expresses my concerns with the teacher/doctor analogy.
Your comments remind me to get back to a series of posts I’ve been kicking around in my head that would articulate more specifically what, why, and how I teach.
Am I still missing something here in what you’re saying?
Eric - sorry about not seeing the link you provided. I’ve found it now, are you sure it’s the right one? It says nothing about Direct Instruction in there that I could spot.
Direct Instruction was developed to teach reading and basic mathematics, which are specific skills. (I’m not sure what discrete means in this area, what would a continous skill be? Or are you not using discrete in the mathematical sense?)
Direct Instruction is a complete curriculum. It addresses children’s differing developmental needs by placing children in lessons according to their level of existing ability. For example, some new entrants to school may know their ABCs. Other new kids may not know what the word “touch” means and therefore would be incapable of following a lesson requiring them to touch a letter and pronounce it. Therefore Direct Instruction includes children being placed based on their starting level of ability. Frequent testing is included, with children being shifted around through lessons based on their progress.
Direct Instruction also varies its approaches based on the subject matter. For example, when colour concepts are taught the lessons call on the teacher to present examples of objects that are identical except for their colours. When teaching weights, objects of one ounce are used. Lessons are presented both verbally and in written form and through games.
Direct Instruction includes flexibility to meet different students’ requirements in its setup from the start. It doesn’t expect every new teacher to have to learn how to incorporate the sort of flexibility you talk about from scratch.
Direct Instruction was found to teach higher-order thinking and problem-solving skills more effectively than curricula designed to teach these directly. The apparent cause of this is that teaching basic skills thoroughly means that a kid’s brain is freed up to concentrate on solving the problem as a whole, rather than having to think about each little step. See http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~adiep/ft/becker.htm for my reference as to the better results of Direct Instruction.
I think Coyote teaching and expanding kids’ minds is a lovely idea. I just don’t find it very relevant to teaching reading and basic maths. The point of language is to be able to communicate things between people. The point of reading is to be able to communicate things between people when both people aren’t actually there at once. Since we have no idea what someone may want to communicate, we have a set of cultural standards that assign relatively-fixed meanings to certain forms of communication. So for example, I can send a message to my husband communicating concepts that range from “Can you pick up my mother from the airport on Friday night” to “May I compare thee to a summer’s day, thou art more beautiful and more temperate” to a critique of the current goverment’s policies on property ownership on the moon to “The pharmacist called and said he made a terrible mistake and gave you the wrong medicine and you are to stop taking it at once.” This would be impossible if we had no agreed on standards for communication. Kids should indeed learn critical thinking and problem-solving skills, but decoding existing written material depends on somewhat arbitrary rules that are mutually agreed and should be learnt thoroughly. A kid may then critically examine them, may come up with weird and wonderful calligraphies, may become a coder for NSA, may write essays arguing for the end of writing now we have podcasts, but at least they’ll have the skills to read other’s information and bright ideas if they want to use them.
Mathematics, again, is extremely useful as a foundation for critical thinking. This is because it, in itself, is objective. If a politician’s promises don’t add up, then they don’t add up. But kids have to be able to do basic arithmetic before they can check if a politician’s promises add up or not.
Plus, of course, Direct Instruction only takes about 1/2 the school day, leaving the remainder free for expanding kids’ minds and teaching them to challenge authority or whatever else you think the objective is.
It seems you’re arguing a point about which you think I disagree. On the contrary, I agree with your comments so far (though we have wandered from the topic of the post, but that’s fine).
So I suppose I have nothing to say other than: well said.
Thanks.
Eric, may I ask your patience for one more question? What do you mean when you call a skill “discrete”?
I was using the term to mean “distinct” or “consisting of individual parts.” I realize that skills and knowledge are useful only in a particular context (and therefore, cease to be discrete), but for the sake of instruction and clarity must sometimes be taught in isolation, or at least in a more limited, manageable context.
Even when I’m doing this kind of work, I take efforts to help students understand that there is a larger context and that the skill or knowledge has purpose beyond the thing itself.
Would you agree?
I also have to admit that most of my work now is with juniors and seniors in advanced classes, either in English or creative writing. Most of these students have a firm grip on the “basic skills and knowledge” (with occasional exceptions). What I’m continually revising in my teaching practice now is how to help these students and extend their work. It seems to me that as students move beyond this level, instruction that’s going to be useful must be increasingly individualized and provide increasing freedom for student choice while still giving specific, helpful guidance as the issues/teaching needs arise.
I hope that clarifies rather than muddies our discussion.