Do you agree with Rhee, Klein, et al. on this?

[jpgray]

...the single most important factor determining whether students succeed in school is not the color of their skin or their ZIP code or even their parents' income -- it is the quality of their teacher.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/07/AR2010100705078.html

[quaker bill]

1. I am sure that the quality of the teacher is a factor

but the statistics tell another story. This is why I moved into a better ZIP code as soon as I could afford it. I had kids in public schools at the time, and they did far better that way.

[mzteris]

2. do you think maybe the quality of the teacher

was affected by the "quality of that zipcode"?

Generally speaking, the better the zipcode, the better the schools and the better the teachers . . .

[quaker bill]

9. I was more concerned

that the school in my prior district was sandwiched between a homeless camp and an industrial park. That and the fact that they had found a dead body in the parking lot...

There is no doubt that the positions at the schools I ended up sending my kids to are coveted in the local education profession, and I am sure attract very well qualified candidates. This is curious, because they do not pay more, and are not funded any better.

In that they are not better paid or funded, what makes them more attractive positions? Part, I am sure, is prestige in the education community itself. However, they also set annual records for the most donated volunteer hours from the parents, which I am sure is directly related to a far larger percentage of one earner households in the district...

Perhaps the sense that the community actually and tangibly supports the teachers through volunteering makes the positions even more desirable.

[mzteris]

10. they "don't pay more and are not funded any better"

so what do you think the "draw" is? Why would they want to teach in those "more affluent" schools"?

Kids who had a good nights sleep. Kids whose parents help them with their homework. Kids whose parents "volunteer". Kids that had a "head start" by dint of growing up in a household where education is a priority, where parents read to them, an "enriched environment" with vacations and books and conversation. . .

And the truth is - "better teachers" do teach in the "more affluent" schools - because they want to and because they can and there is not enough incentive to teach in the "challenged" schools. Which is a huge part of the problem . . .

[quaker bill]

12. I think I said much the same

However, unless the vast majority of teachers are not particularly good, teacher quality alone does not explain the difference, not even all that much of it. There are truly very few great public schools where I live, which is why I chose my residence carefully. Where I live 80 to 90 percent of teachers work in "challenged" areas.

Perhaps the competence curve falls off rather sharply, but I doubt it. I suspect the results have vastly more to do with the socio-economic conditions of the parents, as most statistics suggest. There is of course also inadequate funding, constant, nearly annual and ill informed efforts at "reform", time consuming bogus "accountability" measures, and far too many standardized high stakes tests. I was once married to a teacher, she moved on to military training, where there was far more money, plenty of supplies, and far less busy work.

[w8liftinglady]

3. My partner lives in a "nice "zip and drives 40 miles to a shitty one

there is a definite disparity in provisions for schools with below poverty-level students.
Piss on them-what will they amount to,anyway?It is a self-fulfilling prophesy.

[Brickbat]

4. No. It's parental involvement.

It's a lot easier for a kid with parents who do a lot of the "teaching" at home to weather a bad teacher than it is for a kid who has no support or interest at home to take advantage of a good teacher.

[pampango]

7. I agree with children with good parenting at home can (and do) survive the occasional bad teacher.

I disagree to some extent that it's difficult for "a kid who has no support or interest at home to take advantage of a good teacher." It is precisely these kids who can benefit the most from a good teacher since he/she can open their eyes to things they haven't been exposed to. It's difficult to break through with these kids but, if a good teacher can, the difference is amazing.

The kids with good parenting at home can survive mediocre teachers much better than can the kids who have neither good parenting at home nor good teachers at school.

[xchrom]

5. Hell no. Nt

[LWolf]

6. No.

"Success in school" can mean different things. To Rhee, Klein, et al. it means standardized test scores. The single most important factor determining students' standardized test scores is not the teacher. It is parent SES. We've known this since before tests became weapons to blame and punish schools and teachers.

Teachers are a factor. An important factor. There is not a single controlling factor, though, and teachers are not the biggest.

[seabeyond]

8. home environment. all the studies support. nt

[bemildred]

11. The amount of money the school gets matters more than anything else. nt

[Greyhound]

13. Well known bullshit.

The single most important factor is income, period.