by Christopher D. Sessums

How do we hire teachers when we don’t know who’s right for the job?

I have been reading the New Yorker magazine ever since I was a little guy. I started with the cartoons since articles on Nixon and famous ballet dancers were a bit beyond my compare. This week’s New Yorker features an article by the effusive Malcolm Gladwell that naturally caught my eye. The article, titled Most likely to succeed: How do we hire when we can’t tell who’s right for the job? is clearly worth reading by any one interested in educational reform.

In the article, Gladwell argues that the metrics used to select teachers are about as effective as the metrics used to determine which college quarterbacks will be successful in the National Football League (that is, they are not truly effective at all). Instead, Gladwell, a seasoned and successful writer (not a seasoned and successful educational researcher) suggests that a metric used by financial investment consulting companies might be more effective– that is, let in all comers, then winnow them out based on their performance. His suggestion has a folksy ring of truth to it that’s easy to digest–create an apprenticeship system that allows teaching candidates to be thoroughly evaluated. Thus, for every four teacher candidates, one will clearly rise above the fray and serve students in an exceptional capacity.

While the implications of such a suggestion have wide ranging effects from union considerations to salary structures, not to mention those students who have to continually face a bevy of poor instruction, Gladwell’s suggestion does have some merit. Would it not be worth the cost to have a system that can identify teachers who might not match expectations based on professional metrics (having a teaching certificate or a Master’s degree) yet can teach a year and a half’s material in one year? Or, as Gladwell states:

“What does it say about a society that it devotes more care and patience to the selection of those who handle its money than of those who handle its children?”

The argument comes close to sounding like a bit of a false dilemma. What does it say about a society that values it’s ability to invest it’s money over educating its young? Perhaps this is a bit of a naive assumption on my part. However, it does trouble me to see how much money we pay our money managers and college football coaches over professors responsible for looking for cures to social and medical problems. In an editorial written earlier this year addressing a similar knotty problem facing higher education–the paying of the University of Florida president a hefty bonus–professor Patricia L. Schmidt argues

If our only goal and mission as a university were to win national titles in football and basketball, then such raises/bonuses would be entirely justified, even if the faculty had to be denied suitable rewards. However, if we truly want to join the ranks of the Ivies and the best public universities, then the criteria by which our president is paid a bonus (if that system continues) must reflect benchmarks related to moving us into the top tier.

Schmidt is not arguing against the paying of incentive monies to support hard work. Instead she argues that a university seeking to be ranked among the best in the country should be investing in recruiting and retaining distinguished researchers and educators. While faculty members who are making significant contributions receive virtually no increase in salary, athletic coaches and athletic directors salaries are eclipsing the salaries of those responsible for educating and training our future teachers, researchers, journalists, scientists, and managers.

While I have regularly enjoyed Gladwell’s contributions, he seems to gloss over the overall costs associated with his plan. Training all comers will cost more money than the system has. Even if we switched to an apprentice-based pay scale (i.e., paying apprentices a smaller salary while compensating top-tier educators appropriately), finding the money to do so will more than likely outstrip our current salary systems. This is not to say such systems could not be constructed. Instead, I am suggesting further studies need to be considered before we can realistically consider such a move.

I am further reminded of a statement made by Ken Robinson in his TED piece that goes something like… “Tell someone you work in education and they go running for the door. But ask someone about their education, they will pin you to the wall.” I applaud Gladwell in his attempt to thoughtfully address the current educational reform concerns. I believe the more people directing the spotlight to it will generate more meaningful conversation about the subject. But this, of course, does not guarantee any reasonable solutions. There are many more brilliant researchers, reformers, and economists working on this solution than I can count. Yet the results of this work often fly under the radar of popular writers and journalists. (This also one other issue I have with much of Gladwell’s reporting–his reliance on one or two sources for his information rather than rigorously researching multiple sources and angles.)

Clearly the need to address teaching, learning, and salary gaps is warranted. Yet the solution should be seen as a social solution, not merely an educational one. The role of teachers, their knowledge, their demeanor, social skills, and temperament is not a one-size-fits-all dilemma. Similar to Gladwell’s argument about identifying those collegiate football players who will be most successful in the professional leagues, it is essential we do not mistake a “slice” of pie for the whole pie. Successful teachers come in all shapes and sizes. Some are well trained, some have no training whatsoever. The key is how well they engage students; how well they challenge and support learners of all stripes. Using test scores is one way to measure teacher effect, but shouldn’t we be considering other measures as well? Since we know that teacher effects are much greater than class-size effects, shouldn’t we be developing and investigating measures that take these into account? Or is teaching too messy, too complex to accurately gauge on a scale of 1 to 5 or 1 to 10?

This too reminds of the argument of efficiency and creativity in teaching. The greatest threat to good teaching is often boiled down to teachers trying to be efficient rather than creative with their learners. Of course, creativity is messy and complex. It often takes more time to develop, manage, and evaluate project-based activities over multiple choice tests. Perhaps the real questions lay inside whose interests are teachers looking out for.

In the end, I enjoyed Gladwell’s piece for its bringing to the fore a complex situation that I am obviously passionate about. I encourage you to read and share it and keep the discussion going. Perhaps our collective intelligence is the only thing that will ultimately save us.

This work was originally published on Christopher D. Sessums‘ Blog and is licensed under the Creative Commons 2.5 license.