A study to appear in October by MIT economist Joshua Angrist and University of Chicago business school professor Jonathan Guryan apparently says yes, according to this article. That's a counter-intuitive finding, of course; many reformers (ourselves included) have argued forever that tough teacher tests will deter poorly educated people from becoming teachers while attracting talented individuals. But maybe not. Here's how the scholars explain it:
First, they note, applicants whose educational backgrounds qualify them to teach are also likely qualified to work in other fields. When they weigh their job options, they calculate the cost in time, effort and money of the mandated tests as salary reductions.
"Higher quality applicants, as measured by outside earnings potential, are more likely to pass the test," Angrist says, but they're also more likely to want wages that will repay their efforts to take the tests. In addition, they're consumers; they can look for jobs at companies that don't require costly licensing tests.
Second, the discouragement effect, as economists call it, serves as a barrier to applicants broadly, Angrist notes. People who might be great teachers may choose not to study or pay for certification for myriad reasons, a loss for U.S. students in public schools.
I asked my podcast buddy, AEI's Rick Hess, about his thoughts on the study. Though it's not yet available for viewing, that didn't dissuade him from weighing in. (He could be a blogger!)
It's not hard to imagine??scenarios where this makes sense. We know people tend to steer away from obstacles unless those are attached to a strong brand (e.g., Marine Corps, Teach For America) and when they don't have a lot of precise information on the obstacles, they may just assume they're a headache and steer clear.?? Since it's the most high-quality folks who have most avenues open to them, even modest obstacles may be enough for them to look elsewhere.Beyond that, they may presume either that tests are: (a) going to be embarrassingly easy and??that they don't want to waste their time on a silly profession with minimum competency tests or (b) that the tests are going to be challenging and that they don't want to waste their time and money on an exam that they're afraid they won't pass. (Remember, studies from psychology tend to suggest that it's the people towards the upper end of the achievement distribution who are often less sure of themselves than those lower down.)
All of this suggests that we still need what we've needed for a long time, which is much more good fieldwork (e.g. surveys, analyses, interviews) which helps us understand why people do or don't??enter teaching and how much of that is the product of factors which we can manipulate.
Note Hess's last point--the call for more research. I suppose he still is a scholar, and not a blogger, at heart. But Rick, thanks for the assist!
