It depends on what the meaning of the word "new" is
Congratulations to NEA. It sent out a press release touting data that was mostly five to 10 years old, and Reuters picked it up, found a teacher who fit NEA's profile, and ran it with the headline, "Half of new teachers quit within 5 years: study."
"According to a new study from teachers' union the National Education Association, half of new U.S. teachers are likely to quit within the first five years because of poor working conditions and low salaries," Reuters reported.
Let's see how many things are wrong with that sentence. The study isn't new, it isn't from the National Education Association, and it says nothing about whether teachers are likely to quit.
In fact, you'll find the study cited on many union web sites, but you'll have a hard time finding the study itself.
In 1996, Linda Darling-Hammond and E. Schlan wrote "Who teaches and why? Dilemmas of building a better profession for twenty-first century schools." In it, they wrote:
"In urban districts, close to 50 percent of newcomers flee the profession during their first five years of teaching."
A problematic claim even for 1996, this sentence is widely cited, and even more widely misquoted. It tells us nothing about today, or the future. Darling-Hammond and Schlan wrote about it in 1996, meaning their data had to be even older.
Just for a little perspective, in 1996, only Bill Clinton had ever heard of Monica Lewinsky.
Then the Washington Post picked up the Reuters story, and made it worse by changing the headline to read, "Half of Teachers Quit in 5 Years," and publishing it on page A7.
Well, there's no help for it now. I guarantee in years to come we'll see people writing about teacher retention who will use the 50 percent figure and cite Reuters or the Washington Post article in 2006 as their source.
"According to a new study from teachers' union the National Education Association, half of new U.S. teachers are likely to quit within the first five years because of poor working conditions and low salaries," Reuters reported.
Let's see how many things are wrong with that sentence. The study isn't new, it isn't from the National Education Association, and it says nothing about whether teachers are likely to quit.
In fact, you'll find the study cited on many union web sites, but you'll have a hard time finding the study itself.
In 1996, Linda Darling-Hammond and E. Schlan wrote "Who teaches and why? Dilemmas of building a better profession for twenty-first century schools." In it, they wrote:
"In urban districts, close to 50 percent of newcomers flee the profession during their first five years of teaching."
A problematic claim even for 1996, this sentence is widely cited, and even more widely misquoted. It tells us nothing about today, or the future. Darling-Hammond and Schlan wrote about it in 1996, meaning their data had to be even older.
Just for a little perspective, in 1996, only Bill Clinton had ever heard of Monica Lewinsky.
Then the Washington Post picked up the Reuters story, and made it worse by changing the headline to read, "Half of Teachers Quit in 5 Years," and publishing it on page A7.
Well, there's no help for it now. I guarantee in years to come we'll see people writing about teacher retention who will use the 50 percent figure and cite Reuters or the Washington Post article in 2006 as their source.
I am writing a dissertation presently with this information in it, and by the tone of your comment I think I share your skepticism re: NEA.
Does anyone have any newer data on teacher attrition?
I smiled as I read your poignant analysis of NEA's tactic in rehashing non-data. I scoured their website for the so-called "new study" and couldn't find squat.
Please e-mail me at: mclaugmd@muohio.edu
Posted by
mclaugmd@muohio.edu |
June 09, 2008 1:03 PM
Post a Comment