DONALD Macdonald states that the EIS is correct in being concerned that "teachers gaining Masters qualifications should be financially rewarded" (Letters, November 8).
I had wrongly assumed that the world of assuring quality in Scottish education had collectively moved on from this input model and the focus in our schools should be on performance output – that is, pupil success and ways to obtain it.
The current issue of the Scottish Government proposing that effective teachers should have a post-graduate Masters qualification is based on a myth which must be discredited. The matter of a link between pupil performance and the number of letters after the names of their teachers has been the basis of generational misconceptions on theory versus practice. This assumption has fuelled the pompous Scottish obsession of aligning academic qualifications with the qualities required in practice to meet pupil learning needs –usually without displaying any correlating evidence.
All of the research papers I have considered on this issue frequently contradict each other depending on the specifics of the analysis. However, research done in Los Angeles public schools in 2009 published by the respected RAND organisation has clear and unambiguous findings. The report, What teacher characteristics affect student achievement, found that: "Teacher effectiveness is typically measured by traditional teacher qualification standards, such as experience, education, and scores on licensure examinations. RAND researchers found no evidence that these standards have a substantial effect on student achievement in Los Angeles public elementary, middle and high schools. Alternative measures of teacher qualifications and different kinds of reward systems might be more effective at improving teacher quality."
I suggest that before embarking on the task of encouraging serving teachers to gain a Masters degree, regardless of the issue of extra pay, those behind the proposal should present teachers and parents with definite proof that this paper chase will be worth the effort.
Bill Brown,
46 Breadie Drive,
Milngavie.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article