Fordham, along with Catalyst Ohio and the FDR Group, conducted a survey this past spring that measured Ohioans' attitudes on a variety of education issues (note: the sample was 1,002 randomly selected Ohio residents and was the third of its kind -??following 2005 and 2007 surveys). When asked about teacher efficacy as it relates to impacting poor students, the Fordham poll found a relatively even split among respondents. Slightly fewer Ohio residents (46 percent) identified with the statement "good teachers lead even students who are poor and have uninvolved parents to learn what they are supposed to" than the statement "It is too hard even for good teachers to overcome these barriers" (48 percent).
These survey results indicate that roughly half of Ohioans think good teachers can make a difference in student lives despite obstacles such as poverty, while the other half holds to the more traditional view that socioeconomics??has more weight??than teachers when it comes to impacting student learning.
Views on teacher efficacy from "Checked Out: Ohioans Views' on Education 2009" survey
* Numbers do not add to 100 due to rounding.
These results are especially interesting when contrasted with the recently released Public Agenda results from the survey, "Teaching for a Living: How Teachers See the Profession Today."
This survey is markedly different from the Fordham survey in that it surveyed only teachers and not the general public. The results are quite a bit more optimistic in terms of teachers' view of their own efficacy in the classroom. The survey groups teacher respondents into three groups - "Idealists," "Contented," and "Disheartened" (see Public Agenda's description of these categories). Unsurprisingly, "Idealists" had the largest number (88 percent) of teachers who believe that "good teachers can lead all students to learn, even those from poor families or who have uninvolved parents." Yet, even those in the "Contented" and "Disheartened" groups had relatively more respondents identify with the previous statement (78 and 66 percent respectively) than the notion that "It is too hard even for good teachers to overcome these barriers."
Admittedly, the sample populations are different and the questions are worded in slightly different ways. But what gives for these very different survey results? Do Ohioans have different views regarding teacher efficacy with poor students compared to the rest of the nation? Do teachers have more optimism than the general public? Is there a generational difference (the Public Agenda survey oversampled young teachers) when it comes to aligning with the idea that teachers can make a difference, rather than the traditional viewpoint that socioeconomics is destiny?
What do you think?
