The Hechinger Report is a national nonprofit newsroom that reports on one topic: education. Sign up for our weekly newsletters to get stories like this delivered directly to your inbox.

The idea that teachers stop getting better after their first few years on the job has become widely accepted by both policymakers and the public. Philanthropist and former Microsoft CEO Bill Gates popularized the notion in a 2009 TED Talk when he said “once somebody has taught for three years, their teaching quality does not change thereafter.” He argued that teacher effectiveness should be measured and good teachers rewarded.

That teachers stop improving after three years was, perhaps, an overly simplistic exaggeration but it was based on sound research at the time. In a 2004 paper, economist Jonah Rockoff, now at Columbia Business School, tracked how teachers improved over their careers and noticed that teachers were getting better at their jobs by leaps and bounds at first, as measured by their ability to raise their students’ achievement test scores. But then, their effectiveness or productivity plateaued after three to 10 years on the job. For example, student achievement in their classrooms might increase by the same 50 points every year. The annual jump in their students’ test scores didn’t grow larger. Other researchers, including Stanford University’s Eric Hanushek, found the same. 

But now, a new nonprofit organization that seeks to improve teaching, the Research Partnership for Professional Learning, says the conventional wisdom that veteran teachers stop getting better is one of several myths about teaching. The organization says that several groups of researchers have since found that teachers continue to improve, albeit at a slower rate, well into their mid careers. 

“It’s not true that teachers stop improving,” said John Papay, an associate professor of education and economics at Brown University. “The science has evolved.”

Papay cited his own 2015 study with Matt Kraft, along with a 2017 study of middle school teachers in North Carolina and a 2011 study of elementary and middle school teachers. These analyses all found that teachers continue to improve beyond their first five years. Papay and Kraft calculated that teachers increased student performance by about half as much between their 5th and 15th year on the job as they did during the first five years of their career. The data are unclear after year 15. 

Using test scores to measure teacher quality can be controversial. Papay also looked at other measures of how well teachers teach, such as ratings of their ability to ask probing questions, generate vibrant classroom discussions and handle students’ mistakes and confusion. Again, Papay found that more seasoned teachers were continuing to improve at their profession beyond the first five years of their career. Old dogs do appear to learn new tricks.

The debate over whether teachers get better with experience has had big implications. It has prompted the public to question union pay schedules. Why pay teachers more who’ve been on the job longer if they’re no better than a third-year teacher? It has encouraged school systems to fire “bad” teachers because ineffective teachers were thought to be unlikely to improve. It has also been a way of justifying high turnover in the field. If there’s no added value to veteran teachers, why bother to hang on to them, or invest more in them? Maybe it’s okay if thousands of teachers leave the profession every year if we can replace them with loads of new ones who learn the job fast. 

So, how is it that highly regarded quantitative researchers could be coming to such different conclusions when they add up the numbers?

It turns out that it’s really complicated to calculate how much teachers improve every year. It’s simple enough to look up their students’ test scores and see how much they’ve gone up. But it’s unclear how much of the test score gain we can attribute to a teacher. Imagine a teacher who had a classroom of struggling students one year followed by a classroom of high achievers the next year. The bright, motivated students might learn more no matter who their teacher was; it would be misleading to say this teacher had improved. 

Many other things can affect student test scores from year to year, such as unexpected snow days or natural disasters. We wouldn’t want to say that most teachers in America became worse at their jobs in 2020 and 2021 because test scores declined during the pandemic.  Other changes, such as switching to a new curriculum, can affect test scores too. Broader population changes at the school also complicate the math. If a city is gentrifying, the test scores in a teacher’s classroom might rise a lot because test scores are generally higher in richer neighborhoods. Higher test scores, in this case, would probably not be a sign that the teacher is getting a lot better at teaching. 

Economists need to make assumptions when they try to disentangle how much of the classroom’s test score gain should be attributed to the teacher and how much should be attributed to all the other stuff that’s going on. In Rockoff’s influential 2004 paper, he assumed that there were diminishing returns to job experience. It’s a reasonable assumption, given that we all have a steep learning curve when we first learn something new and then annual improvements are smaller as we refine our practice. In Rockoff’s data, annual improvements were so tiny by a teacher’s 10th year that he effectively assumed that teachers stopped improving any more and plateaued. Arguably, Rockoff assumed what he was trying to study.

When Papay and other economists relaxed the assumptions about how much teachers typically improve each year, they found that teachers tended to get better and better well into their mid careers. But they had to make other assumptions. For example, Papay assumed that new teachers start at the same starting line every year. That is, the cohort of rookie teachers in 2001 were just as effective as the cohort of rookie teachers in 2009. That might not be true if teacher preparation programs have improved. 

I emailed Jonah Rockoff to see if he agrees that the science has evolved and that teachers improve throughout their careers.  He told me that he still stands by his 2004 analysis and he generally sees a consensus among researchers, not a debate. According to his reading of the research, everyone is finding the same patterns: student achievement increases the most during the early part of a teacher’s career and tends to plateau after 10 years of experience. Whether teachers plateau or continue to improve at a very sluggish pace isn’t a meaningful difference to him. 

Papay agrees that the story is “nuanced” and that mid-career teachers aren’t showing “tremendous improvement.” 

“It’s not like teachers continue to improve at the same rate that they do early in their career,” Papay said. “It’s more modest.” 

Regardless of whether teachers plateau or slowly improve, the more interesting policy question is whether there are better ways to help teachers improve throughout their careers. Papay and other scholars are trying to pinpoint the kinds of working conditions and on-the-job training that help teachers flourish. For example, Papay is finding promise in pairing teachers together to learn from each other and Kraft has studied whether every teacher should have a coach.

Just because inexperienced teachers are improving the fastest also doesn’t mean that professional development should be targeted at them.  Rockoff thinks it might be “too early in their careers” for them to get much out of some types of training.

And most importantly, teachers late in their careers might be improving student outcomes in ways that test scores – or even classroom observations – cannot capture. They might inspire students to go to college or to become scientists or artists some day.  That’s an impact that’s priceless but harder to measure.

This story about teacher improvement was written by Jill Barshay and produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for the Hechinger newsletter.

The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn't mean it's free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.

Join us today.

Letters to the Editor

4 Letters

At The Hechinger Report, we publish thoughtful letters from readers that contribute to the ongoing discussion about the education topics we cover. Please read our guidelines for more information. We will not consider letters that do not contain a full name and valid email address. You may submit news tips or ideas here without a full name, but not letters.

By submitting your name, you grant us permission to publish it with your letter. We will never publish your email address. You must fill out all fields to submit a letter.

  1. I notice that the author–along, evidently, with Professor Papay–is unconcerned with measurable student outcomes. Otherwise, why the concern with “ability to ask probing questions, generate vibrant classroom discussions and handle students’ mistakes and confusion” which, one would think, are there to generate the improved outcomes which Rockoff, Papay and Kraft all seem to find little of after those first five years?

    Most certainly, some student populations–and some years–are better than others. This is why one measures thousands, and not individuals. And surely some teachers might inspire students in ways not captured by a standardized test of knowledge. But Ms Barshay provides us with no reason to believe teachers “late in their careers” do this more often. They may also do it less.

    Retaining workers by seniority, and paying them more by seniority regardless of performance (if any) is no doubt the preferred policy of industrial unions. If it’s supposed to be done for the benefit of the students, more information and less speculation is in order.

  2. As a teacher of 30+ years, I would absolutely agree with the evidence cited in “PROOF POINTS: Debunking the myth that teachers stop improving after five years.” This “old dog” absolutely continues to learn new tricks! Through online interaction with colleagues, professional reading, attendance at EdCamps and other conferences, and simple curiosity, I continue to refine the art and science of my craft. Does it show in test scores? Yes. But more importantly, its manifests itself in students’ enthusiasm for learning. I can’t speak for everyone, but the day that this teacher stops being a student at heart, feel free to cart me out of the classroom ala Hannibal Lecter, because my role as an effective educator will be done.

  3. Jill,
    As a 50+-year educator, I thank you for publishing this article about new research that dispels the myth about teachers’ failing to grow professionally beyond their first three years. Unfortunately, as valuable as some data can be, incomplete data like that from the 2004 report leads to unfortunate and sometimes counter-productive conclusions about teachers. Educators have long hollered “foul” at analyses of their effectiveness that rely wholly or even largely on standardized student test scores. Many parents understand that those test scores can’t capture the affects that good teachers have on their children’s learning. And until we can get research that can quantify those seemingly immeasurables in learning, I suppose we’ll have to continue to listen to such narrowly defined and incomplete analyses about teaching and teachers. But please keep pointing out, as you did so articulately in this article, the missing pixels in such incomplete pictures of education in America.

  4. Reading that researchers find teachers don’t improve that much after their first few years are using far too narrow a measuring tool (as the last part of Jill Barshay’s discussion suggests).

    I was a *far* better teacher in my latter years (I taught high school English for over 35 years). Why? Staff development. That is, I learned a great deal about how to encourage critical and creative thinking, how to create more authentic and engaging assessment tools, how better to manage student behaviors, how to be the “guide on the side” rather than the “sage on the stage” (thanks to Joe Renzulli for those phrases). And what made me even better at all those things (and others) was becoming a staff developer myself.

    Once I’d had the opportunity to attend workshops on, for example, teaching students to be better thinkers, I returned to my district and presented workshops to my peers for them to learn more skills and techniques.

    And then I became a mentor to novice teachers, and a trainer of mentors. To train others, I had to be skilled at the approaches myself.

    I suspect I might have stagnated a bit between years 5 and 10, but I certainly grew profoundly from years 15 through 35.

    No clue how my students did on high-stakes paper-and-pencil-and-Scantron standardized tests. They did quite well on what was then the CT Academic Proficiency Test (CAPT). But they also did quite well at their various post-high-school academic/training choices, and came back to crow about how much better prepared they were than most of their college classmates.

    So let’s stop making untoward assumptions about teachers plateauing and coasting. ‘Tain’t true of most of us!

Submit a letter

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *