Back to Teacher Quality in ContextBy Stephen Clements
From Kentucky's Teachers: Charting a Course for KERA's Second Decade
pp. 11-24, published 1999
A question at the heart of this report is: Based on the best available evidence, what can be said about the quality of the teacher workforce in Kentucky? Having reviewed a variety of different kinds of data—"hard" and "soft"—we conclude that this question deserves a two-part answer. The first part flows from an analysis of the empirical information that currently exists and that touches upon teacher quality issues. These data are mixed, some showing positive aspects of the teacher workforce, and some less than positive. The second part is broader and relates more generally to the limitations of the available data. In short, while certain information is available about teachers in Kentucky, much remains unknown about these most influential individuals. Until a stronger base of data can be amassed, it will be difficult to know with precision what weaknesses exist within the teaching force and what might be the best policy mechanisms for addressing those weaknesses.
In what follows, the extant information about teacher quality in the state is discussed and inferences drawn. Interlaced throughout this discussion are reflections about data limitations and what could be gleaned about teaching and learning in the Commonwealth if an adequate teacher data system were constructed over the next few years.
The positive data include information about teachers’ experience and education and the achievement of those studying to be teachers. The less-than-happy news involves the number of teachers who are teaching subjects outside their primary area of academic expertise—the so-called "out-of-field teaching" problem.
To an extent, quality depends on the metric, and by some metrics, Kentucky teachers are doing well. For example, in the previously cited 1997 report Doing What Matters Most, NCTAF rated the Kentucky teacher workforce highly. Based on NCTAF’s indicators, Kentucky received a score of 5, which was matched by Ohio. Only three states—Minnesota, Iowa, and North Carolina—outscored the Commonwealth in this report.
The weekly trade-press publication Education Week has begun assembling state-level education indicators and publishing them annually. In last year’s edition, entitled Quality Counts ‘98, Kentucky won plaudits for its teacher preparation and certification system. According to this report, Kentucky earned a grade of 87 out of 100, or a B+, and was surpassed in score only by Oklahoma and Connecticut.(1) As of press time, Quality Counts ’99 had just been released. Again Kentucky achieved a B+, this time with a grade of 89, although a somewhat different array of indicators was used.
While these reports offer good news to Kentuckians, the indicators used in these analyses were heavily weighted toward measures that involve a variety of regulatory, program, or input measures, rather than "output" measures of what teachers know and what they can do in the classroom.(2) For example, the Quality Counts study rewarded Kentucky highly because of its certification procedures, the way it governs teaching, and its support for professional development. But the document provides no empirical evidence about teacher knowledge and skill levels. Rather, these are implied based on inputs and processes. Whether such inputs and processes indeed produce high-quality teachers is an issue about which there is considerable dispute.
Inasmuch as Kentucky has been reconstructing its elementary and secondary school system around achievement goals and indicators of student progress toward those goals, as well as accountability at the school level, it seemed more appropriate for the purposes of this report to focus on outcomes indicators for the teacher workforce. The material below will therefore focus on a somewhat different set of data than the NCTAF or Education Week reports. In spite of significant limitations in available information about teacher quality, it is possible to draw some conclusions about the teacher workforce.
In terms of positive indicators, it appears that teachers in Kentucky have about as much classroom experience as teachers elsewhere in the nation and in the southeast region. As Figure 1 shows, Kentucky teachers have spent on average 15 years in the classroom, which is one year behind the nation as a whole, but one year longer than their counterparts elsewhere in the southeast region.
Figure 1: Average Years of Teaching Experience, U.S., KY, and Regional Comparisons, 1997
While no necessary correlation exists between teacher quality and years of experience, many who study teacher quality issues argue that time in the classroom indeed relates to teacher competency. Teacher unions have argued as much for many years, and the teacher rank and pay scale reflects the belief that those with more experience are "worth" more to schools and communities than those with less. Presuming, therefore, a link does exist between years of experience and teacher quality, then it appears that Kentucky teachers compare well with those elsewhere.
Another indicator of teacher quality involves the amount of postbaccalaureate academic work that teachers have undertaken. Here teachers in Kentucky appear to be significantly ahead of those elsewhere. As Figure 2 shows, slightly over three quarters of all teachers in Kentucky hold degrees at the master’s level, whereas slightly less than half of teachers elsewhere do so. This is due in large measure to a 1967 teacher certification regulation that obliged all teachers in the state to obtain a master’s degree within 10 years of beginning a teaching job in Kentucky or risk losing their certification. It has also been nearly impossible to reach Rank I status without a master’s degree or its equivalent. Hence, the incentive structure within the public school system heavily favors continuous graduate work by teachers through the master’s level.
Figure 2: Percent of Teachers Holding at Least an M.A. or Equivalent Degree
It is noteworthy that state-to-state variation in graduate training is significant and appears to be related to regulatory requirements but not necessarily academic achievement levels of students. For example, the three states that outscored Kentucky in NCTAF’s 1997 teacher quality survey cited earlier each had considerably lower percentages of teachers with a master’s degree or higher: Minnesota (36.7 percent); Iowa (32.6 percent); and North Carolina (36.4 percent). These states’ students also outscore Kentucky students on most national standardized tests. It would follow that while high graduate attainment may be a useful indicator of quality, it is not always or necessarily so. Skepticism about the value of master’s degrees has fueled various efforts to do away with this requirement in Kentucky.
In recent years, and as a result of numerous changes in the teacher training system, KDE has begun gathering various achievement data on teacher education students in the state. Based on some of these data, it appears that students entering Kentucky’s colleges or departments of education are "above the average" of all college entrants statewide, both in terms of ACT scores and GPA levels.
As Table 1 shows, between 1992 and 1996, the typical teacher trainee in Kentucky scored around 21.5 on the ACT college admissions test. This score is better than the national average for all ACT test takers, which drifted from 20.7 to 20.9 during this time span, and for Kentucky ACT examinees, who have scored at 20.1 over a number of years. Hence, those who aspire to be trained to teach in Kentucky schools, or schools elsewhere, appear to be "above average" by this measure. It is noteworthy, as well, that these students also carry GPAs above 3.0, even though the minimum acceptable score for entering these institutions is 2.5.
This achievement bodes well for the basic competence of recent entrants into Kentucky’s teacher workforce. It would be cause for more optimism, of course, if ACT averages of teacher trainees from these institutions had been closer to 23 or 24.(3) On the other hand, no studies exist that link teacher competency to minimum scores on tests such as the ACT. We take it to be a good sign, however, that would-be teachers are coming from among the cohort of students who score at the 21-22 level, rather than at the statewide average.
Teacher education students in Kentucky prepared to teach in certain subjects fare better than others compared with graduates of other teacher training programs around the country. This is the case at least as based on score results from national teacher examinations. According to data collected from Kentucky’s 26 teacher training institutions for 1993-94 and 1994-95 by Kentucky’s Office of Teacher Education and Certification (OTEC), for example, as shown in Table 2, graduates of Kentucky teacher preparation programs score at the national average on the three "core" knowledge and skill batteries of the Praxis II exam (the new name for the old National Teachers Examination). They score at or slightly above the national average in several categories, including biology and general science; math; physical, business, and music education; and educational leadership, administration, and supervision. But in a dozen other disciplinary areas, Kentucky teacher training graduates seeking certificates scored below the national median scores on the Praxis subject area exams, at least during 1993-94 and 1994-95. Note that in Table 2 the lines in red show the subject matter areas in which the Kentucky median score was below the national median score.
OTEC has recently compiled the Praxis II scores of Kentucky students on the 1996-97 round of the test, shown in Table 3. The new tests cannot be easily compared with the previous versions because a greater number of subject area tests were administered and new score scales were developed in a number of subject areas. However, the newer Praxis numbers still show Kentucky students lagging behind national averages in many subject categories, though still scoring quite close to the national norm in the core battery areas (shown on the bottom three rows of Table 3). It is noteworthy, we should add, that a process is in place to review the passing scores that have been set, so there may be fluctuation in these discipline-area scores and failure percentages over the coming years. Fluctuation also occurs due to the small numbers of students taking some of the subject area exams.Taken together, these various Praxis data suggest that above-average students in preparation programs and certain disciplines might not be receiving rigorous enough instruction during the latter part of their postsecondary school careers. This is not primarily or necessarily a problem for departments or colleges of education, but instead raises a host of institution-wide issues. The problem has indeed been recognized, and numerous colleges and universities have moved to address it. Both the University of Kentucky and the University of Louisville, for example, have established degree and certification programs that transfer most pedagogy instruction into a fifth year. This allows undergraduates to major and minor in academic subject areas, and study teaching methods and materials primarily at the graduate level. But it will be some time before it becomes clear if these strategies will suffice.
Table 3: 1996-97 Praxis II Subject Area Exam Results, Kentucky Test-Takers
The Kentucky teacher workforce, therefore, looks good from the standpoint of experience levels and extent of graduate coursework completed. It also appears that those who have entered teaching in recent years have above average college entrance exam scores, perform close to national averages on core areas of the Praxis exam, and fluctuate above and below the national medians on various Praxis subject area tests. Some of these findings represent good news about the Kentucky teacher workforce, and some can be construed as at least neutral. Others suggest areas where attention is needed.
The more troubling information regarding the teacher workforce in the state involves the apparent high incidence of so-called out-of-field teaching. As noted earlier, NCTAF deems a teacher to be teaching out of field when that person provides instruction at the middle- or high-school level in subjects in which he or she possesses neither a college major nor minor. The logic here is rather straightforward. It is assumed that to teach academic discipline well, an individual must have studied that topic at a level more than one or two steps beyond what must be taught. A relatively simple benchmark for how much study is "enough" has for years been study at the level of at least a college minor. Hence, for example, a high school history class ought not be taught by someone whose college major was psychology and minor was Spanish.
Based on data supplied by NCTAF and using this definition, it appears that out-of-field teaching is a significant problem nationwide. NCTAF has drawn the conclusion primarily from data gathered in 1993-94 by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) through its Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS). During the 1993-94 school year, NCES sent tens of thousands of surveys to school personnel around the country and gathered information about staffing practices at those schools. Most states returned enough samples of surveys to provide state-by-state results.
NCTAF was particularly concerned about the academic preparation of middle and high school math and science teachers, these disciplines being deemed crucial for the nation’s economic competitiveness. According to analyses of SASS data, and as Figure 3 shows, out-of-field teaching in math and science is clearly a problem at the national level and in Kentucky.
Figure 3: Out-of-Field Teaching, Math and Science, Grades 7-12, 1993-94
These results indicate that over a quarter of those teaching math and science in Kentucky in grades 7-12 was not sufficiently prepared at the undergraduate level to provide instruction in those disciplines, at least as of 1993-94. The percentages for Kentucky are slightly better than the national averages in math, but somewhat worse in science. It is possible, however, that the findings in Figure 3 regarding Kentucky are not representative of schools statewide. These findings are based on information from schools of 600 students or more. Since many Kentucky middle schools, and even some high schools, are not this large, a considerable number of schools were bypassed. It is unclear how this sampling method skews the data.
A different—and likely better—look at out-of-field teaching in high schools across the country, again relying upon the 1993-94 SASS data, reveals the variation in this problem from subject area to subject area. As Table 4 shows, in Kentucky this problem is acute in math and English as well as physical science and history. Although in certain disciplines Kentucky apparently has less out-of-field teaching than nationally and in the states contiguous to the Commonwealth, these numbers are not encouraging.(4)
What is unclear about this problem in Kentucky, however, is the extent to which the 1993-94 SASS study results accurately reflect the amount of out-of-field teaching taking place. KDE representatives disagree with the SASS figures on out-of-field teaching in this state. But KDE does not have a firm database with which to refute these figures, because the Department calculates teacher qualifications in a different manner.
The disjunction between the SASS study and KDE’s claims rests largely upon the distinction between whether individuals are appropriately certified to teach or whether they are qualified to teach based on having at least a minor in their primary teaching field. According to KDE records, for example, only a miniscule percentage of teachers in Kentucky are teaching in an area for which they are uncertified. Indeed, Kentucky takes pride in having properly certified teachers in virtually every classroom in the state.
But the certification system in Kentucky allows instruction to be given in some cases by those who have not attained a major or minor in the academic subject they are teaching. This is the result of fairly recent changes in the way schools are organized and in expectations regarding teacher preparation. Historically, Kentucky schools were broken into K-8 and 9-12 grade levels. Those wishing to teach at the K-8 level were trained as generalists rather than specialists, and given K-8 or elementary certification. In recent years, though, 6-8 grade students in Kentucky have increasingly been moved to middle schools, and teachers with the earlier elementary certification have been allowed to continue providing instruction.
The EPSB has recognized the need for middle school teachers to receive more academic training in the subjects they teach, and has increased coursework requirements for new middle school teachers. However, this leaves a portion of middle school teachers legally certified to teach but, by NCTAF’s definition, teaching out of field.
Unfortunately, there is currently no reliable way for KDE officials or outside researchers to verify the extent of out-of-field teaching at either the middle- or high-school level in the Commonwealth. KDE maintains an electronic database on teachers in the state, which contains copious information for each teacher, including the certifications they possess and codes of the courses they teach. However, this database does not contain information about the coursework teachers have completed at the undergraduate or graduate level, or subject area test scores from Praxis exams. Hence, KDE can crosscheck teacher certifications with courses taught and determine, for example, that few teachers are uncertified to teach their courses. But it cannot correlate courses taught with the amount of postsecondary training teachers have received in various subject areas or with the professional development work they may have accumulated in disciplinary studies.
As a result, SASS results indicate potentially serious problems with teacher academic preparation levels, while KDE simultaneously reports a "fully certified" teacher workforce.(5) This formulation of the problem, of course, begs the question of whether middle or high school teachers need at least a minor in the subject they teach or if the certification system as practiced in Kentucky is adequate to ensure content preparation. The assertion by NCTAF about necessary preparation levels, though, does seem reasonable, but this is certainly a subject upon which there might usefully be some debate within the state.
To shed more light on the out-of-field teaching issue in Kentucky and to learn more about the coursework preparation of Kentucky teachers, the Kentucky Long-Term Policy Research Center and KDE jointly conducted a research project in the spring and summer of 1998 to study the transcripts of a select group of teachers in the state.(6) The initial inquiry examined teachers of middle school math in Kentucky. This seemed to be a useful focus of attention, for several reasons. First, sound math instruction during the middle grades is critical for higher math attainment in high school and college. Second, the SASS out-of-field teaching results showed potential preparation problems in math at grades 7-12, yet KDE officials have claimed, as noted, that this problem is due to the middle school teacher certification situation. Third, the oft-cited Third International Math and Science Study (TIMSS) provides persuasive empirical evidence that, at the national level, teacher math preparation levels, curriculum incoherencies, lack of content-oriented professional development, tracking practices, and mile-wide-but-inch-deep math textbooks contribute to poor middle school math performance.(7) It is likely that such factors affect middle school math results in Kentucky as well. Hence, middle school math became the subject of our analysis.
A representative, stratified sample of middle school math teachers was selected for the analysis. To generate the sample, the research team had KDE’s Division of Integration Services search the Department’s 1997-98 Professional Staff Data (PSD) set to identify all teachers teaching math at a middle school in the Commonwealth. "Math" included any one of the following three courses: Middle School Mathematics, Pre-Algebra, or Algebra I—Eighth Grade. These courses are the primary middle school math curriculum components, and the query identified 1,650 teachers across the state.
These teachers were separated according to the course(s) they taught, and the three pools of teachers then systematically sampled. The initial sample showed that some KDE service center regions were underrepresented; hence, additional teachers were sampled from the groups to guarantee that all geographic areas of the state were fairly represented. The final sample of middle school mathematics teachers with usable data totaled 270.
The next step was to search the files of the teachers in the sample—files which have been compiled in various formats—and create readable paper files for each teacher. After this was done, relevant data for each teacher were entered into a database. To keep teacher preparation data confidential, no names were entered into the database, and no paper copies of the files were removed from the OTEC offices. Graduate students hired for the project then entered data on a range of variables.(8)
Perhaps the most important findings have to do with majors of middle school math teachers, their certification levels, and teacher qualification/preparation levels among those at low- and high-poverty schools. Table 5 shows the distribution of majors among these teachers, which generally bears out the claim that only modest percentages of middle school math teachers have studied math extensively at the undergraduate level. About 24 percent of those in the sample actually majored in math or math education in college. Another 34 percent majored in elementary or pre-elementary education, and some 31 percent majored in other education areas (including special education, middle school education, and secondary education [nonmathematics]).
The study also determined, although it is not included in the table below, that another 15 percent of the teachers in the sample had minored in mathematics. That is, 15 percent of the sample was comprised of individuals who had completed at least 12 hours of math courses at the 300 level or above. The study did not determine other minors possessed by those in the sample.
Table 5: Distribution of Majors for the Middle School Math Teachers Used for the Transcript Study
A major finding of this study is as follows: If teaching "in field" is defined—following NCTAF—as having a math or math education major or minor, then only 39 percent of middle school math teachers received ample college coursework in math, and the remaining 61 percent are teaching out of field.
This finding accords very roughly, it should be added, with differently calculated NAEP data from 1996 on the majors of Kentucky Grade 8 math teachers. According to a 1996 NAEP Kentucky state math report, 43 percent of students taking the math assessment in Kentucky were reported as studying under a teacher who had majored in mathematics.(9) Note that this calculation is linked to percentage of students, not overall percentage of teachers. Nevertheless the NAEP data also suggest that well over half of the middle school math teachers in the state have not had extensive mathematics backgrounds at the undergraduate level.
The discrepancy in training between math majors and minors, on the one hand, and those with neither a major nor minor in math, on the other, is substantial, as might be expected. Math majors in the sample had taken an average of 40 hours of math courses, some 22 hours of which were at the 300 level or above. Math minors had taken an average of 31 hours of math courses, some 17 of which were at the 300 level or above. Those who majored and minored in other areas had only taken on average 17.5 hours of math courses, just under 5 of which were at the 300 level, and another 5 hours at the 200 level. These results are shown in Table 6. The study could not ascertain differences in course content, however, so it is not possible to make inferences about, for example, the 17.5 hours taken by nonmajors/nonminors.
Table 6: Average Course Credit Hours of Middle School Math Teachers
As noted earlier, Kentucky certification regulations permit individuals with varying levels of certification, such as elementary K-8 certification, to teach middle school math. Applying the state’s own qualification criteria to middle school math teachers virtually eliminates the problem: for 1997-98, for example, only 10 teachers of mathematics were identified as teaching out of field under certification guidelines.
A glance at additional transcript study data illustrates the effects of this certification approach on math preparation levels. As shown in Figure 4, more than a third of middle school math teachers have elementary certification and about 27 percent have middle school certification. Only about one third of those who teach the middle school math courses carry a high school certification, which requires a mathematics concentration. Just over 5 percent of teachers have some other certification. Hence, by allowing elementary and middle school certified teachers to teach middle school math and by not requiring individuals with these certifications to have extensive math preparation at the 300 level or above, the certification system allows teachers without strong math backgrounds to teach middle school math classes.
Figure 4: Certifications Possessed by Middle School Math Teachers in the Sample
Given that these study results tend to support the argument that weak content preparation among middle school math teachers exists because of the certification regulations allowing those with elementary and middle school certifications to provide instruction, it is also likely that out-of-field teaching in math is not as common at the high school level as the SASS study results for grades 7-12 suggest. However, until high school math teacher transcript data comparable to this middle school teacher data are available, it will not be possible to determine if this is the case.
As noted earlier, the EPSB has been moving in the direction of beefing up middle school math teacher qualifications. Effective October 1, 1998, an EPSB directive requires those seeking middle school certification to take content specialty tests in two subject areas. This will necessitate prospective middle school math teachers to prepare at a higher level, or at least be able to demonstrate skill competency at a certain level on a nationally standardized examination. But this will only apply to new teachers and those seeking to add middle school certification, and will therefore not affect those already approved to teach middle school math.
Interestingly, the transcript study results show some differences in math preparation levels among teachers in the wealthiest and poorest districts in Kentucky. But it appears that middle school math teachers in the poorest districts have slightly better preparation levels than their counterparts in wealthier districts. This finding seems to counter NCTAF-sponsored study results, which show teachers at high poverty schools in inner cities to be considerably less well prepared than those in wealthier suburban districts.(10)
For the Kentucky study, two analyses were conducted that examined teachers based upon the percentage of free and reduced-price lunch students at their schools. Among middle school math teachers at schools with above 50 percent student eligibility for free and reduced-price lunch, some 38.5 percent were math or math education majors. In schools with below 50 percent of the students eligible for free and reduced lunch, 34.6 percent were math or math education majors.
Another analysis examined the lowest quarter of free and reduced-price lunch eligible schools as well as the highest quarter of such schools. Among teachers at the poorest schools, almost 30 percent had math or math education majors. Among teachers at the wealthiest schools, slightly less than 25 percent had math or math education majors. Among the schools in the middle two quartiles, only 20.3 percent of teachers were math or math education majors (note that these calculations focus only on majors and do not include minors). Therefore, schools in the middle of the distribution tend to have lower percentages of the math or math education majors than those at either end of the wealth spectrum. Taken together, this information suggests that in Kentucky teachers have similar preparation levels in both wealthy and poor districts, at least in terms of middle school math teacher training. What these results do not reveal, however, are differences among the wealth quartiles in terms of age, experience levels, and year preparation programs were completed for these teachers. Such differences, if they exist, might help account for student performance variations among districts in the quartiles.
Several additional findings have emerged from this study. For example, most teachers have attended at least two undergraduate institutions, which might raise problems with course credit transfers. Also, about a quarter of the sampled teachers had repeated at least one math course, although it is uncertain what this indicates about course-taking habits. Finally, only about 55 percent of teachers in the sample had taken a standard Calculus I course. It therefore appears that almost half of all middle school math teachers have received no training in this area of mathematics. This could signal a problem, inasmuch as middle school mathematics courses can be seen as laying the conceptual and skill groundwork for calculus and advanced math in late high school and college.
Several limitations exist with regard to these research findings, and we mention them briefly. They do not, however, significantly alter the results of the analyses. First, we did not attempt to "equate" the math courses listed on the transcripts, such that we could compare a course listed as Math 158 at one institution with those listed as 102 or 175 at other institutions. Given the variations in course numbering sequences across institutions and time, not to mention variations in actual course content, this would have been impossible. Rather, we relied on a combination of course titles and "levels," e.g. 100, 200, 300, and so forth, for our study and analyses. This approach yielded the information we were seeking about preparation and certification levels, but does not allow us to compare, for example, the depth or quality of math training among teachers with similar course-taking backgrounds from different institutions.
Second, this study does not allow us to determine the distribution of middle school math teachers among schools around the state. Recent Lexington Herald-Leader stories, for example, have suggested that certain middle schools have chosen to hire as math teachers only those who majored in math at the undergraduate level. Inasmuch as this has happened at certain middle schools around the state, then the 39 percent of math majors or minors may be concentrated in a relatively small number of locations. But we cannot determine if this is the case based on the data compiled for this particular study.
Third, and perhaps most important, we do not have data that will allow us to link teacher math preparation levels with student achievement. As noted, we have followed NCTAF and others in designating academic disciplinary study at the minor level in undergraduate school as adequate for middle or high school math instruction. Determining if study at this level is the crucial factor in student math achievement scores at the middle school, however, is beyond the scope of this study or of the available data.
Based on the findings of this transcript study along with the SASS data cited earlier, it appears that significant amounts of out-of-field teaching exist in Kentucky, certainly in terms of mathematics at the middle-school level. As noted, this is not due to a failure of KDE’s teacher certification system. Rather, a new set of expectations has evolved about how much course-taking teachers should engage in before entering the classroom. Kentucky is addressing these new expectations, but slowly. Moreover, how much out-of-field teaching is taking place in other subject areas and at other levels of schooling, particularly the secondary level, is unclear, and similar studies could be undertaken to find out. It is unlikely that this situation only exists with math and not other subjects and levels. One could infer from this information, therefore, that much work remains to be done in terms of determining the content preparation levels of Kentucky teachers and determining what action should be taken if weaknesses are identified.
To summarize, based on the quality indicators identified for this study as well as the results of the middle school math transcript study, there appears to be both good news and less encouraging news about Kentucky teachers. Commonwealth teachers are about as experienced as their counterparts elsewhere and have achieved significantly greater amounts of graduate training than the typical teacher in the nation. The ACT scores and GPAs of those entering the teacher training system in recent years are above average. And Praxis new teacher results show trainees scoring close to national averages on some subject area tests.
On the other hand, out-of-field teaching seems to be a problem, although the extent of its occurrence can only be estimated. According to SASS studies, the problem seems to be most acute in math, English, history, and certain areas of science. The middle school math transcript study indicates out-of-field teaching seems clearly to be a problem at the middle school level in this subject, but might also be a problem in other subjects and at the high-school level. Moreover, KDE’s data collection system cannot be used to assay out-of-field teaching levels, at least not as those are determined by relying on majors or minors. KDE relies instead on its certification system, which currently shows an almost fully certified teaching force in the state.
Conspicuously absent from the available data is information on actual teacher performance in the classroom or on relationships between student performance and teacher qualification levels. Simply put, there is currently no way to link the skill and knowledge levels of teachers, either individually or collectively, with the performance of their students, which is the key outcome variable of the public schooling system. Granted, measuring teacher performance is notoriously difficult. Moreover, student achievement results from a given teacher’s classroom would be extremely difficult to interpret, given variations in student abilities and efforts from class to class, student mobility, and given that teachers often switch grade and occasionally even subjects from year to year. Nevertheless, data that allow officials to make some judgments about teacher quality and student performance, perhaps based on scores from groups of teachers and their students, should arguably be part of an effective accountability system and could provide information useful to those who plan professional development and determine staffing for schools.
Back to Teacher Quality in Context
Ahead to Teacher Quality and Future Issues, Part 1
Education Week, Quality Counts ‘98: The Urban Challenge, Public Education in the 50 States. Special Issue of Education Week 8 Jan. 1998: 82-83. Return to text.
See "Appendix A: State-by-State Report Card, Indicators of Attention to Teaching Quality, October 1997," in Doing What Matters Most. For example, ratings included figures on teachers as a percent of total staff, the percent of teacher training programs certified by a national certification body, and the percent of teachers who received more than eight hours of professional development in the previous year. Return to text.
In fact, ACT score averages are at this level at several Kentucky teacher training institutions, including (in 1995-96) Asbury College (23.1); Centre College (25.9); Georgetown College (23.9); Alice Lloyd College (23.5); Transylvania University (24.5); and Western Kentucky University (24.0). Return to text.
The SREB study cited on page 10 reported similar out-of-field teaching percentages for southeastern states, based on different analyses of the same 1993-94 data set. See page 51 in Educational Benchmarks. Return to text.
As of late 1998, KDE reported that only about 135 teachers statewide were inappropriately certified. Return to text.
The middle school math teacher transcript study was conducted by the author, along with William E. White, Office of the Commissioner, KDE, and Pat Hartanowicz, Education Professional Standards Board, KDE. Peter Schirmer, Kentucky Long-Term Policy Research Center, analyzed the data. Return to text.
William Schmidt, et al., Facing the Consequences (Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1998). Return to text.
The variables include: number of undergraduate colleges attended; names/codes of colleges attended; degree-granting college; year of graduation from undergraduate college; undergraduate grade point average; undergraduate major; graduate school(s) attended; graduate school major; level of certification (elementary, middle, high/secondary); total course units transferred into undergraduate degree-granting institution; number of math courses repeated; number of remedial math courses completed; number of level 100, 200, or 300 math or math education courses completed; number of all math and math education courses completed; whether Calculus I, II, or III was ever completed; and the percentage of free and reduced lunch students at each teacher’s school. Return to text.
The NAEP 1996 State Assessment in Mathematics: Kentucky Report, 207. Return to text.
See, for example, Linda Darling-Hammond, "Unequal Opportunity: Race and Education," The Brookings Review, Spring 1998: 28-32. Darling-Hammond is Executive Director of NCTAF and has been the guiding force behind most NCTAF publications. Return to text.