Teacher Quality: Equalizing Educational Opportunities and Outcomes
April 2005
Teacher Quality: Equalizing Educational Opportunities and Outcomes
By Gail L. Sunderman & Jimmy Kim
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) teacher quality provisions recognize both the importance of teacher quality for improving student achievement and the unequal distribution of teachers across districts and schools. But the question of how to achieve the goal of a high quality teacher in every classroom is complicated because of the challenges of attracting and retaining teachers to schools serving large numbers of minority and low-income students, the schools most likely to have the least qualified teachers. Professional development, the primary mechanism in the law to improve teacher quality, is insufficient to overcome these challenges and insure a high quality teacher in every classroom. Moreover, the sanctions attached to the NCLB adequate yearly progress requirements create an additional disincentive for highly qualified teachers to remain in high-poverty schools.
This report examines the challenges of implementing the NCLB teacher quality provisions in six states—Arizona, California, Illinois, New York, Georgia, and Virginia—and eleven school districts. We examine how teacher quality varies by school characteristics, how each state’s policy context affects teacher policies, and the barriers to implementing the NCLB teacher quality requirements at the state and local level using both qualitative and quantitative data sources.
Research Findings
Implementing the NCLB teacher quality provisions is complex since managing teachers involves different levels of the school system—state, district, and school. Traditionally, each level has distinct responsibilities yet NCLB blurs these distinctions without providing additional resources or addressing the jurisdictional issues that govern teachers.
Our research on the NCLB teacher quality provisions reveals the following findings:
- States lacked sufficient capacity to collect data. There was significant variability in state capacity to collect data on measures of teacher quality as well as considerable variation among states on the measures they collected. States did not have adequate data systems to track teacher qualifications according to the criteria outlined by the federal government. Tracking teacher qualifications by subject matter was particularly problematic for states.
- Teacher quality was unevenly distributed between districts. Large, urban districts and districts serving low-income students were more likely to have teachers that did not meet the NCLB teacher qualifications.
- Schools identified as needing improvement had the lowest percentage of qualified teachers. In two states, Illinois and California, the average percentage of teachers with full credentials was highest in schools that were not identified as needing improvement. As the number of years a school was in program improvement increased, the number of teachers with full credentials decreased.
- NCLB sanctions encourage teachers to transfer out of schools identified for improvement. Teachers responses on a teacher survey administered in Fresno, CA and Richmond, VA indicated that an unintended effect of the NCLB accountability system is that it will make it more difficult to attract and retain teachers to low-performing schools.
- The NCLB approach to improving teacher quality does not take into consideration state and district context. While improving teacher quality is important, the issues states and districts faced regarding teacher quality and the distribution of teachers are far different than those receiving attention in NCLB. These issues include the following.
- States faced very different labor markets issues. Some states, such as California, had a statewide teacher shortage. Others, such as Virginia, faced shortages in some parts of the state. Georgia had a growing demand for teachers who can teach English as a second language. Illinois and New York had difficulties attracting teachers to large urban districts. Arizona had an overall surplus of teachers, but shortages in some regions of the state and subject matter areas.
- States deferred to districts to improve the unequal distribution of teachers. There is little in the NCLB regulations that provide guidance on how to address the unequal distribution of teachers across districts and across schools, other than through professional development and recruitment. Few states had policies or programs in place to increase the recruitment and retention of high quality teachers. Because teacher recruitment is primarily a district responsibility, the states in our study deferred to districts to address the unequal distribution of teachers. This is consistent with the traditional role of states in establishing certification requirements.
- Districts faced very different implementation challenges that were related to differences in fiscal capacity, organizational characteristics, and state and district policies. Some districts had a declining student population and ongoing budget shortfalls which made it difficult to attract and retain highly qualified teachers. Well-funded districts that were located in a desirable labor market had little difficulty attracting teachers. State policies sometimes created incentives for teachers to move out of districts serving low-income students. Small schools and districts where one teacher covers several subjects had special problems.
NCLB establishes the important goal of having a high quality teacher in every classroom, yet it does not provide the policies, support, or flexibility needed to meet this goal. By failing to recognize the local labor needs and differences in state policy context, some districts will have a more difficult time meeting these requirements than others. There is also the real potential that the negative consequences of the NCLB high stakes accountability policies will create a more negative teaching environment and contribute to teachers wanting to leave, either the profession or those schools serving the most disadvantaged students.
Recommendations
To address the unequal distribution of teachers across schools and districts, the federal government should take a leadership role in understanding and correcting the factors that contribute to these distributional inequities. To meet the goal of having a high quality teacher in every classroom, we recommend:
- Direct federal and state incentives for improving teacher quality to high-poverty areas.
- Encourage states and districts to develop and support programs that create economic and racial diversity in the public schools.
- Provide additional federal funds to assist states to develop the technological infrastructure necessary to track teacher quality over time and manage the increased data collection responsibilities.
- Monitor other indicators of teacher quality in addition to the NCLB measures and assess the distribution of these characteristics across schools and districts.
- Reform the No Child Left Behind Act teacher quality provisions to expand the definition of a qualified teacher to include experience.
- Reform the No Child Left Behind Act to create recognition and rewards for teachers that make a difference and for schools that make improvement.
In compliance with the UC Open Access Policy, this report has been made available on eScholarship:
