Researchers continue to surface the fact that teachers are the most important predictor in determining whether or not students will learn in school. However, research also demonstrates that qualified teachers - those who are prepared and experienced - are the most inequitably distributed school resource. Students in our nation’s high-priority schools are far less likely to be to be taught by the most expert teachers. This is why one of the most important aspects of the federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) is its demand that states ensure a "highly qualified” teacher for every child.
However, a recent federally funded study has found that teachers who meet their states’ definitions of "highly qualified" under the NCLB Act do not necessarily teach in ways that will allow their students to meet rigorous academic standards. This should come as no surprise: NCLB’s "highly qualified" teacher provisions focus primarily on whether or not teachers know their subject matter and/or if they have passed minimal state licensing standards. At best NCLB calls for "minimally” – not “highly” – qualified teachers. Recently, The Commission on No Child Left Behind recommended that “it is time to ensure that all teachers demonstrate their effectiveness in the classroom rather than just their qualifications for entering it.” The Commission, like a number of other reform groups, calls for standardized tests to be the primary measure for identifying effective teachers.
A number of reform groups, like the Education Trust, are calling for teachers to be identified as highly effective when they generate gains on standardized achievement tests – period. Granted, the focus on student outcomes, rather than teacher quality inputs, makes sense. However, solely or primarily using student standardized tests as the arbiter of teaching effectiveness may do more harm than good.
First, these standardized tests only measure a small fraction of what teachers need to do in order to help all students meeting 21st century learning standards. Second, specific standardize tests (usually in math and reading) can only be ascribed to maybe 30 percent of America’s teachers. Third, even using more sophisticated value-added measures, statistical errors limit the use of the data in making high stakes personnel decisions. Finally, teachers of English language learners and special needs students, who have special testing needs, cannot be fairly judged by most standardized tests used today.
Instead a measurement system — consisting of multiple measures of student learning, teacher performance assessments and teaching practices evaluations — must be combined with the “right” incentives and supports to effectively staff high-priority schools with the “right” teachers. Teachers report that they learn more from their colleagues than anyone else. Perhaps, we need to begin thinking about defining highly expert teachers (HET) – those who can demonstrate growth in student learning and who can effectively spread their teaching expertise to others. More to come.
