January 4, 2004

There’s plenty that is controversial about the No Child Left Behind law. But the idea that teacher quality matters—that students learn more when taught by well-educated, effective teachers who know their subjects well—has both common sense and research to back it up. Nor is it surprising that students in high-poverty schools are less likely than students in well-funded schools serving middle-class communities to be taught by such teachers.

For instance, an Education Week survey of federal data on secondary school staffing published in January 2003 found that middle and high school students in high-poverty schools are twice as likely as those in low-poverty schools to have a teacher who is not certified in the subject taught (26 percent versus 13 percent). Research has indicated that as much as 50 percent of the minority student achievement gap is attributable to the teacher quality gap.

So the requirement in NCLB that states insure that all students be taught core subjects by “highly qualified” teachers by the 2005-2006 school year seems both worthwhile and unachievable. If Garrison Keillor’s idea that every child in Lake Wobegon is “above average” is funny because it turns the concept of “average” on its head, the idea of every teacher being highly qualified by 2005 is suspect because it will require either huge investments of public funds or a downward redefinition of the term “highly qualified.”

So it was surprising to see a recent summary of teacher quality information supplied by states to the U.S. Department of Education. The summary was in a December 22, 2003 report from the Education Trust, Telling the Whole Truth (or Not) About Highly Qualified Teachers.

The Disappearing Gap
It turns out that quite a few states are reporting there is no teacher quality gap. Take Wyoming: 95 percent of the state’s teachers are highly qualified, asserts the state. In Wyoming’s high-poverty schools, the picture is even brighter, with a stratospheric 99 percent of teachers rated highly qualified.

Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Georgia, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin also report that at least 95 percent of classrooms in high-poverty schools are taught by highly-qualified teachers.

Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, and Vermont report that between 90 and 95 percent of high-poverty classrooms are staffed by highly-qualified teachers.

Here’s another unexpected finding: 15 states reported that the percentages of highly qualified teachers in high-poverty schools were either identical to those for schools in general, or higher. Only 13 states reported a negative gap of 5 percent or more between the percentage of highly qualified teachers overall, and those in high-poverty schools.

(Nine states, including New York and New Jersey, did not provide information on teacher qualifications, which would seem to be a violation of the law, which set a September deadline for the states to submit the data.)

So, does this mean that many states have already solved the troublesome teacher quality gap? Or, as the Education Trust report argues, is it instead that “some states have used their discretion in interpreting the law to cross the line that separates fact from fiction, to paint a rosy picture that is simply at odds with reality”?

As the report points out, NCLB gives states considerable latitude in determining what makes a teacher “highly qualified.” And some of them seem to have used it all and then some. (A skeptical view of this data doesn’t preclude the view that many, or even most, teachers in high-poverty schools are highly-qualified and hard-working.)

Quality Improvements Aren’t Easy
I saw Education Secretary Rod Paige in early December, at a forum organized by his department’s Office of Educational Innovation to look at some approaches to solving the teacher quality problem. Paige seemed in no doubt that the gap exists and is pervasive. “We simply cannot continue to do the same thing we’ve always done and expect to get different results,” said Paige. The teacher quality gap, he argued, is the most important contributor to “a persistent, unbelievable, and, I believe, un-American achievement gap.”

At the forum, presenters discussed three programs intended to bring high-quality teachers into challenging schools, and encourage them to stay. All three made it clear that this is a complicated undertaking that requires both money and political will.

One is called the Teacher Advancement Program, or TAP. A project of the Milken Family Foundation, TAP has been in use by the Phoenix, Arizona Madison School District for five years. According to TAP director Lewis Solmon, the program has been successful enough that “We’re seeing a migration of teachers from the wealthy suburban schools to the poor schools.”

The key elements of TAP are performance-based pay; extensive professional development tailored to the identified needs of each teacher; and a three-step career ladder for teachers that provides increasing levels of responsibility and pay.

“We find teachers are willing to be evaluated, even to get a bad performance review, if they know they will get assistance in dealing with identified weaknesses,” says Solmon. However, he notes, “Performance pay is expensive. TAP is expensive – you have to figure on an increase of about 6 percent, or $400 per student.” Performance pay is also controversial among teachers, who have reason to worry that evaluations may not always be fair or objective, and that the professional development and mentoring resources may not materialize.

In Chattanooga, Tennessee, another private foundation has made a commitment to spend $5 million -- $1 million a year for five years – to help nine low-performing schools recruit and retain top-quality teachers. The Benwood Foundation initiative, now in its third year, offers incentive pay, help in obtaining a mortgage, legal advice and other support to teachers in the nine schools.

Corinne Allen, executive director of the foundation, said that while the initiative is bringing a new caliber of teachers into the schools and improving educational outcomes for students, change hasn’t been easy. “The superintendent took a bold move, and reconstituted schools,” said Allen, making it possible to remove under-performing teachers. We now have teachers who WANT to be in inner city schools.” All but two of the nine schools now have new principals.

The third program is an effort by the New Teacher Project, which has placed 10,000 teachers into high-needs schools since 1997. A recent study by the New Teacher Project found that big-city school systems operate with hiring systems and union rules that wind up discouraging the best and brightest teaching candidates.

“Urban school districts tend to say, ‘No one wants to teach here, we’re the district of last resort.’ But’s that’s not at all what we heard from the teachers,” said chief executive Michelle Rhee. Instead, says Rhee, many bright young teachers seek out the challenge of teaching in high-needs schools – but become discouraged when districts fail to make hiring decisions until very late in the summer.

Teacher’s contract rules in big-city districts contribute, as do budget and enrollment uncertainties and unresponsive central office bureaucracies, said Rhee. The New Teacher Project is now in the process of selecting two cities and one rural area to work with on finding ways to overcome these kinds of barriers.

But she doesn’t expect it to be easy. Not nearly as easy as picking whatever definition of “highly qualified” makes your state look as idyllic as Lake Wobegon.

Susan Phillips is the executive editor for Connect for Kids.