But, before I get started, I want you to know that the main reason we can speak optimistically and substantively about teachers and the nation's schools today is because Richard Riley, who you have just heard, put us on this path almost a generation ago. The political courage and leadership he showed when he served as governor of South Carolina, from 1979 to 1987, encouraged other governors to take up the challenge of reforming teaching and learning in America. The Rand Corporation described Governor Riley's Education Improvement Act in South Carolina as "the most comprehensive educational reform measure in the United States." One of the facts the education governors of the 1980's helped people understand was that we could not talk intelligently about improving the nation's schools if we did not have some reliable and comparative measure of student learning.
Among the reforms of the farsighted governors of the 1980's was the adoption of mandatory standardized testing of all pupils on a regular basis in the public schools. Some of those governors paid a heavy political price for their advocacy, but the governors knew that without some measure of student learning discussions of school reform would continue to be about everything but learning. Someone had to establish units and a yardstick to measure when and how progress was occurring. In the absence of a yardstick, a constructive debate about how to improve the schools was a frustrating if not futile exercise. Before these reforms, many discussions about teaching and schooling had the character of stories that might have been written by Lewis Carroll. I am reminded of Carroll's description of the wise sea captain in The Hunting of the Snark, who impressed his sailors with a nonconfusing map of the sea. It contained no land features, and no latitudes nor longitudes. It was entirely blank! Although the crew was pleased and worked harder than ever before, needless to say, it never did figure out where the ship was, and the hunt ended in a fiasco.
The reform idea, more than a decade ago, was that you needed a yardstick for learning. The measuring tool would not help immediately, but it would allow future generations to know where to focus their efforts to improve student achievement. Well, the future those leaders envisioned then is here today. It is now. What has our yardstick told us?
Let me start with data from Tennessee, where literally millions of student records have been compiled over the past decade. Every pupil in that state is tested on multiple subjects every year from the first grade to the twelfth grade. Let's just take one test, say, mathematics. We know that at the end of the second grade all pupils are given a test and each pupil acquires a math achievement score. Suppose you sorted the records so as to create two matched groups, each with the same mean achievement score. To make this easy, we'll concentrate on two pupils, Sally and Johnny, representatives of their groups, who are matched on math achievement at the end of the second grade.
Now Sally and Johnny go on to the third grade. At the end of that year, they each take a math achievement test. Suppose that Sally made very good progress. She showed a large gain in her math achievement from one year to the next. Perhaps Johnny did not. He made little progress and showed only a small gain from the end of the second grade to the end of the third. Since every pupil in the state has been tested in both grades, you could rank all of the pupils in the state on the basis of the gain they made in one year. You might also collect the pupils into groups of 25 or so, which would be the classrooms they were in during that year, and calculate the mean achievement gain made by the pupils in that class. Let's say that Sally was in one class, and Johnny was in another. You could rank all of the classrooms in the state on the basis of the mean gain in mathematics achievement made by the pupils.
Well, it turns out that each classroom is associated with a unique and specific teacher. So by ranking all of the classrooms, you are also ranking each teacher on the basis of the mean gain in mathematics achievement made by the pupils in the class. You might, for purposes of simplicity, take the top 20% of the teachers, as ranked by the achievement of the pupils in their classes, and call them "most effective" teachers. You could also take the lowest 20% and call them "least effective" teachers. Let's suppose that Sally had the good fortune, at the end of the second grade, to have been assigned to a high effectiveness teacher for the third grade. And let's suppose that Johnny's fate was to have been assigned to one of the low effectiveness teachers. Now Sally and Johnny move on to the fourth grade. The process is repeated again. And then both pupils move on to the fifth grade. At the end of the fifth grade, we have a set of math achievement scores for all of the pupils in the state. What can we say about them, based upon the quality of the teaching they received?
If, starting at the end of the second grade, Sally had the good luck to have experienced three most effective teachers in a row, her math achievement score will be above the 80th percentile for all pupils. If, starting at the end of the second grade, Johnny had the misfortune of experiencing three least effective teachers in a row, his math achievement score will be less than the 30th percentile. Remember, these are pupils that were matched on ability at the beginning of the third grade. The difference between them at the end of the fifth grade is more than 50 percentile points. In fact, this difference is so large that Sally is now in the gifted and talented program, and Johnny is in the remedial program.
These are actual results (Sanders & Rivers, 1996). They have been replicated in two major urban school systems in Tennessee with uncanny virtually identical outcomes. Note that this research design is what is called a "within subjects" design, where each pupil serves as her or his own point of comparison. This kind of research design controls for all of the variables unique to pupils, such as their intrinsic motivation, their work habits, the influence of their parents, and their socioeconomic status. The ONLY variable that can explain the large systematic differences in student achievement is the quality of the teacher.
This research design also allows us to look at what the effect is of having a high effectiveness teacher followed by a low effectiveness teacher, or vice versa. You might ask, for example, could a high effectiveness teacher make up for lack of gain following instruction by a low effectiveness teacher? The answer is not entirely. High quality teaching always makes a difference, but it never brings the gains back to where they would have been if the teaching had been of consistently high quality. In other words, the effect of good teaching is cumulative, but it is not compensatory.
The results from Tennessee have been replicated not only in Tennessee, but also in some very impressive studies done in Texas, involving more than 3,000 schools and more than a half million pupils (Kain, 1998; Rivkin, Hanushek & Kain, 1998). The findings converge consistently on one stunningly clear fact. The most important variable in improving student learning is the quality of the teacher.
I do not want to leave you with the impression that other factors, such as socioeconomic status, or race, do not make a difference. They do. In poor schools, pupils are much more likely to encounter less effective teachers than pupils in affluent schools. Black pupils are more likely to be assigned to less effective teachers than white pupils are. But, irrespective of race or socioeconomic condition, when pupils encounter highly effective teachers, they show remarkable gains. When all factors are controlled, it is the quality of the teacher that makes the difference in student learning. Teacher quality is more important than any other variable. And that brings me to my second point.
Now, you might ask, who is responsible for teacher quality? The answer is, we are. The fact is that today all teachers are educated at the nation's colleges and universities. Now that we know that the most important factor in improving the quality of the nation's schools is improving the quality of teaching, we can conclude that colleges and universities have the capacity significantly to elevate the academic performance of the nation's schoolchildren.
Of course, we do not yet know from careful research studies what the specific characteristics are of highly effective teachers. But we do have some preliminary, if general, evidence. For example, we know that good students make good teachers. For example, teachers who themselves showed high academic indicators in college, such as high standardized test scores, good grades in challenging curricula, and high rank in class, are teachers whose pupils show high achievement gains (Ferguson, 1998; Ferguson & Ladd, 1996). We also know that knowledge of the subject matter makes a difference. The data are unequivocal for mathematics. Pupils score higher on math achievement tests the more courses their teachers have taken in mathematics (Monk, 1994; Goldhaber & Brewer, 1997, 1999; Rowan, et al., 1997). And, we know that subject-specific pedagogy courses make a difference. Pupils score higher on math achievement tests the more courses their teachers have taken in math education (Monk, 1994; Goldhaber & Brewer, 1999).
We are also gaining consensus among professional teacher educators on the essential features of an effective teacher education program. The dramatic research findings I've just described about the importance of teacher quality will stimulate more clearly focused research on specific characteristics of teacher quality. But we need not wait for the details. We have the evidence now to move forward with confidence. The next step is the will and the determination to make the improvement of teacher education a high priority at colleges and universities.
There is good news in that the public is ahead of us. We do not have to convince the public that high quality teachers are important. They know that already. In fact, the public feels that higher education is not doing what it can to improve the quality of the teachers who are educated at colleges and universities.
Last year, colleges and universities in Massachusetts learned first hand that the public cares about the quality of their teacher education programs. When newspapers and television reported the failure rates of teacher candidates on a standardized examination, and ranked their success by the college or university from which they graduated, the institutions took notice. Now, in legislation soon to be approved, the federal government will mandate the public reporting of rates of passing teacher licensure examinations by all colleges and universities that receive federal aid. This is good news. Transparency and public disclosure help those who would lead efforts to improve the quality of teaching. It also forces attention by experts in the academic community to the nature of the examinations being used, to defensible alternatives to paper and pencil tests, and to better and more valid measures of the quality of prospective teachers.
This brings me to my final point. As college and university leaders we have a grand opportunity to make a decisive improvement in the quality of our nation's schools. Right now, class size reductions, teacher retirements as a result of an aging teaching workforce, and increasing enrollments are happening simultaneously. Current models used by the Department of Education project that the nation is going to hire at least 2.5 million teachers over the coming decade (Hussar, 1999). This is an impressive number, but it should not be unduly alarming. Annual hiring will have to rise by about 20% above current levels. We do not face an impossible task.
We do face a difficult task, however, since we want to improve the quality of the nation's teaching workforce. School districts have 2.5 million hiring decisions to make. Will they continue to lower the bar to fill slots in special education? In high poverty schools? In math and science classrooms? School districts should insist on quality. School systems are going to have to work harder than ever before to attract good candidates into teaching.
As leaders in higher education we should see the projections for teacher demand as 2.5 million opportunities to improve education. Colleges and universities will educate new teachers and will provide continuing professional education for existing ones. If we focus on the worthy goal of elevating the quality of teacher education, and sustaining high standards for prospective teachers, we can grasp one of the grandest opportunities ever to come our way.
About a decade ago, when I was president of the Council of Colleges of Arts and Sciences, I actively pursued the reform of teacher education. In this capacity I was invited to attend a conference here in Washington on science education. It was shortly after the disaster that befell the space shuttle Challenger. You may remember that one of the astronauts on that mission was to be the first teacher in space, a talented middle school teacher named Sharon Christa Corrigan McAuliffe. At the conference I attended, one of the NASA scientists who had interviewed the finalists for this coveted slot recalled the session with Christa McAuliffe. Towards the end of the interview she was asked why she wanted to be the first teacher in space. Without hesitation she replied directly and authentically. "Don't you understand?" she answered, "I'm a teacher. Every day through my students, I touch the future."
If teachers touch the future, so do the colleges and universities that educate teachers. This is not the first time that college and university presidents have assembled in Washington to consider teacher education. What is different this time is that all of us recognize that the economy is changing in ways that make knowledge and information the principal engines of economic growth. The nation must nurture the creation of human intellectual capital in order to prosper. Also what is different this time is that we know convincingly that the key to improving the nation's schools is improving the quality of the nation's teachers. This challenge lies squarely within the core competencies of higher education. We cannot avoid the responsibility that has come our way. Indeed, it is our grand opportunity. In seizing it we keep a promise to an inspirational teacher, Christa McAuliffe, by reaching to touch a bright and a hopeful future.
Ferguson, R. F. (1998). Can schools narrow the black-white test score gap? In C. Jencks & M. Phillips (eds.), The black-white test score gap. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Ferguson, R. F., & Ladd, H. F. (1996). How and why money matters: an analysis of Alabama schools. In H. F. Ladd (ed.), Holding schools accountable: performance-based reform in education. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Goldhaber, D. D., & Brewer, D. J. (1997). Evaluating the effect of teacher degree level on educational performance. In W. J. Fowler (ed.), Developments in school finance, 1996. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Goldhaber, D. D., & Brewer, D. J. (1999). Teacher licensing and student achievement. In M. Kanstoroom & C. E. Finn (eds.), Better teachers, better schools. Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.
Kain, J. F. (1998). The impact of individual teachers and peers on individual student achievement. Paper presented at the 20th annual research conference of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management. New York City, October 31.
Monk, D. H. (1994). Subject area preparation of secondary math and science teachers and student achievement. Economics of education review 13(2), 125-145.
Rivkin, S. G., Hanushek, E. A., & Kain, J. F. (1998). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. National bureau of economic research, working paper number 6691.
Sanders, W. L., & Rivers, J. C. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future academic achievement. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Value-Added Research and Assessment Center.
-###-
[Return to Preparing New Teachers page]