|
Contributors
Lance T. Izumi - Contributor
[Courtesty of Pacific Research
Institute]
Lance
Izumi is Director of Education Studies for the Pacific
Research Institute and
Senior Fellow in California Studies. He is a leading expert in
education policy and the author of several major PRI studies.
[go to Izumi index]
 California's
Teacher-Quality Masquerade
An education crisis courtesy of the state...
[Lance T. Izumi] 4/29/04
Ample research confirms that teacher quality has
a large effect on student performance. Good teachers raise student
achievement levels, while poor ones keep them down. California's
recent efforts to ensure high-quality teachers in the classroom,
however, have been misguided and deceptive.
There is no doubt that California faces a teacher quality crisis.
For example, according to the latest statistics, more than a
third of eighth-grade math teachers in California did not major
in either math or math education in college. Such numbers are
disturbing considering that studies show that student achievement
is tied to teachers' knowledge of their subject field. Yet, California
is doing little to guarantee that teachers in the classroom have
subject-matter competence.
California's missteps in implementing the federal No Child Left
Behind Act (NCLB) are a case in point. NCLB emphasizes subject-matter
competence in its provisions on teacher quality. Under NCLB,
teachers new to the profession must pass a subject matter test
to prove their competence. Commendably, California has developed
such subject matter tests.
However, NCLB also says that teachers already in the profession
can prove their subject-area competence through means such as
passing a subject test or having a degree in the subject field.
This opens the way for a potential loophole, in the form of the
so-called High, Objective, Uniform State Standard of Evaluation
(HOUSSE).
NCLB allows states to design a HOUSSE program that's supposed
to determine veteran teachers' subject-matter competency. California
recently adopted a HOUSSE system that gives points to teachers
for various activities, with 100 points being necessary to be
considered highly qualified in the subject field. Some point
categories do make sense, such as having taken college-level
courses in the subject field. However, other categories are troubling.
It's possible, for example, to get up to half the points a teacher
needs simply by having taught classes in the subject field. Thus,
a PE teacher teaching math for five years could get half the
points necessary to prove that he or she is a highly qualified
math teacher.
Worse, a
teacher can earn up to 90 points through so-called "leadership
and service to the profession in assigned area." Although
the state lists activities that could earn teachers points in
this category, such as serving as department chair, it says that, "This
list is not exhaustive." In other words, schools have wide
latitude to figure out creative ways to give points to teachers
deficient in subject matter.
Teachers
can also earn points by having their colleagues observe their
work in
the classroom, always a subjective enterprise.
Points can be given for vague and non-subject-matter related
observations such as "Establishing and communicating learning
goals for all students."
Because of
these and other defects, the National Council for Teacher Quality
gave
California an "F" grade in its
just-released evaluation of state HOUSSE systems. In contrast,
California's northern neighbor, Oregon, received a "B+" because
it gave veteran teachers the single option of taking subject-matter
courses. The Council described Oregon's system as "Abundantly
clear, simple, no loopholes."
The Council recommends that all teachers, experienced as well
as the newly licensed, should demonstrate their knowledge of
subject matter only through college-level coursework or through
passing a subject-matter test. California should take this advice
to heart and stop disguising poor-quality teachers with a high-quality
mask. CRO
copyright
2004 Pacific Research Institute
|
