Kennedy, M. M. (2008). Sorting out Teacher Quality. Phi Delta Kappan, 90(1)/ 59-63.

Sorting Out Teacher QualityWe care about many teacher qualities and have many ways of assessingthem, Ms. Kennedy argues. What we lack is a strategy for organizing ourassessments into a coherent system.

By Mary M. Kennedy

9-

CHER quality has become a hot~ ic. Everyone~[S [0 measure it, re­

rd it, or improve ir. One reason forthis interest is mat we now have evi­dence that teachers differ dramaticallyin their ability to raise student testscores. We don'c know why someteachers are benee man others. so we

say the differences are due to "teacher quality." An­ocher rearon for our current interest in teacher qua1i~

ry is rhat recent No Child Left Behind requirementSfocus on highly qualified reachers. so we tend to thinkabouc indicators of "teacher quality." Yet anOther rea­son for this interest is that advocates for equity oEcenseek to ensure that schools serving lower-income scu­dents provide the same quality of teachers as thoseserving more advantaged students.

The problem is that tearher quality has become sucha ubiquitous term that it lacks a clear meaning. As re­searchers and policy analysts enter into debates aboutreacher quality, they often use the phrase to refer tovery cl.i.ffi:rent things. For example, people interested inrecruitment tend to use the phrase "reacher quality" torefer to tested ability. I These writers want us to designrecruianent practices chat entice people wich higher rest

scores to become teachers. For chern, rest scores are anindicaw[ of teacher qualiry.

Meanwhile, people interested in me equirable dis­uiburion of reachers across srudent populations orrenuse the phrase "teacher quality" co refer to credenriaJs.2

These writers want co ensure thac all students have ac­

cess to teachers who have obtained comparable licensesand certificates. For chern, certifi~teS and teaching ex~

perience are indicators of reacher quality.Still orner people use the phrase "teacher quality" to

• MARYM. KENNEDY is a proftJSor /}/edutation 11/ MichiganSt'lte University, EtISt LAnsing.

Image: Photos.comiArtvUle

refer to the quality of teachers' classroom practices.~

These writers want to improve the work teachers doinside their classrooms, when actually reaching srudents.For them, specific teaching pracrices are indicators ofteacher quality.

Then rhere are people who think about school fi­nance and who seek the mosr productive use ofexpen­dirures.,j They often use the phrase "reacher quality" to

rerer ro tead1ers' effectiveness in raising Student achieve~

mene. For them, gains in student achievement are in­dicators of teacher quality.

And, ofcourse, there are people who want teachers t-osubscribe to particular beliefs and values. In their minds,

SEPTEMBER 2008 S9

Unl••• we CIIn

bee...........-else In .ur use..........• ...h... lIuallty,­w. will notI..prov. our .bliityto .....u... II,I_prov. II, .rPewanllt.

such values are the chief indicators of reacher quality-Th~~ are not the only definitions available, nor are

these indicators - test scores l certificares, and soforth - the only available indicators of teacher quaJ­ity. Such variations in meanings should not be a sur­prise, for there are indeed numerous dimensions to

teacher quality, eachof which may be im­portant for differentreasons to differentpeople. But unless wecan become more pre­cise in our use of theterm, we will not im­prove our ability to

. . .measure tt, Improve It,

or reward ir. True un­derstanding of reacherquality requires us corecognize that thesemany f.a.cets are dis-tincr, not always

overlapping, and not always related te) one another.Moreover) we aren't even sure how they influence andinteraCT with one another when they do.

A TAXONOMY OF QUALITIES

Recognizing all these aspects of totCher quality meansthat we need (0 staIr calking about teacher q-uolities, ratherman "teacher quality," This slight change in languagereminds us that there are many different dimenSIonsof teacher qUAlity and ifwe want to improve the broad,general quality of the American teacher work force, weneed to be able to sore OUt all the specific qualities thacare pare of it. More important, we need to understandhow these cWferent qualities are related to one-anotherand how they complement, contradict, or influence oneanocher. For ~ple, do teachers' own higher tesc scoresactU4.1ly lead to different or better classroom practices?Do the practices defined in national curriculum frame­works actually yield bener srudent achievement? Per­haps there are no reJarionships linking these differentqualiries, bur perhaps each quality is scill valua.ble inirs own rigJu.

As. a fJrsr seep toward sorcing our rhe confusion, Ipropose three broad groupings of teacher qualities: chosereachers bring with thern co their jobs, which I call per­$OnoL 1'eS(lUrces; those reb.ted co reachers' day-tO-<ia.y work.which I c.a.JI pnformance; and those that refer ro teach­ers' impacc on srudenrs, which 1 call effictiVIl11.e!s.

By "personal resources," r mean those qualities that

{jQ PHI DE.LTA KAPrAN

teachers have even before they are employed a..~ te3ch­ers and that are offen assurnM ro contribute [0 the qual­iry of their teaching practice. Persot:tal resources includeme followi ng:

.. beliefs, attitudes, and va.lu~ (for instance, bdiev­Ing all srudencs can learn, holding a positive attirudetoward student diversiry, valuing equitable trearmentof students);

.. personalicy traits (for instance, being exuoverredor incroverred, caIro or aro::ious, decisive or indecisive);

.. knowledge, skill, and ~pertist (for instance, know­ing me concent, understanding difkrenr cultUral back­grounds, being able ro managt group discussions); and

• credentials (for ins(an~, h:l.ving a major in a par­ticular subject, holding a cerrifJcate, or holding an ad­vanced de~e).

By "performa.nce," I mean the work reachers acru­ally do in their daily pracrice. Performance includes thefollowing:

.. pracrices that occur outside the classroom (for in­stan~, interacring wich colleagues and parents, plan­ning a curriculum mar engages students, provjding su­pervision ro the chess club);

• praCtices within the classroom (for insta..nu, bdngdficienr, being a good rok model, being orga.niud, pro­viding dear goah and srand.3rds, or keeping studentson task); and

• learning acrivities provided for scudenrs (for in­St:<1fI~, providing srodenl:S wich rote memoraacion taSksor r.asks that require complo: problem solving and rea­soning or £aSks that dr;lw on superficial understandingof the COM~nt versus rasks mat require deeper knowl­edge).

Finally, "effectiveness" usually refers to how goodteachers are ar raising student scores on achi~ement

rests. But even dfecciveness isn'r a unitary conupt andcan mean many things:

• fosrmng sroden( learning (for insclnu, raising scoreson standa.rd..ized achievement testS or on srate compe,tency tests);

• motivaring srudents (for instance, increasing the lev­el of effore they invesr in school work or in academicpursuits more broadly); and

.. Fostering personal responsibilicy and socia.l con­cern (for insranu, promoting civil discussions wirhinand ourside (be classroom or increasing student par­riciparion in communicy development and inreresr inpublic policy).

All d~ lists above are arranged in a speeiflc sequence.,which J believe is approximatdy right, (hough ocher ar~

ra.ngemencs are dearly defensible. We suspea mat youngadults who choose teaching as a career do so because

her Qutlilli 85

Annual perfonnance evaluations;classroom observation

Parent feedbaCk

Value-added modeling

Annual perfonnance evaluations;parent f~back

Annual performance evaluations;portfolios

Praxis II

Examining college transcripts andstate licensure status

Commercial online questionnaire~

(e.g., St~r Teach~r, Tea9herln~ight)rr- ,0-----.-,0

Local hiring interview

Few people realize how many of these qualities areroutinely evaluared. Advocates often write as if the on­ly assessments we have ace the tests used for Ucensure,but, in faCt, we not only embrace multiple definitionsof teacher qualiey, we also employ multiple assessmentSof reacher quality. Ulrimarely, nearly all of the qualitiesdescribed here - from attitudes and values to gains insrudent resc scores - are assessed. Table 1 illustrates thevariety of assessment practices thar we use and showshow mey map against rhe qualities we've been dis­cussmg.

Each row ofTable 1 lis~ a particular quality of reach­ing and then gives one or more examples of common

assessments of that qualiey. For insrance, many stares re­quire teachers to take a state licensure teSt, which aimsco assess teacher knowledge. Many districtS require reach­e~ seeking employment to rake an online hiring inter­view ro ascertain cheir belieft and values. Disrricts alsocheck co see whether teachers' credmtiJlls match the re~

quirements for rhe particular job rhey are filling, and,once teachers are employed, they are typically subjecred

see any direct link between chese qualities and anyrhingelse. Similarly, some people who care about the quali­ty ofclassroom practice may believe chac cerrain prac­[ices are likely to influence student Outcomes, whileothers care about classroom practices because they areinherently valuable.~

they have certain beliefs and values TABLE 1.abour reaching, schools, students, andsubjecr marter. We also suspecr [hatrhese beliefs, 3rrirudes, and values will _Q--'ua_l_it_ie_8....,to_Be_J_u_d..:;;,ged ~,.,.._--A-s-s-es-sm-en-t.:....P-r_8_ct_IC8_s_U_s_e_d_

influence what they choose ro srudy 8ellefs. attitudes, and values

and what they learn in college. Andmost states require teachers to obtain Personality traits

specific credenciaJs related to specificKnowtedge, expertise

domains of knowledge, which they be-lieve will influence the reachers' c1ass- Credentials, certificates

room practice and their scuclenrs'learning.

These simple lim, chen, can help ussee the tremendous variety of qualities Olassroom lessonsthat are brought co mind when the gen~

em term "teacher quality" is men- Student learning activitiestioned. They also hint at myriad possi-ble relationships among them. Two

Effect on student learningpointS can be made abour this rangeor qualiries. Effects on student motivation.

First, I should poinr out thac each rea~onalbilityitem described could easily be subcli- L....- ---=..:..-_~_ ____'_ --=-_=..:.... ---J

vided further, ror each conca..ins a plethora of specificideas within it. There are numerous theories of whatconsrirures good classroom practice and numerous wishlis[S for ideal personalities, beliefs, knowledge, andskills. For insrance, among the people who give prior­ity to beliefs, we flOd some who are interesced in teach­ers' beliefs about the nature of partieu.br concem,5 om-ers who are interested in reachers' beliefs about differences A PLETHORA OF ASSESSMENTSbetween srudenrs,6 still others who are inrerested inteachers' beliefs about their own ability co make a dif­ference,? and so forth. Similarly, when we think aboutknowledge, we find th2t numerous ways to oudine aknowledge base for teaching are possible.~

Even ifwe were to rely on a very narrow definitionof effectiveness, such as raising student scores on achieve­ment rests, we might still find multiple qualities with­in this ostensibly narrow area. Teachers might be more

effective in some subjcas than in others, or mey mightbe more effective with some types of srudems than withothers. Thus a complete lise of all the possibly relevantqualities would run inco hundreds of items.

Second, these many different qualities are valued fordifferenr reasons. Some are presumed to infillen~ och­ers, while some are considered valuable in their ownright. For instance, some people who care about teach­ers' beliefs and values may expecc these beliefs to in­fluence the quality of classroom practices, while oth­ers may expect them to influence students' beliefs andatcltudes, and srill ochers may simply wane honest orvjrcuous teachers in the classroom, even if they don'c

SEPTEM BER 200& 61

to some form of annual perfOrmance evalucuion.Perhaps the mosr remarkable message we can take

from Table 1 is char teachers are assessed frequently andin many different ways. I say this message is remark~

able because many discussions of teacher quality s~mto ac~pr the assumpcions rhar we are failing ro evalu­ate our teache~ adequately, that many practicing reach­ers do nOt meet [he standards we think they shouldmeet, and that something needs to be done and soon.Usually, the solution proposed after such a discussionis more formal assessment. This is noe co say, however,that our assessments are as good as they could be ormac mey are being used as well as they couJd be whenwe make important decisions about reachers, such ashiring decisions, tenure d«isions, or decisions regard­ing dismissal.

ANNUAL PERFORMANCE EVALUAnONS

Though state licensure tests are oEren assumed to bethe dominant method of assessing reacher qualiry, schooldistricts may acrually bear me heaviest burden for en­suring teacher qualiey. They evaluate many di/terencqualities when chey decide whom co hire; they also cre~

ate induction programs and professional developmenrprograms for their reachers, knowing that these pro~

grams wHi focus on some qualifies more than ochers;and they engage in annu.al performance evaluations comonitor some of their teachers' qualities. And districtsrdy on a range of assessmem strategies and sources ofevidence to carry our these casks.

Lds look more closely at the kinds of performanceevaluations districts employ. Almost every school dis­(rice tn the counrry relies on some form of annual per~

formance assessment. The specifics of these assessmentsare often negotiated into a district's comract with there.acher union, along with rules abouc how the resultsare recorded, who has access to them, and how theymay be used.

Though d\e scruceu.raJ fearure.s of annual eva.lll3cLonsar~ rdativdy similar across discricts, cheif comenrs CClJl

vary substantially from one district ro anoeher. Somesystems emphasize pra.ccice.s outside the classroom, och~

ers focus mor~ on practices within the classroom, andsome stress scudenrs' learning.

Teachers do many rhings within their da.~rooms,

and assessmene inStfuments are remarkably diffe.re nrin what lhey record about reaching practices withinthe classroom. There seems ro be no consistency across~LUcion syscems with respect ro whir.h qualities shouldbe assessed or how much acrenrion should be given rod..i.ffcrenr qualities. Of course, these systems look so dif-

62 PHI DELTA KAPPAN

ferent in pare because they were. sdecrd ro do differenrthings. Some arrend heavily to reachers' professional re­sponsibilities, others focus more on classroom practice,sail ochers focus on "reform" teaching, and a somewhatsmaller family of '3SSe"Smems roCL15es on srudenfs' learn­ing actIvities. These assessments represent fimdamen­tally dlfferenr approaches fO the question ofwhar shouldbe assessed and why.

GiftiNG SMART ABOUT PRIORITIES

I have argued chat we have not done a very goodjob of sorting our all of the kinds of qualities that theterm "teacher quality" refers to- Argumenrs abour howto assess reacher quality, how co improve reacher qual..iry,how to allocate high-quality ceachers, or how to rewardteacher quality all tend to get contentious, in part be­cause different aerors af\~ making different assumprionsabout what "teacher qu.al.ir( acrua.I.Jy is, about how fO

find and foster it, and about why ic ma~rs to srudents.We are unlikely to succeed at any of these rasks untilwe get smarcer abOUt distinguishing among these vari­ous l:YPes of qual iries. smarter about prioritizing the ar~

tenoon we pay them, and smarcer abouc enhancing whatwe learn from each one.

A good first step roward getting smarrer would beco chink abour rhe prioriries thac might be assigned tosome of rhe reacher qualities 1discussed above. For in­sran~, imagine chac ch.ret districts are hiring new t~ch~

~rs. Each consid~rs many qtUl.ities: credenrjals, beliefsand values, and pe.rsonality traics. AU three districrs usea commercial online qucsrioonaire to learn abour teach­ers beliefs and values, al1 three use college transcriptSand scate licensure status ro assess cred.enrials, and allthree use personal interviews to assess personality rraits.

However, these districts engage in chese assessmencsin a differenc sequence. One districr begins wirh cre­dentials and then invices only those reachers who havepassed. this screen to complete the 0 nline survey of be­liefs and values. Then the cLscriet interviews only thosewho have passed both ofme first two saeens. ·The sec­ond district asks all teachers to complere the online sur­vey of beliefs and values first and examines credentialsonly if te.achers pass th~ first screen. Neither of the:s~

disrricts inrerviews reachers unless they have passedboth of mese: firsr rwo scro=os. The third districr ~gios

wid) a personal interview. If the i.n~rviewing commirr~,

typically rh~ {e.ach~rs and principal in the school wir.hthe vacancy, find the teacher to be personally appealingand a good fie fOr meir school, [hey then examine cre­dentials and ask rhe teacher ro rake the onJine surveyofbdiefs.

In principle, all three districts are using the sameset of criteria. In reality, ~ch gives different weights toirs own criteria simply by introducing them in a dif­ferent order. When the online survey of beliefs comesfirst, reachers who don't pass rMt screen are never inter­viewed, nor are cheir credenrials examined. When theinrerview comes fJ.rSc, the reverse occurs, for only thoseteachers found to be personally compatible are exam­ined further. Thus the choice of sequence effectivelymeans that the first assessment is the most important.

Clearly, we all need co chink harder abouc reacherqualities. We care abour a plethora of qualities in ourteachers, and we have access to a plethora of devicesfor assessing them aiL What we lack coday is a coher~

em straregy for orchestrating our assessments inco co~

herem systems mat ultimately enhance the qualitieswe value most.

l. ElGUTIplcs include Drew H. Gjtom~r and Anduw S. Ladum, "Gen­cr:l.lttatlons in Teacher Education: Stducflve and MisJeading," Journalofu(/dJtr Ed~titJn,May/June 2000. pp. 215-20; W. Timothy Weaver,Amm(nS Tm,htT QUIllity f'roblnn (New York: Pr.ieger. 1983); and SeanPo Corcoran, William N. &ans. :1Jld Robert S. Schwab, "Changing Ll.borMarket Opporwrtilics for Women and che QuaIi[j' ofTe.1Chen;," AnUTi­.1/71 E.·o1UJmi, Rrvinll. yol. 94, 2004, pp. 230·35.2. Sec, for inseance, RichlU'd M. Ingersoll, ~Und=ding Supply andDern-:lnd Among Mathematics and Science Teachers.~ in J:l.ck Rholonand PlI.oicia Shane, edJ., Ttarhil'K Sdm&t in the 2/it Ctmury (Arling­Ion. Va.: NSTA Pn:ss, 2006). pp. 197-211; :lod Heather G. rake and

Karl Haycock. kTeaehing IneqWllil}~ How floor :wd Minorilj! Srnaents~e Shoncllanged on Teacher Quali[j'.· EduC:lrion Trust, W2shingronD.C., 2006.

3. Laura M. Desimone. Thom:as M. Smith. and Koji Ucno. ~AreTeach­ers Who Need Sunained. Coment-FoC\Uoo. I'rofe5$ioMI DevdopmellCGening It? An Administrator's Dilemnl:rl.," Ed~l/litnlJll.A4ministnlJion

QlI4mr/y, yol. 42, 2006, pp. 179-21 So nnd Thomas M. Smi<h, UU1ll.M. Desimone, and Koji Ueno, '" Highly QU2Jilled' 10 Do What? TheRelationship Between NCLB Teach~ QuaJilj! MandateS aod the Use ofReform-Oriented lnsuuclion in Middle School Machcmat.i~W .&Wm­tioJl(/} EII~ri/)1f lind Policy AMrysis. vol. 27, 2005. pp. 75-109.4. Ut'ry V. Hedges. Richa.rd D. Laine, and Rob GteCIlwald. ~Does

Money Malter: A Mcta-AJJaI~is of Srudies of the Effects of DifferentialSchooll(lpl1lS on Srude(lc Ouccomes,~ EiWMJionAl &sNur:Ixr. April 1994.pp.5-14.5. Nawha M. Speer. "l~es of Methods and Theory in che Srudy ofMachl?:matics Teachers' Professed ancl. Attributed Bdiefs: EduuwmAIStudies in Ml1tfUI1UI~it:J, March 2005. pp. 361-91 .6. Vtrginia E. Causey, Cb.ristine D. Thomas, and BeverlyJ. A:rmero, QCuJ..tural Divef'iicy Is &sicaJly a Foreign Term co Me: TIle Challenges ofDi­versiry for Preservice Teacher Education," uochinlJ1ndu4<Mr £111(0­

liDn, J!lDuary 2000, pp. 33-45.7. Sam E. Rimln-I<auffinan and Brook.: E- Sawyer, HPrim:uy-Gmdc Teach­ers' Sdf-fjfie:tcy Bdief.t, Artitudes Toward 'reacN!"g, and Discipline andTeaching Practice Priorities in Relation to ilie Responsive Cl:w:roomApproach.~ £lC1lnlltlty School jOll1tlt11, March 2004. pp. 321-41.

8. Linda- Darling-Hammond and John D. Bransford. ros.. Prrparing Tbd­m fir 11 ChAnging \~orJd- What Tt4{hm ShouldU-JV7I111Jd & Abu 10 Do(San Francis<:o: Wiley, 2005).9. Gary 0 Fennermacher and Virgin.ia Richardson, "On Making Dc­Il!'rmin-ations of Qualiry in Teaching,~ Ttl/rims cPlkg, &cora. januMY2005, pp. 186-213. K

THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION PRESENTS

PARENT EXPECTATIONS SUPPORT ACHIEVEMENT (PESA)Facilitator training for parent workshop leaders

Help parents prepare their children tor SUlJc-ess - become aCertifiedPESA Facilitator and lead parent workshops at y(!)ur school!

Who should ahen.d? Team~ of at least one parent and olle edulrcltoJ (teacher. counselor, allmlnlstrator. etc.) are recommended.PESA fulfills the requirel1llfnt of prt1\liding parent involvement aclivJlles to Improve student academic achievement and schoolperformance for the federal reform legislatioll 01 the No Cbild len Bellind Act of 2001 (ntle I, Sec. 1118. Parent lnv:nlvemeJ1t).

PEld IIpl/llltor wO'r/(shops'f8 Ival/lIb!s In Englisli, Spanish, Chinese. Korean. tmd Almenlan langualft!$ upon request.

2008-09 PESA Facilitator Trainings are scheduled for:PESA Ensllsh trainings Downey, CA: Jun. 4·5 Downey, CA: Apr. 23-24Anaheim, CA: Oct. 16-17 PESA Spanish t,..lnl1f@ Downey, CA: May 14-15Virginia Beach, VA: Oct. 21-22 Downey, CA: Sept. 25·26 PESA Chinos*} training

San Francisco, CA: Dec. 16·17 Anaheim, CA: Oct. 14w 15 City of Industry, CA: Oct. 3-4Downey. CA: Jan. 13·14 Downey, CA: Nov. 6-7 PE$A Korean training

Downey, CA: Mar. 31·Apr.1 Downey, CA: Jan, 22·23 Los Angeles, CA: Nov. 7·8

• The WO registration lee includes the 2-day training, PESA Facilitator Manual. instructional video. interacllofl wall chart. andrefreshments. • Please call (600)566-6651 for aregistration form wilh lotations.

Schedule. PESA Flcllltitor 'hlnlng at your Int and recllve I dllcount on reglltrallon flel.To requIII a reollttltion lorm or addlllonallnformatloD ".anUnl tilt TElA or PEM program., pit )-..a1.

~See Ihe TESA training schedule on page 75. (r~)

. PES~ E-mail: tesa.-P6sa@lacoe.edu Website: http://streamer.lacoe.edulPESA .=':r'_ce:

SEPTEMBER 2008 63