When it comes to helping kids achieve academically, teachers matter. Policymakers with widely divergent views on education reform agree on this. Research has shown that teaching efficacy is a critical – perhaps even the most important – determinant of a student’s academic achievement.
But what exactly makes a good teacher? Aside from natural skills in all things pedagogical (combined, of course, with a hefty dose of commitment), competent teachers also face outside influences that both facilitate and constrain their ability to teach well. The National Center for Teaching Quality points to three “sets” of institutions that have the greatest impact on teaching efficacy: states, teacher preparation programs, and teachers’ unions. New studies out last week provide fresh insight for policymakers into the impact of two of these – state policies and schools of education – on teacher quality.
“Quality Counts 2008: Tapping Into Teaching,” examined state policies affecting teachers, along with a variety of K-12 indicators. Published by Education Week, this study released report cards for each of the 50 states. Overall, North Carolina (.pdf) earned an average grade of C, scoring a B with regard to state teaching policies.
In spite of our passing score, the report highlighted some policies that detract from teacher quality. North Carolina does not have a statewide system linking teacher and student records, by subject and state test results (12 states have enacted policies to do so). The absence of such a system makes truly accurate appraisals of teacher performance difficult to come by. These sorts of systems have the potential not only to provide valuable feedback on teaching successes, but illuminate how best to allocate resources. Notes Aimee Guidera, director of the Data Quality Campaign, “Only when we have longitudinal-data systems that connect teacher and student data will we be able to guide our investments – of time, training, and even compensation – based on evidence that those investments reap the ultimate benefit: increased student achievement.”
Additionally, North Carolina’s initial teacher licensure policies fail to require substantial coursework in the subject areas that are taught. Teachers applying for initial licensure are also not required to take a test of subject-specific knowledge, a curious omission given the research connection between a teacher’s intensive content knowledge (especially in science and math) and student achievement. Policymakers in North Carolina may not deem this important, but 42 states currently require such testing.
State practices and requirements aren’t the only areas in need of attention. Based on a new report from the Pope Center on Higher Education Policy, “University of North Carolina Education Schools: Helping or Hindering Potential Teachers?” by Dr. George Cunningham, education schools also undermine teacher quality, and ultimately, student achievement.
Specifically, Dr. Cunningham found that state education schools favor progressive, student-centered approaches to teacher training, even though more traditional, teacher-centered methods have been shown to yield greater student achievement. Education schools push social objectives like multiculturalism, diversity, and self-esteem over academic proficiency. The underlying philosophy, writes Cunningham, seems to be that “schools should be oriented toward social change, not mere teaching.”
A study by Jay Greene and Catherine Shock in the current issue of City Journal supports Dr. Cunningham’s findings. In Greene and Shock’s analysis of 71 top education schools, the average school offered “82 percent more courses featuring social goals than featuring math.” Note the authors, “These schools place far more emphasis on the political and social ends of education than on the fundamentals.”
Maybe this wouldn’t seem so absurd if students were consistently hitting the mark academically. But they’re not. And they need help – not from maestros of multiculturalism – but from teachers skilled in their craft.
In the end, cultural awareness is well and good, but it’s no replacement for teaching the basics. It’s time schools of education realigned their objectives with those of American parents, focusing more on fundamentals. The education of our children – and the quality of our teaching workforce – depends on it.