Eperc Qualityteaching 12.11 PDF
Eperc Qualityteaching 12.11 PDF
Eperc Qualityteaching 12.11 PDF
Amy M. Hightower
Rachael C. Delgado
Sterling C. Lloyd
Rebecca Wittenstein
Kacy Sellers
Christopher B. Swanson
December 2011
Improving Student Learning by Supporting Quality Teaching: Key Issues, Effective Strategies
Copyright 2011 by Editorial Projects in Education, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication shall be
reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted by any means, electronic or otherwise, without the written
permission of the copyright holder.
Published by:
Editorial Projects in Education, Inc.
6935 Arlington Road, Suite 100
Bethesda, MD 20814
Phone: (301) 280-3100
www.edweek.org
Table of Contents
Table of Contents............................................................................................................................................1
1. Overview ...................................................................................................................................................2
2. Definitions and Dynamics of Teaching Quality ..............................................................................................5
2.1. Defining Quality Teaching Via Teacher Qualifications ..............................................................................6
2.2. Influencing the Human Capital Pool .................................................................................................... 10
2.3. Contexts that Influence Effective Teaching and Learning ...................................................................... 16
3. Promising and Emerging Strategies ........................................................................................................... 19
3.1. Strategies Focusing on Teacher Preparation ........................................................................................ 19
3.2. Strategies to Influence the Human Capital Pool.................................................................................... 21
3.3. Strategies Focusing on School Leadership and Working Conditions........................................................ 25
4. Assessing the Philanthropic Landscape ...................................................................................................... 28
4.1. Overview of Philanthropic Investments in Teaching Quality .................................................................. 28
4.2. Major Funders ................................................................................................................................... 29
5. Conclusion and Recommendations ............................................................................................................ 35
5.1. What Is Known Research Findings, Strategies, and Grantmaking ...................................................... 35
5.2. Future Directions and Recommendations ............................................................................................. 38
References ................................................................................................................................................... 41
Appendix: Profiled Strategies ......................................................................................................................... 49
Strategies that Focus on Teacher Preparation .............................................................................................. 49
Strategies to Influence the Human Capital Pool ........................................................................................... 50
Strategies that Focus on School Leadership and Working Conditions ............................................................. 51
|1
1. Overview
Few topics in education have captured as much attention from policymakers and practitioners as the connection between
teaching quality and student achievement. The research has clearly shown that quality teaching matters to student learning.
Teacher quality has been consistently identified as the most important school-based factor in student achievement (McCaffrey,
Lockwood, Koretz, & Hamilton, 2003; Rivkin, Hanushek, & Kain, 2000; Rowan, Correnti & Miller, 2002; Wright, Horn, &
Sanders, 1997), and teacher effects on student learning have been found to be cumulative and long-lasting (Kain, 1998;
McCaffrey et al., 2003; Mendro, Jordan, Gomez, Anderson, & Bembry, 1998; Rivers, 1999; Sanders & Rivers, 1996).
However, researchers continue working to untangle important aspects of these relationships, including the specific ways in
which quality teaching operates, the degree to which it drives learning, and how effectiveness evolves as teachers progress
through their careers. In addition, the field is still seeking clarity about how to develop, measure, and sustain teacher
effectiveness. This ongoing research attention is paralleled by momentum at the federal policy level, particularly efforts to
strengthen accountability for teacher quality and, most recently, to define teacher effectiveness (at least in part) based on
growth in student learning. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 (NCLB) defined a highly qualified teacher as one with at least
a bachelors degree, full state teacher certification, and demonstrated knowledge in the subjects taught. States have struggled
to implement that definition and track highly qualified teachers within their systems in a meaningful way. As activity
heightens around reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the most recent iteration of which is NCLB,
the Obama administration has signaled the importance of coupling federal funding with states abilities to link student
achievement data with the evaluation of teachers and school leaders and their effectiveness. Similar priorities have also been
expressed through the federal stimulus, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and especially its education-focused
Race to the Top Program.
Against this research and political backdrop, this report summarizes the state of research on teaching quality, the links to
student learning, and the contextual factors that play an intermediating role in teaching and learning. These findings are
complemented by an overview of promising strategies for improving teaching quality. In the interest of providing foundations
and other institutions and stakeholders with the most relevant insights for improving practice and policy, this report
intentionally concentrates on the more concrete and actionable aspects of teaching quality and instruction rather than
relatively subjective and intangible factors like teacher dispositions. This focus leads us to literature in both the K-12 system
and the early-childhood arena that discusses teacher professional qualifications, models to improve and gauge quality
instruction, and examples from the field.
To identify key topics and studies, we first consulted with six individuals: two specialists in early childhood, two Education
Week reporters who cover teaching and research, and two general experts on teaching quality. From these leads and
independent, targeted literature searches, we identified approximately 50 research studies that became the foundation of our
systematic review of the field. The vast majority of these contained summaries of the research literature, and 15 were pure
research syntheses. About one in five focused specifically on early childhood. We reviewed original studies and additional
materials beyond the syntheses studies when the source was particularly seminal and/or the reviews suggested further study
was warranted. These subsequent investigations were used to: obtain more up-to-date information; clarify vague information
from a review; distinguish advocacy and unbiased research; or assemble more extensive background research resources,
particularly for early-childhood issues. The bulk of our review is based on intensive interaction with a majority of these 50
sources. In order to provide further information related to key findings, we also reference within the body of this report other
relevant reports and publications that were cited by the works we reviewed. All of these sources are listed in the References
section of this report.
The above-referenced count of 50 formally reviewed documents excludes the sources we used to compile profiles of exemplar
strategies documented in Section 3 and the philanthropic efforts described in Section 3 and Section 4. Most of these sources
consisted of Web-based information about the respective programs, as documented in the Appendix or otherwise noted in the
|2
|3
|4
|5
Academic degrees
Although the nation is witnessing a major push to promote performance-based pay for teachers, nearly all current teachercompensation systems are built around the dual pillars of seniority and degree acquisition. These systems, for example,
generally provide stipends to teachers who earn a masters degree or otherwise rely on a salary schedule that rewards
teachers for earning advanced degrees or course credits. Nonetheless, evidence that such degrees contribute to student
achievement is limited. Some studies indicate that a teachers advanced degrees in mathematics and science are positively
related to student achievement in those subjects in high school, but evidence does not apply more broadly to other academic
subjects or grade levels (Ferguson & Ladd, 1996; Goe, 2007; Goldhaber & Brewer, 1998, 2000; Rice, 2003; Wayne & Youngs,
2003).
In a recent analysis, Roza and Miller (2009) argue that states should end the practice of providing automatic pay increases to
teachers for earning a masters degree and instead reward effectiveness in the classroom. This contention is based largely on
research showing no relationship, on average, between masters degrees in education and student achievement. While
acknowledging that masters degrees in mathematics and science have been associated with student learning in those content
areas, they point to data indicating that 90 percent of teachers masters degrees are in education as evidence that most pay
increases are awarded for degrees unrelated to performance.
|6
Certification
Teacher certification is a formal process that has been the subject of myriad state laws and a centerpiece of federal policy
related to teaching. Despite their logical importance as benchmark credentials needed for entry into the teaching profession,
research provides only limited evidence that teaching certificates signify teachers can produce greater student achievement.
Over the years, researchers have evaluated the impact of various types of certification. Studies have examined the effects of
alternative-route, emergency, and subject-specific certification on student performance. Some research supports a relationship
between subject-specific certification and student learning, but studies on alternative-route and emergency certification (as
compared with traditional pathways) have been inconclusive (Rice, 2003).
Studies support a positive connection between teacher certification in mathematics and student achievement in that subject at
the high school level, but have not identified such a link for other academic subjects in high school or in reading or
mathematics in elementary school (Goe, 2007; Goldhaber & Brewer, 2001; Rice, 2003; Rowan, Correnti, & Miller, 2002;
Wayne & Youngs, 2003).
Alternative certification policies, which allow non-traditional candidates to become licensed teachers without completing
undergraduate teacher-preparation programs, have received substantial attention from policymakers for more than two
decades. Research has not offered clear support for a positive or negative role for non-traditional routes to certification in
student achievement (Miller, McKenna, & McKenna, 1998; Stafford & Barrow, 1994). Studies both identifying potential
advantages and highlighting potential flaws of such certification pathways can be found in the literature, leaving the verdict on
these options far from settled (Constantine, et al., 2009). Darling-Hammond and Haselkorn (2009) suggest that current efforts
should focus more energy on applying knowledge from both alternative and traditional preparation programs than on debating
the relative merits of various routes (also see Peter D. Hart Research Associates, Inc., 2010, for a similar perspective).
Coursework
Researchers have investigated the role of teacher preservice coursework as a foundation of high-quality instruction, placing a
particular emphasis on the impact of the courses teachers have taken on the achievement of their students. Syntheses of the
literature on this topic find that coursework in the specific academic content areas a teacher is assigned to teach can promote
teacher quality and student achievement in some subjects and grade levels. Beyond that general conclusion, though, key
research questions have centered on efforts to pinpoint the academic subjects where coursework makes a clear difference, to
understand the influence of the grade level taught, and to examine how the effects of coursework in pedagogy differ from
those of courses in an academic content area (Rice, 2003).
While a number of studies indicate that coursework contributes to teacher quality, the impact varies across academic subjects
and grade levels. The most consistent cross-study finding from the research on teacher coursework is a positive connection
between student achievement in mathematics and teachers coursework in that subject. Some studies support the view that
teacher coursework in science contributes to student performance on science tests, but findings have been less consistent
than for mathematics. Definitive results linking coursework in subjects other than mathematics and science to student
|7
|8
|9
| 10
Selective recruitment To attract strong candidates into the teaching profession, states and districts have pursued a
range of strategies, including passing higher standards for entry into teaching, easing transitions for people from other fields
to become teachers, instituting salary incentives, and opening up alternative routes into the classroom (Wilson, 2009). In a
study evaluating high-performing systems around the world, researchers at McKinsey & Co. found several ways in which
schools were proactive in their recruitment efforts, including recruiting teachers from the top third of each graduating class,
developing a mechanism for selecting teachers for teacher training, and testing applicants for specific characteristics such as
high levels of overall literacy and numeracy, interpersonal and communication skills, a willingness to learn, and motivation to
teach (McKinsey and Co., 2007). While the findings are not uniform, some evidence suggests that higher overall salaries can
influence teacher quality (Ferguson, 1991; Figlio, 1997; Loeb & Page, 2000; Wilson, 2009). Non-financial incentives prove to
be effective in recruiting teachers for hard-to-staff schools. Research shows that incentives such as guaranteed planning time,
additional support, and reduced class sizes are more powerful than salary incentives (Hirsch, 2006, 2008).
School districts human resources departments are often highly centralized and bureaucratic, which can thwart efforts to
attract highly qualified candidates. Further, late hiring timelines may threaten teachers satisfaction with their jobs and their
intention to remain in the profession. In particular, late hiring places additional stress on urban districts that face a
disadvantage when competing for qualified applicants who may also be applying to suburban districts with more timely hiring
practices (Johnson, Berg, & Donaldson, 2005).
Retention
Holding on to a workforce of high-quality teachers is a challenge. One-third of K-12 teachers leave the
profession within their first three years on the job and almost half leave within the first five years (Ingersoll, 2003; Moir,
Barlin, Gless, & Miles, 2010). Moreover, the rate at which new teachers exit the profession has been increasing steadily over
the last 15 years (Caroll & Foster, 2010). To further exacerbate this situation, attrition rates are higher among: certified
teachers, teachers with higher test scores, those with more experience, and teachers that serve minority and lower-achieving
students (Boyd, Lankford, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2005; Hanushek, Kain, & Rivkin, 2004; Ingersoll, 2001, 2002; Ingersoll & Kralik,
2004; Ingersoll & Smith, 2003; Johnson, 2004; Johnson, Berg, & Donaldson, 2005; Loeb, Darling-Hammond, & Luczak, 2005;
Wilson, 2009).
K-12 teachers who leave the profession cite a variety of reasons, including lack of support from school leadership, lack of
empowerment, feelings of isolation, and undesirable teaching assignments (Hirsch, Freitas, & Villar, 2008; Met Life Foundation
Study, 2005; Moir et al., 2010; NCES, 2007). In addition, factors such as facilities, safety, and quality of leadership have a
greater effect on teacher exodus than salary (Hanushek & Rivkin, 2007; Moir et al., 2010). These contextual factors are
discussed in greater detail in section 2.3 below.
In the early-childhood area, turnover from year to year has been found to be four times the attrition rate for K-12 teachers.
Every year, one-third of the early-education workforce leaves the profession. Several factors may contribute to high attrition,
the most notable of which is that teachers at this level are often paid less than mail clerks, school bus drivers, and parking
enforcement workers (Bueno, Darling-Hammond, & Gonzales, 2010).
Many states and school districts are experimenting with policies that use pay-related methods to recruit and retain highly
qualified teachers, but distinguishing the effects of compensation changes from other teacher-support changes is complicated
| 11
Teacher experience
Improving retention is important because evidence suggests that the number of years of
teaching experience may be positively related to student achievement. However, the overall level of experience in the
teaching workforce is on the decline (Caroll & Foster, 2010). The effects of teacher experience on student achievement
depend on the number of years of experience and the grade level taught. Research indicates that teacher experience
contributes to student learning for teachers in their first few years in the classroom, but additional experience does not make
a difference after that (Boyd, Grossman, Lankford, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2006; Clotfelter et al., 2006; Ferguson, 1991; Goe 2007;
Greenwald, Hedges, & Laine, 1996; Loeb & Beteille, 2008; Rice, 2003; Rivkin et al., 2005; Rockoff, 2004). Some studies
suggest that the impact of experience on student achievement may continue beyond the earliest years in the classroom for
teachers at the high school level (Rice, 2003).
Rivkin and colleagues (2005) write that low-income and minority students are more likely to have inexperienced teachers and
to be at the receiving end of greater turnover rates for teachers. As a result, they call for policies designed to ensure these
students are taught by more seasoned teachers.
Allocating talent Placing highly qualified teachers into every classroom is difficult because of the challenges of teacher
recruitment and retention. Therefore, the question of allocation and prioritization of human resources becomes critical,
especially for underserved and low-achieving students who arguably have a greater need for high-quality teachers. Studies
have shown that children with the greatest need for high-quality instruction are the most likely to have teachers who are not
certified in the subjects they are teaching, who failed certification exams, who come from the least competitive undergraduate
institutions, and who performed poorly in prior academic settings (Betts, Ruben, & Danenberg, 2000; Boyd, Loeb, Wyckoff,
Lankford, & Rockoff, 2008; Clotfelter et al., 2006; Hanushek, Rivkin, & Kain, 2004; Lankford, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2002; Moir et
al, 2010; Presley, White, & Gong, 2005). Researchers have also examined how the distribution of highly qualified teachers
impacts student achievement. According to Hanushek (2009), if a student has a good teacher as opposed to an average
teacher for four or five years in a row, the increased learning would be enough to entirely close the average gap between a
typical low-income student receiving a free or reduced-price lunch and the average student who is not receiving free or
reduced-price lunches. The disparity is even more pronounced when comparing good teachers with ineffective teachers.
Professional development
The set of qualifications-related issues discussed earlier, as well as certain human-capital management dynamics, are
concerned with ensuring a certain level of quality for those who enter the teaching field. Professional development, on the
other hand, focuses on improving the ongoing practice of teaching and learning for those already serving in the schools. A
basic theory of action drives professional development activities. In order to impact student learning, professional
development must first enhance teacher knowledge and skills, then create improved classroom teaching, which finally raises
student achievement. Professional development can potentially serve a variety of purposes such as remediating weaknesses in
the skills and knowledge of incoming teachers, keeping teachers up to date on emerging developments in the field, or
addressing the needs of such specific student populations as English-language-learners or special education students. More is
known about the effects of professional development on teacher practice than on its impact on student achievement (Yoon,
Duncan, Lee, Scarloss, & Shapley, 2007).
that effectively enhances what teachers know and how they teach tends to focus on: deepening subject-matter knowledge
specifically for teaching, understanding how students learn and the specific difficulties they may encounter, providing enough
time for significant learning, connecting what teachers are being asked to do with what teachers already know, actively
engaging educators, and involving teams of teachers from the same school to participate together (Blank, Alas, & Smith,
2008; Cohen & Hill, 2000; Darling-Hammond, Wei, Richardson, Andree, & Orphanos, 2009; Desimone, Porter, Gater, Yoon, &
| 12
There is an emerging
understanding about the ways in which professional development impacts student achievement. Although an experimental
study examining the features of high-quality professional development showed increased teacher knowledge and desired
classroom practice, it did not find that this knowledge translated into improved student outcomes or sustainable changes in
practice over time (Garet et al., 2008; Wilson, 2009).
Systematic reviews exploring the effects of professional development on student achievement have produced some additional
insights. For example, a review of professional development programs in math and science found that programs focused
mainly on teacher behaviors demonstrated smaller influences on student learning than did programs concerned primarily with
teachers knowledge of the subject, the curriculum, or how students learn the subject (Kennedy, 1998; Yoon et al., 2007). In
a more recent review that examined more than 1,300 studies on professional development, researchers identified just nine
that met the arguably overly rigorous evidence standards of the U.S. Department of Educations What Works Clearinghouse.
The resulting research showed that teachers who receive substantial professional development that is, an average of 49
hours in the nine studies can increase their students achievement by about 21 percentile points (Yoon et al., 2007).
Another study reviewed the designs of professional development programs that reported significant effects on improving
student achievement in mathematics or science. Such effective programs tended to have certain features in common,
including: a strong emphasis on teachers learning specific subject content as well as pedagogical content, follow-up
reinforcement of learning, assistance with implementation, and support for teachers from mentors and colleagues in their
schools (Blank & Alas, 2009).
Induction programs are often the focus of professional development efforts aimed specifically at meeting the needs of new
teachers. These programs may include mentoring, orientation sessions, classroom observations, and the use of formative
assessments (Berry, Hopkins-Thompson, & Hoke, 2002; Isenberg et al., 2009). Supporters of induction and mentoring argue
that high-quality programs address teacher quality by reducing the high rates of attrition among new teachers and by building
the capacity of new teachers to provide quality instruction (Moir et al., 2010). Moir and colleagues describe high-quality
mentoring programs as having highly skilled mentors, dedicated time for mentoring, a focus on classroom and student data,
engaged stakeholders, alignment with instruction, and a supportive school culture. However, a recent randomized controlled
trial by the U.S. Department of Educations Institute of Education Sciences found that teachers in the focal induction programs
reported spending more time meeting with mentors, but that the programs produced no significant impact on teacher
retention, student achievement, or teaching practice (Isenberg et al., 2009).
Teacher evaluation
Teacher evaluation is often used both for the improvement of teaching and learning and for accountability purposes (BaratzSnowden, 2009). The recent Race to the Top Fund, part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, specifically includes
teacher evaluation as a key element of its approach to teacher quality. To be competitive, states must require teacher
evaluations to be based, at least in part, on student achievement. Currently, the field is engaged in discourse on the values
and challenges of traditional methods of teacher evaluation, emerging approaches that are directly tied to student
achievement, and strategies that focus on multiple measures of teacher and student performance.
Research suggests that the best school systems do not allow ineffective teachers to remain in the classroom for long (Gordon,
Kane, and Staiger, 2006; Kane, Rockoff and Staiger, 2006; McKinsey and Co., 2007). National estimates from the U.S.
Department of Education indicate that, on average, school districts dismiss 1.4 percent of tenured teachers and 0.7 percent of
probationary teachers for poor performance each year (Chait, 2010). Schools often concentrate on improving teacher
| 13
least once a year, with tenured teachers generally evaluated less often. As reported in Quality Counts 2010, almost all states
require teachers to be evaluated, with only seven states lacking such a provision. However, the criteria for these required
evaluations vary. Thirty-five states require evaluation at least annually for non-tenured teachers, with formal training for
evaluators mandated in roughly half of all states. Fifteen states require yearly evaluations for all teachers, tenured and nontenured alike. And only 13 states require teacher evaluations to be tied to student achievement.
The most widely used form of teacher evaluation has traditionally been classroom observations that measure evident
classroom processes, including specific teacher practices, interactions between teachers and students, or other holistic aspects
of instruction (Goe, Bell, & Little 2008). Sometimes teachers and administrators conduct pre- and post-observation
conferences, and teachers are often required to sign off on their evaluations (Brandt, Mathers, Oliva, Brown-Sims, & Hess,
2007; Donaldson, 2009; Donaldson & Peske, 2010). The majority of summative ratings on teacher evaluations are
satisfactory or above (Donaldson & Peske, 2010; The New Teacher Project, 2007, 2009) and teachers often find little value
in the evaluation process (Baratz-Snowden, 2009; Duffett, Farkas, Rotherham, & Silva, 2008).
Some of the problems associated with these traditional evaluations include: poor evaluation instruments, little school district
guidance on the substance of teacher evaluations, the lack of time for evaluators to conduct evaluations, the absence of highquality feedback to teachers in the evaluation process, and few consequences (either positive or negative) attached to the
evaluations (Donaldson, 2009; Donaldson & Peske, 2010). Further, because few teachers are identified as unsatisfactory or
ineffective, it has been suggested that such evaluations are perfunctory in nature (Baratz-Snowden, 2009). Some researchers
say that teacher evaluations often result in little instructional improvement and the continued employment of weak teachers
(Donaldson & Peske, 2010; The New Teacher Project, 2009).
traditional measures of teacher evaluation, there has been growing interest in linking evaluations of teacher effectiveness
directly to student learning, with value-added models among the most prominent examples of this trend. While the current
discussion focuses on the use of value-added models for teacher evaluation, that type of analysis can also be applied to
investigate any number of issues, including the effectiveness of particular interventions or programs, trajectories of individual
student learning, and patterns of school improvement.
Value-added approaches seek to quantify the contribution of specific teachers, schools, or programs to student test
performance while taking into account the differences in prior achievement and perhaps other measured characteristics that
students bring with them to school (National Research Council and National Academy of Education, 2010). The promise of
value-added models rests in their ability to directly link individual teachers to the performance of their own students.
Compared with other methods, value-added analysis may come considerably closer to isolating the amount of growth in
student learning attributable to a particular teacher. Accordingly, proponents of value-added approaches argue that because
such methods are more objective and able to account for such non-school factors as poverty or family background, they
represent a more appropriate basis for evaluating teacher performance.
However, significant questions remain as to how or whether value-added measures should be used for formal teacher
evaluation. While recognizing potential value in using such methods for low-stakes purposes, researchers are typically more
cautious about their application for high-stakes decisions, such as teacher dismissal (National Research Council and National
Academy of Education, 2010). The practical challenges include the danger of using test scores as the sole measure of student
| 14
Multiple and alternative teacher evaluation criteria A variety of efforts are underway to broaden the scope
of teacher evaluation to include multiple measures of performance, so that determinations of teacher effectiveness are not
based narrowly on a single test score (Goe et al., 2008). In addition to tested achievement, teacher evaluation criteria might
include classroom artifacts such as lesson plans or student work, documents on a range of teacher behaviors, or somewhat
less tangible factors like teacher beliefs and expectations. These criteria can be measured using such tools as standardized
classroom observation tools, protocols for the analysis of classroom artifacts, student ratings of teachers, self-reports from
teachers, peer reviews, or teacher portfolios. Among these techniques, researchers are paying increasing attention to
standardized classroom observation tools. Through the Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS), the early-childhood
community is able to employ several measures to assess teacher quality. CLASS examines three domains in which teachers
interact with children: emotional supports, classroom organization, and instructional supports. Evaluating teachers on all
aspects of their interactions gives a stronger picture of the contributions teachers make to the childs educational experiences
(Pianta & Hamre, 2008). Recent state efforts to improve early-childhood teachers effectiveness and classroom experiences for
children also include Quality Rating Systems, which are mechanisms for defining the optimal conditions for caring for and
preparing children for school, and for encouraging and rewarding improvement to higher levels. (Bryant, et al., 2008).
| 15
| 16
| 17
| 18
| 19
Example: Teacher U
In 2008, three charter school organizations Uncommon Schools, Knowledge Is Power Program (KIPP), and Achievement
First partnered with Hunter College School of Education to create Teacher U, an alternative, two-year, new-teacher
| 20
| 21
| 22
| 23
| 24
Becoming a Leader: Preparing School Principals for Todays Schools describes key features of effective principal
training and offers lessons on how states and districts can work toward better training.
Preparing School Leaders for a Changing World, by Stanford University researchers, provides case studies and
guidelines for reinventing how principals are prepared for their jobs.
Getting Principal Mentoring Right: Lessons from the Field analyzes common strengths and shortcomings of state and
district mentoring programs and offers guidelines on how they might be improved.
How Leadership Influences Student Learning, by researchers at the Universities of Minnesota and Toronto, outlines
the vital role leadership plays in improving student performance.
| 25
| 26
| 27
| 28
| 29
Areas of Focus
Identifying multiple measures
of teacher quality
Carnegie Corporation of
New York
www.carnegie.org
$15 million
(2008)
Sample Grantees
Hillsborough County Public Schools
for Intensive Partnership
for Effective Teaching
($100,000,000)
Teacher preparation
The Eli and Edythe Broad
Foundation
www.broadfoundation.org
Ford Foundation
www.fordfound.org
Pay-for-performance programs
$19 million
(2008)
$4 million
(2009)
$8 million
(2008)
Not available1
Teacher evaluation
JPMorgan Chase
Foundation
www.jpmorganchase.com
Professional development
Recruitment and retention of quality
teachers for high-needs schools
Engagement, intellectual growth, and
personal renewal of teachers
Lilly Endowment
www.lillyendowment.org
$2 million
(2008)
Teacher preparation
Performance management tools
Michael & Susan Dell
Foundation*
www.msdf.org
Math instruction
Data on teacher performance
$15 million
(2009)
$9 million
(2008)
$17 million
(2009)
Professional development
Teacher preparation
Recruitment and retention of quality
teachers for high-needs schools
Teacher preparation
* Indicates foundations with prominent early-childhood initiatives.
Footnote:
1: Details on specific investments in teacher effectiveness could not be located.
| 30
| 31
| 32
Areas of Focus
Sample Grantees
Professional development
Foundation for Child Development
www.fcd-us.org
Teacher preparation
The Annie E. Casey Foundation promotes access to high-quality early-childhood services, especially in low-income
neighborhoods. It has focused on identifying programs that support informal early-childhood-care providers such as family
members. In addition, the foundation has made third grade reading achievement a target area and works to support
initiatives that may increase the odds of student success in the early years of elementary school. An example of its funding
efforts in the early-childhood education arena can be found in a grant to the Maryland Business Roundtable for Education for
the Maryland Early Care and Education Committee. One goal outlined by that committee is to ensure that early-childhoodeducation providers receive appropriate professional development and training.
The Buffett Early Childhood Fund seeks to increase awareness of the need for early-childhood education and to improve
the chances that disadvantaged children receive adequate services. With national funding and a focus on investments in
Nebraska, it supports efforts to promote policy changes and to increase research on this topic. To that end, it has funded
Educare Centers which provide early-childhood education to low-income children across the nation. Additional giving assists
the Birth to Five Policy Alliance and the First Five Years Fund in their national efforts to intensify and expand advocacy for
policy changes in the area of early-childhood education. The fund also supports research on the effectiveness of earlychildhood programs at the Harvard Center on the Developing Child. One example of the organization's philanthropic work on
teaching can be seen in a grant to the Nebraska Association for the Education of Young Children for the T.E.A.C.H. program.
That initiative provides scholarships for providers to earn associate's or bachelor's degrees in early-childhood education.
The Foundation for Child Development also plays an active role in the early-childhood arena. Through its PK-3 Initiative,
the foundation supports the restructuring of prekindergarten, kindergarten, and grades 1 to 3 into a well-aligned first level of
public education for children (age 3-8) in the United States. Its grants focus on stimulating basic and applied research on
| 33
| 34
High-Impact Areas
In mathematics, several factors have been consistently found to exert a positive influence on student achievement
gains: teacher coursework, degree attainment, and certification, coupled with pedagogical training in how to teach
mathematics.
The impacts of factors related to teaching quality also appear to be more consistent at the high school level,
particularly in mathematics.
| 35
Knowledge Gaps
There have also been repeated calls for additional research to fill a number of persistent gaps in the fields knowledge
base. The most frequently cited areas where additional research could be particularly beneficial include investigations of:
The substance of teacher preparation programs and the impact of particular types of training on student
performance;
The links between induction, mentoring, professional development, and teacher practice and student learning;
The relationship between teacher characteristics and student achievement in reading and at the elementary school
level in all core academic subjects;
The extent to which higher salaries lead to increased teacher effectiveness; and
How different approaches to teacher evaluation impact teacher practice and student learning.
In addition, our understanding of the connections between teaching effectiveness and student learning during the earlychildhood years would benefit from further research in several areas: identifying the characteristics of high-quality programs;
supporting early intervention to close achievement gaps; and more effectively linking early education to the K-12 system.
| 36
This summary across the major lines of review covered in this report may prove helpful to philanthropic organizations as a tool
for considering future grantmaking investments.
| 37
| 38
Funding evaluation
Should a foundation decide to target an organization for potential funding, it will be important to identify and agree upon
specific evaluation methods and indicators that will be used to measure program results. Any evaluation plan should specify
what will be measured and how, and should be clearly understood and agreed upon by both parties (i.e., the foundation and
any grantee) prior to financial investment on the part of the foundation.
Consensus areas
Initial and ongoing teacher and principal training were two recommended areas for prioritizing grantmaking mentioned by all
three reports and organizations reviewed for this report: GFE survey respondents, the Philanthropy Roundtables Guidebook
for Donors report by Andrew Rotherham, and the Center for High Impact Philanthropy. Identifying programs that specifically
target educator training (preservice and inservice, alike) may be options for the foundation to consider supporting financially.
Explore partnerships
A foundation may wish to consider pursuing partnerships, which could offer a strategy for maximizing the effectiveness of its
investments and their impact on improving teaching and learning. One form of partnership could involve collaborating with
other funders with similar priorities. Other partnerships to consider might include ones with individual schools and school
districts, with colleges and universities that have teacher preparation programs, and with researchers. Joint effort can make
| 39
The issues outlined above are likely to capture many of the key areas for deliberation and decision by foundations interested
in targeting their investments in teaching and learning. In addition, foundations may wish to consider the level of risk
associated with various investment strategies, as well as the maturity of existing programmatic innovations and interventions
and the scale of established grantmaking in the respective areas.
| 40
References
Ackerman, D. J. (2005). Getting teachers from here to there: Examining issues related to an early care and education teacher
policy. Early Childhood Research & Practice, 7. Retrieved from http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v7n1/ackerman.html
Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1999). Developing practices, developing practitioners: Toward a practice-based theory of
professional development. In G. Sykes & L. Darling-Hammonds (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of
policy and practice (pp. 3032). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Baratz-Snowden, J. (2009). Fixing tenure: A proposal for assuring teacher effectiveness and due process. Washington, DC:
Center for American Progress. Retrieved from http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/06/teacher_tenure.html
Barnett, W. S., Epstein, D. J., Friedman, A. H., Boyd, J. S., & Hustedt, J. T. (2009). The state of preschool: 2008 state
preschool yearbook. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, National Institute for Early Education Research. Retrieved
from http://nieer.org/yearbook/
Berry, B., Hopkins-Thompson, P., & Hoke, M. (2002). Assessing and supporting new teachers: Lessons from the Southeast.
Chapel Hill, NC: Southeast Center for Teaching Quality. Retrieved from
http://www.teachingquality.org/pdfs/Induction.pdf
Berry, B., Montgomery, D., & Snyder, J. (2008). Urban teacher residency models and institutes of higher education:
Implications for teacher preparation. Washington, DC: National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. Retrieved
from http://www.ncate.org/documents/news/UTR_IHE_Aug122008.pdf
Betts, J. R., Ruben, K. S., & Danenberg, A. (2000). Equal resources, equal outcomes? The distribution of school resources and
student achievement in California. San Francisco, CA: Public Policy Institute of California. Retrieved from:
http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_200JBR.pdf
Blank, R. K., de las Alas, N., & Smith, C. (2008). Does teacher professional development have effects on teaching and
learning: Analysis of evaluation findings from programs for mathematics and science teachers in 14 states. Washington,
DC: Council of Chief State School Officers. Retrieved from http://www.ccsso.org/content/pdfs/crossstate_study_rpt_final.pdf
Blank, R. K., & de las Alas, N. (2009). Effects of teacher professional development on gains in student achievement: How
meta analysis provides scientific evidence useful to education leaders. Washington, DC: The Council of Chief State
School Officers. Retrieved from http://www.ccsso.org/content/pdfs/Final%20Meta%20Analysis%20Paper%20full.pdf
Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2006). How changes in entry requirements alter the teacher
workforce and affect student achievement. Journal of Education Finance and Policy, 1, 176-216.
Boyd, D., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2005). Explaining the short careers of high-achieving teachers in schools with
low-performing students. American Economic Review, 95(2), 166-171.
Boyd, D., Loeb, S., Wyckoff, J., Lankford, H., & Rockoff, J. (2008). The narrowing gap in New York City teacher qualifications
and its implications for student achievement in high-poverty schools. Journal of Policy Analysis & Management, 27, 793818. Retrieved from http://www.teacherpolicyresearch.org/portals/1/pdfs/JPAM%20Narrowing%20the%20Gap.pdf
Brandt, C., Mathers, C., Oliva, M., Brown-Sims, M., & Hess, J. (2007). Examining district guidance to schools on teacher
evaluation policies in the midwest region (REL 2007No. 030). Washington, DC: Institute for Education Sciences
Regional Education Laboratory Program.
Bryant, D., Downer, J., Hamre, B., Howes, C., Pianta, R., & Soliday-Hong, S. (2008). Ensuring effective teaching in early
childhood education through linked professional development systems, quality rating systems and state competencies:
The role of research in an evidence-driven system (White Paper). Charlottesville, VA: National Center for Research in
Early Childhood Education. Retrieved from http://www.ncrece.org/wordpress/wpcontent/.../09/ncrecewhitepaper2008.pdf
| 41
| 42
| 43
students and the retention of teachers: Final report on the 2006 teaching and learning conditions survey to the Clark
County (NV) school district. Hillsborough, NC: Center for Teaching Quality. Retrieved from
http://www.teachingquality.org/legacy/twcccsd2006.pdf
Hirsch, E., Freitas, C., & Villar, A. (2008). Interim report on teaching, learning and leadership survey outcomes (Kansas,
Massachusetts, West Virginia). Santa Cruz, CA: New Teacher Center at the University of California Santa Cruz.
Ingersoll, R. M. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational analysis. American Educational Research
Journal, 38, 499-536.
Ingersoll, R. M. (2002). Holes in the teacher supply bucket. The School Administrator, 59(3), 42.
Ingersoll, R. M. (2003). Is there really a teacher shortage? (Document R-03-4). Seattle, WA: University of Washington, Center
for the Study of Teaching and Policy. Retrieved from http://depts.washington.edu/ctpmail/PDFs/Shortage-RI-092003.pdf
| 44
comprehensive teacher induction: Results from the second year of a randomized controlled study Executive Summary
(Publication No. NCEE 2009-4073). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved from
http://ies.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=NCEE20094072
Johnson, S. M., Berg, J. H., & Donaldson, M. L. (2005). Who stays in teaching and why: A review of the literature on teacher
retention. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Graduate School of Education, The Project on the Next Generation of Teachers.
Retrieved from: http://assets.aarp.org/www.aarp.org_/articles/NRTA/Harvard_report.pdf
Johnson, S. M., & Birkeland, S. (2003). Pursuing a sense of success: New teachers explain their career decisions. American
Educational Research Journal, 40, 581-617.
Johnson, S. M., & The Project on the Next Generation of Teachers. (2004). Finders and keepers: Helping new teachers survive
and thrive in our schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kain, J. F. (1998, October). The impact of individual teachers and peers on individual student achievement. Paper presented
at the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management 20th Annual Research Conference, New York.
Kane, T. J., Rockoff, J. E., & Staiger, D. O. (2006). What does certification tell us about teacher effectiveness? Evidence from
New York City (Working Paper 12155). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Kennedy, M. (1998). Form and substance of inservice teacher education (Research Monograph No. 13.) Madison, WI: National
Institute for Science Education, University of WisconsinMadison.
Ladd, H. F. (2008). Teacher effects: What do we know? In G. Duncan & J. Spillane (Eds.), Teacher quality: broadening and
deepening the debate (pp. 3-28). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University.
Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2002). Teacher sorting and the plight of urban schools: A descriptive analysis.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 37-62.
Leithwood, K., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership influences student learning. Chicago, IL:
American Educational Research Association. Retrieved from
http://www.wallacefoundation.org/SiteCollectionDocuments/WF/Knowledge%20Center/Attachments/PDF/ReviewofResea
rch-LearningFromLeadership.pdf
Levine, A. (2006). Educating school teachers. Washington, DC: The Education Schools Project. Retrieved from
http://www.edschools.org/pdf/Educating_Teachers_Report.pdf
Lobman, C., & Ryan, S. (2006). Carrots and sticks: New Jerseys effort to create a qualified pk-3 workforce (Policy Brief No.
6). New York, NY: Foundation for Child Development. Retrieved from http://www.fcdus.org/resources/resources_show.htm?doc_id=462367
Loeb, S., & Beteille, T. (2008). Teacher labor markets and teacher labor market research. In G. Duncan & J. Spillane (Eds.),
Teacher quality: Broadening and deepening the debate (pp. 27-58). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University.
Loeb, S., Darling-Hammond, L., & Luczak, J. (2005). How teaching conditions predict teacher turnover in California schools.
Peabody Journal of Education, 80(3), 44-77.
Loeb, S., & Page, M. (2000). Examining the link between teacher wages and student outcomes: The importance of alternative
labor market opportunities and non-pecuniary variation. Review of Economics and Statistics, 82, 393-408.
Luekens, M. T., Lyter, D. M., Fox, E. E., & Chandler, K. (2004). Teacher attrition and mobility: Results from the teacher followup survey, 2000-01. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
| 45
Nye, B.,Konstantopoulos, S., & Hedges, L. V. (2004). How large are teacher effects? Educational Evaluation and
Policy Analysis, 26(3), 237-257.
Peter D. Hart Research Associates, Inc. (2010). Career changers in the classroom: A national portrait. Washington, DC: Peter
D. Hart Research Associates, Inc. Retrieved from http://www.woodrow.org/policy/current.php
Pianta, R. C., & Hadden, D. S. (2008). What we know about the quality of early childhood settings: Implications for research
on teacher preparation and professional development. The State Education Standard, 20-27. Retrieved from
http://nasbe.org/index.php/file-repository?func=fileinfo&id=762
Pianta, R. C., & Hamre, B. K. (2009). Conceptualization, measurement, and improvement of classroom processes:
Standardized observation can leverage capacity. Educational Researcher, 38, 109-119.
Podgursky, M., Monroe, R., & Watson, D. (2004). The academic quality of public school teachers: An analysis of entry and exit
behavior. Economics of Education Review, 23, 507-518.
Portin, B. S., Knapp, M. S., Feldman, S., Russell, F. A., Samuelson, C., & Yeh, T. L. (with Gallucii, C. & Swanson, J.). (2009).
Leadership for improvement in urban schools. Seattle, WA: University of Washington, Center for the Study of Teaching
and Policy. Retrieved from http://depts.washington.edu/ctpmail/PDFs/S1-SchoolLeadership-10-2009.pdf
| 46
| 47
| 48
Teacher U
Alverno College
URL:
www.utrunited.org/
| 49
Quality for ME
Focus: Teacher evaluation
Description: Set of criteria which Maine uses to measure
early-childhood teacher and program quality. Identifies
teachers going above and beyond state standards, as well
as those who could use additional supports and training.
Primary Funding: Child Care Development Fund of the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Evidence Base: Findings from the National Center for
Research on Early Childhood Education suggest that
quality rating and improvement systems provide useful
mechanisms for defining the optimal conditions for
teaching and preparing young children for school.
URLs:
www.nccic.acf.hhs.gov/pubs/qrs-defsystems.html
www.maine.gov/dhhs/ocfs/ec/occhs/qualityforme.htm
| 50
My Teaching Partner
Focus: Professional development
Description: An online, video-based professional
development system for early-childhood teachers run
through the Curry School of Education at the University of
Virginia.
Primary Funding: Supported by the Institute of
Education Science, U.S. Department of Education through
Grant R305A07068 to the University of Virginia.
Evidence Base: While little research has been done on
the importance or impact of professional development at
the early-childhood level, Robert Pianta and his colleagues
developed this system as an innovative spin-off of
professional development at the K-12 level.
URL:
www.myteachingpartner.net/
| 51
URLs:
www.tennesseescore.org/index.cfm?Page=BenwoodInitiative
www.educationsector.org/usr_doc/thebenwoodplan.pdf
| 52
EDITORIAL PROJECTS
IN EDUCATION
RESEARCH CENTER
Vice President
Research Associates
Timothy B. Harwood
Kacy Sellers
Research Interns
Laurie A. Blaisdell
Carrie A. Matthews
EPE Library
Director
Kathryn Dorko
Library Intern
Amy Wickner
EPE Knowledge
Services
Director
Rachael C. Delgado
Program Associate
Tim Ebner
| 53