Getting it wrong on threats to teacher quality

In the debate over how to increase teacher quality, there are those who argue that the greatest impediment to effective teaching is a lack of content expertise. After surveying principals, Mr. Torff reports that deficiencies in the skills needed to teach the content pose a bigger threat to high-quality teaching.

Even in the divisive world of education policy, everyone agrees that children deserve competent, properly educated teachers. And many educators concur that initiatives are needed to upgrade the quality of the nation’s work force of teachers. But consensus breaks down over how to accomplish such an upgrade. In particular, disputes arise concerning which teaching skills tend to be weakest and thus constitute the most urgent threats to teacher quality in our nation ‘s schools. The requisite skills of teaching expertise have been broadly categorized as including content knowledge (i.e., familiarity with the subject being taught) and pedagogical knowledge (e.g., familiarity with techniques for teaching the subject).¹ But which of these sets of skills is more frequently the main cause of ineffective teaching?

According to an increasingly visible group of educators, too many teachers have insufficient expertise in the subjects they teach, thus making deficiencies in content knowledge far and away the more pressing teacher-quality problem.² This group further claims that teachers with deficiencies in content knowledge are regrettably in abundance in low-performing schools — a situation thought to contribute significantly to lagging academic performance in such schools.³ Teacher preparation programs and state teacher certification regulations, so the reasoning goes, underemphasize content knowledge and overemphasize pedagogical knowledge and thus do little to remedy what’s really ailing schools. As a result, this group further argues, teachers with severe content deficiencies gain certification, while talented individuals who hold baccalaureate degrees in content areas but lack training in pedagogical knowledge face unnecessary obstacles to certification.

Hence, a radical proposal is put forth: deregulate teacher certification to allow “qualified college graduates who may not have completed coursework in educational methodology or received a degree in education to receive state teaching certificates.”⁴ This strategy is needed because “burdensome teacher certification requirements deter well-educated and eager individuals who might make fine teachers but are put off by the cost, in time and money, of completing a conventional teacher preparation program.”⁵ From this. point of view, alternative certification programs would facilitate an influx of better-qualified teachers who would be likely to usher in significant improvement in public schooling — especially in low-performing schools where content-deficient teachers purportedly constitute an especially urgent threat to student learning.

Proponents of this proposal assume that the ineffectiveness of teachers is more frequently caused by deficiencies in content knowledge than by deficiencies in pedagogical knowledge. Such an assumption ought to be tested, and one means of doing so clearly exists: consult with principals, the administrators charged with supervising and evaluating the teachers in their schools.

With firsthand knowledge of the factors that cause teachers’ work to be ineffective, principals are well positioned to evaluate the various threats to teacher quality.

With firsthand knowledge of the factors that cause teachers’ work to be ineffective, principals are well positioned to evaluate the various threats to teacher quality. Principals review the standardized test performance of students in every teacher’s classroom. They also gain firsthand knowledge of teachers’ work with students by reviewing lesson materials, observing the delivery of lessons, and evaluating teachers’ rapport with students and classroom-management skills. And principals receive feedback about teachers’ performance through ongoing contact with students, parents, department heads, and other administrators.

Finally, principals’ assessments carry a great deal of practical weight. In most districts, principals have substantial authority in the hiring, tenuring, and firing of teachers. With deregulation advocates recommending that states “empower school level administrators with the authority to make personnel decisions,” it seems appropriate to ask these administrators for their views on the causes of teacher ineffectiveness. ⁶

Accordingly, a colleague and I conducted a study in which principals in both high- and low-performing schools weighed in on the controversy regarding threats to teacher quality.⁷ How do principals judge the frequency with which deficiencies in content knowledge and shortfalls in pedagogical knowledge cause teachers’ work to be ineffective? And how do the views of principals in high- and low-performing schools differ?

Principals completed a survey in which they rated how frequently, in their experience, teacher ineffectiveness was caused by five different factors: 1) deficiencies in content knowledge; 2) deficiencies in lesson-planning skills; 3) deficiencies in lesson-implementation skills; 4) deficiencies in ability to establish rapport with students; and 5) deficiencies in classroom-management skills. The last four of these factors were judged to represent varieties of pedagogical knowledge. All five factors were selected following a thorough review of 20 guides for teachers published by school districts in New York State, where the study was conducted. Respondents were also asked to provide their gender, age, years of teaching experience, years of administrative experience, and level of educational attainment (although none of these demographic variables had a significant impact on the responses).

To classify schools as high- or low-performing, we consulted a website maintained by the state department of education. The website identified particular schools as “high-needs” based on a need-to-resource capacity index, and this designation correlates with academic performance, with high-needs schools performing lower than other schools. In all, we mailed surveys to 300 principals, split evenly between those in high- and low-performing schools. The survey was completed and returned by 242 principals (81% overall, with 75% of responses from low-performing schools and 87% from high-performing schools).

According to the principals we surveyed, those who are alarmed by purported deficiencies in teachers’ content knowledge have it wrong on threats to teacher quality. At both high- and low-performing schools, deficits in all four varieties of pedagogical knowledge were more frequently identified as causes of teacher ineffectiveness than were deficits in content knowledge.

The most common causes of teacher ineffectiveness cited were deficiencies in three “in-class” teaching skills that are central to teachers’ interactions with students — classroom-management skills, ability to establish rapport with students, and lesson-implementation skills. There were no differences between the responses of principals at high- and low-performing schools in this regard. Thus it would seem that increased attention to these in-class teaching skills in teacher preparation programs and in state regulations governing teacher certification would be an important step toward improving teacher quality.

Deficiencies in lesson-planning skills — an aspect of pedagogical knowledge that is manifested “outside of class” — were rated as a less frequent cause of teacher ineffectiveness by principals at both high- and low-performing schools. However, principals at high-performing and low-performing schools differed in their ratings for lesson-planning skills —the only variable on which these groups differed. Although the difference was small, lesson-planning skills were rated as a bigger problem at low-performing schools than at high-performing ones. Thus greater emphasis on lesson planning in teacher education programs and in teacher certification regulations has promise to reduce the gap between high- and low-performing schools. In general, the views of these principals suggest that threats to teacher quality are comparable in both high- and low-performing schools.

Taking stock, pedagogical knowledge, not content knowledge, proved to be the more frequent cause of teacher ineffectiveness, as judged by the administrators who work most closely with teachers.

Taking stock, pedagogical knowledge, not content knowledge, proved to be the more frequent cause of teacher ineffectiveness, as judged by the administrators who work most closely with teachers. And deficiencies in content knowledge were judged to be no more vexatious at low-performing schools than at high-performing ones. These data not only challenge the claim that teacher preparation programs and teacher certification regulations overemphasize pedagogical knowledge at the expense of content knowledge but also indicate that those who cite an epidemic of content-deficient teachers are putting forth a view of impediments to effective teaching that is out of synch with the views of principals in our nation’s schools. The proponents of greater emphasis on content knowledge have also prescribed an ill-conceived remedy: deregulating teacher certification so that new teachers can enter the profession with a bachelor’s degree in a content area but little or no background in the pedagogical knowledge. Such a proposal would place new teachers in classrooms even though they are unschooled in the pedagogical knowledge that principals believe to be the most exigent threat to teacher quality. Thus, if the views of these principals are on target, alternative certification programs fail to address the underlying causes of the teacher-quality problem.

The finding that pedagogical knowledge was the main threat to teacher quality could be interpreted as a sign of failure on the part of the teacher preparation programs in which such knowledge is taught. Certainly these programs have ample room to improve, but it would be a mistake to assume that content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge are equally easy to master. To begin with, preservice teachers are typically required to complete more coursework devoted to content knowledge than to pedagogical knowledge — often twice as much. And for many preservice teachers, learning content knowledge is a straightforward and familiar process, whereas gaining pedagogical knowledge, which requires them to acquire skills unlike anything in their previous schooling, presents a brand-new and often very difficult challenge. Moreover, even if the shortcomings of teacher preparation programs are granted, the findings of this study in no way rationalize doing away with these programs altogether. Just because skills are difficult to master in the time allotted does not mean that attempts to do so are misguided. If anything, the results of this study suggest that more time, not less, should be devoted to pedagogical knowledge prior to teachers’ entry to the classroom.

Advocates of deregulation have sharply criticized the notion of the “natural learner” set out in learner-centered pedagogy.⁸ These critics have suggested that teachers ought to be more curriculum-centered and structure classroom activities, not accommodate whatever is “natural” in students’ learning. It seems ironic that curriculum-centered educators have such a strong belief in the “natural teacher” — an individual with adequate content knowledge but minimal pedagogical knowledge — yet have no faith in the notion of a “natural learner.” However, the views of principals strongly suggest that reliance on the “natural teacher” is unwise. Opening public school doors to new teachers with incomplete training would aggravate whatever problems of teacher ineffectiveness schools currently face. Requiring teachers to demonstrate a balanced blend of pedagogical knowledge and content knowledge remains the optimal strategy to improve the quality of teachers in our nation’s schools.

References

Lee Shulman, “Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of the New Reform,” Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1987, pp. 1-22.
Martin Gross, The Conspiracy of Ignorance: The Failure of American Public Schools (New York: HarperCollins, 1999); Frederick Hess and Chester E. Finn, Jr., eds., Leaving No Child Behind?: Options for Kids in Failing Schools (New York: Macmillan, 2004); E. D. Hirsch, Jr., The Schools We Need and Why We Don’t Have Them (New York: Doubleday, 1996); Marci Kanstoroom and Chester E. Finn, Jr., eds., Better Teachers, Better Schools (Washington, D.C.: Fordham Foundation, 1999); Rita Kramer, Ed School Follies: The Miseducation of America’s Teachers (New York: Free Press, 1991); Diane Ravitch, Left Back: A Century of Failed School Reforms (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000); and Charles J. Sykes, Dumbing Down Our Kids: Why American Children Feel Good About Themselves but Can’t Read, Write, or Add (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1995).
Chester Finn, Jr., “Foreword,” in Kanstoroom and Finn, p. 3.
Marci Kanstoroom, “Boosting Teacher Quality: A Common Sense Proposal,” testimony before the Subcommittee on Postsecondary Education of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, S. House of Representatives, 13 May 1999.
The Fordham Foundation, “The Teachers We Need and How to Get More of Them,” in Kanstoroom and Finn, 7.
Ibid., p. 12.
Bruce Torff and David Sessions, “Causes of Teacher Ineffectiveness,” journal of Educational Psychology, in
Arguments in favor of learner-centered pedagogy can be found in the following: Jerome Bruner, The Process of Education (Cambridge, : Harvard University Press, 1963); John Dewey, My Pedagogic Creed (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1929); and Nadine M. Lambert and Barbara L. McCombs, eds., How Students Learn: Reforming Schools Through Learner-Centered Instruction (Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association, 1998).