Teacher+Quality

toc = Introduction =

What qualities make a teacher //effective//? What exactly is "teacher quality?" In this section, we explore the characteristics that constitute an effective educator, those on which they are currently assessed, and provide a vision through relevant models of possible future approaches to assessment. Divided into two major sections, "Professional Development" and "Teacher Evaluation," we explore issues surrounding the topic of teacher quality, including preservice preparation, inservice development, seniority-based layoffs, current teacher assessment, alternative teacher assessment, and performance pay.

= Professional Development =

Preservice Preparation
**Introduction and Historical Context** Increasing student enrollment and high rates of teacher attrition are creating a teacher shortage in the US. According to a survey by Ingersoll (2002), 11% of new teachers quit teaching after 1 year, 29% after 3 years, and a staggering 39% after 5 years. These high rates of attrition are forcing school systems to lower their hiring qualifications in order to fill their classrooms with teachers.

Why are so many teachers leaving? 25% of teachers who left the profession left to pursue another career, and 26% due to job dissatisfaction (Ingersoll, 2002). Among those who were dissatisfied 46% left because of poor salary, 34% due poor administrative support, 23% of student discipline problems, and 22% due to poor student motivation (Ingersoll, 2002).

Reasons for turnover are thought to be in large part due to lack of preparedness of new teachers. When teacher education programs incorporate 1) training in selection/use of instructional materials, 2) child psychology and learning theory, 3) observation of other classes, 4) feedback on teaching, and 5) field teaching, teacher attrition is cut in half (Ingersoll, 2003).

In order to address our teacher shortage without having a negative impact on our nation's students, we must ensure the production of effective teachers by improving our nation's preservice teacher education programs.

**Connection to Research and Best Practices**

__Traditional Route__ The traditional route of most teaching programs in the US is a four-year undergraduate program in Education. Traditional programs also require field experience through classroom observation and student teaching.
 * Routes to Teacher Certification**

__Alternative Route__ Post-Baccalaureate programs are available for those who have an undergraduate degree in a field outside of education (e.g. Biology, Psychology, Math). These programs may be offered as second Bachelor’s degrees or Master’s degrees in Education. Field experience through classroom observation and student teacher are also required.

The number of teachers certified through alternative routes has been steadily increasing (Feistritzer, 2005). In 1997, only 6,026 were certified through alternative routes, while in 2009 the number reached 59,000. (National Center for Education Information, 2010).

Alternative routes in education differ in each state and school. The National Center for Alternative Education (NCAE) provides an overview of alternative routes of education: []

__Which Route is Better?__ Research has shown that, in the first years of teaching, new teachers from alternative routes are not any better than new teachers from traditional routes (Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Lankfod, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J., 2006). Darling-Hammond (2001) takes a much stronger position and believes that alternative routes to education are not effective at all. Retention rates are much higher with teachers from traditional routes; most teachers from alternative routes drop out of the classroom within three years of teaching (Darling-Hammond, 2001).

**Teacher Education Curriculum** __Content and pedagogical knowledge__ High quality teachers should not only be knowledgeable in their content (e.g. Biology, English, Spanish), but should also be knowledgeable in how to teach effectively (a.k.a. pedagogical knowledge). Research shows that students who have teachers with academic majors in their content "significantly out-perform" students of teachers who do not (Darling-Hammond, 2000). Research also shows that teachers who have training in general and content-specific knowledge are more effective teachers (Allen, 2003).

__Research-based__ Research-based education produces inquiry-oriented teachers. These teachers are taught to approach education as a set of pedagogical problems. Research-based inquiry-oriented teachers draw from current research to solve these problems. According to Darling-Hammond (2001), the problems in education are "everchanging", and a research-based education helps a teacher approach these problems responsibly.

__Field Experience__ Research shows that teachers with more pre-service field experience (i.e. student teaching) are better prepared. Teachers learn how to work in groups and collaborate with other teachers (Bryk, Rollow, & Pinnel, 1996). Field experience also increases a teachers "sense of efficacy and satisfaction" (Ashton & Webb, 1986), and pedagogical content knowledge (Fickel, 2001).


 * Relevant Models **

__Teacher Education in Finland__ Finland is ranked 1st overall in both reading and math proficiencies (Organization for Economic and Co-Operative Development, 2003). What can the US learn from them?

Teacher education curriculum in Finland is very comprehensive. Finland requires teachers to have a Bachelor's (180 credits) and a Master's Degree (120 credits) over five years (300 total credits). 120 credits are devoted to their major content, and 60 to their minor. Teachers also have 60 credits devoted to pedagogical studies (Ostinelli, 2009).

Getting into teacher education programs in Finland is extremely competitive. The US accepts over half of all teacher education applicants (Hess, 2002), while Finland only accepts only 10-15% (Ostinelli, 2009). As a result, only the high performing students choose teaching making the profession very admirable and desirable.

**Connection to Policy**

Requirements for teacher certification differ from state to state. The teacher certification requirements for all 50 states can be found here.
 * Teacher Certification**

__Basic Certification Requirements__ Most certification programs require:
 * Teaching Major (and Teaching Minor)
 * Passing scores on certification test(s)
 * Pre-service field experience (e.g., student teaching)

__C____alifornia__ In order to address teacher shortages, California has resorted to issuing emergency teacher certification permits. High percentages of these emergency permitted teachers are "concentrated in schools with low standardized test scores" (Goe, 2002). The under-qualifications of the emergency permitted teachers are thought to play a major role in this low student performance. Further analysis of California schools has revealed that student achievement is linked with the percentage of underqualified teachers in a school (Goe, 2002).
 * Changes in Teacher Certification Practices Linked to Addressing Teacher Shortages**

__New York City__ New York City has developed the New York City Teaching Fellows (TF) program in order to address teacher shortage. TF is a alternative certification program that was developed to attract "people with strong academic backgrounds into teaching" (Boyd et al., 2006). TF has created a "dramatic" shift in routes to teaching in New York City accounting for almost one-third of new teachers (Boyd et al., 2006). Work done by Boyd et al. (2006) suggests that alternative certification programs like TF are having a positive impact on student performance.

More about policy in teacher preparation can be found [|here.]


 * Relevant Legislation and Funding **

[|Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Reauthorization: No Child Left Behind (NCLB), 2001] NCLB acknowledges that improving teaching quality can increase student academic achievement. $3,175,000,000 were appropriated for the improvement of teachers, paraprofessionals, and principals.

[|American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: Race to the Top] Race to the Top is trying to address the need for higher quality teachers by providing incentive-based grants to states that have a coherent and comprehensive plan for producing effective teachers. These programs are eligible to receive part of a $4,350,000,000 pot allocated for Race to the Top.


 * Action Opportunities **

__Support Effective Teacher Education Programs__ Help our education system by supporting effective teachers and the institutions that produce them! If you are interested in becoming a teacher choose National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) or Teacher Education Accreditation Council (TEAC) accredited institutions or other programs that emphasize the importance of content and pedagogical knowledge, a research-based approach, and an ample amount of pre-service field experience.

**Resources** For more information on teacher education and certification:
 * Tapping the Potential
 * What Makes a Teacher Effective
 * The [|National Council of Teacher Education (NCATE)] recognizes and accredits U.S. effective teacher certification programs. NCATE accredits institutions based on meeting [|NCATE Unit Standards]. A list of accredited institutions can be found [|here].
 * [|American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE)]
 * [|Association of Teacher Educators (ATE)]
 * [|National Association of State Directors of Teacher Education and Certification (NASDTEC)]

Inservice Development
**Introduction** Professional development for teachers is a significant issue in the field of education. According to Guskey and Yoon (2009), the National Center for Educational Statistics reported in 2008 that public schools spent about $20 billion each year on professional development (PD). When it works well, PD does seem to make a positive difference in schools. Wei, Darling-Hammond, Andree, Richardson, and Orphanos (2009) noted that among high-poverty schools, those whose students demonstrated stronger academic performance cited effective, school-wide professional development as critical to their success. However, there are questions as to //which// PD methods are effective and how "effectiveness" is defined and measured. In their research synthesis, Guskey and Yoon (2009) noted that the relationship between PD and student learning is difficult to quantify, despite the intuitive connection that many people assume is present. Currently, more than 40 states have instituted standards for effective professional development, calling for it to be held accountable for results in student learning (Wei et al., 2009). Professional development is seen as an important link between school reform, standards, and student achievement. Because students are expected to develop complex analytical skills and to be competitive in our global 21st century society, it is argued that teachers should engage in ongoing learning about instructional methods that will prepare students for such a future (Wei et al., 2009).

**Historical Context** Ongoing professional development for teachers has been seen increasingly as one of the key ways to improve overall school quality (Desimone, 2009). In fact, many educational reform efforts rely on teacher development to effect improvements in student learning. Increased funding for PD over time has raised interest in researching the field. Not only can research into professional development methods help in making decisions about how money should be spent, research can also help us understand why certain education reforms succeed and others fail (Desimone, 2009). According to Desimone (2009), professional development research used to mean “documenting teacher satisfaction, attitude change, or commitment to innovation rather than its results or the processes by which it worked” (p. 181). While interest in results has increased, Guskey and Yoon (2009) claimed that not nearly enough is known about the relationship between PD and student learning. Many experts argue that professional development programs should provide evidence of their impact on student learning and that researchers need more empirical methods for studying PD (Desimone, 2009).

Additionally, professional development methods have evolved. While the traditional workshop or conference approaches can be effective, research also supports more collaborative, school-based types of PD (Wei et al., 2009). These methods are explained in greater depth in the "Relevant Models" section below. Guskey and Yoon (2009) noted that increased emphasis on evidence of effectiveness would help bring newer strategies to the forefront and perhaps lessen the reliance on PD methods that cannot be supported with research.

**Connection to Research** Professional development is an important link between school reform, standards, and student achievement. For substantive educational reform to occur, these areas should be coordinated with each other (Wei et al., 2009). Coordination will ensure that PD strategies are immediately relevant and implementable in the classroom. Wei et al. (2009) defined “high quality” or “effective” professional development as “that which results in improvements in teachers’ knowledge and instructional practice, as well as improved student learning outcomes” (p. 3). Studies of the relationship between teacher PD and improvements in student learning share some common themes. Generally, effective PD strategies are those that focus on improving both content area knowledge and instructional techniques (Guskey & Yoon, 2009). While PD formats vary, it does seem clear that well-executed strategies can have a positive effect on student learning. Wei et al. (2009) cited a study in which teachers learned Cognitively Guided Instruction (CGI) strategies and studied math curriculum and student learning. Then, they developed units and year-long plans that incorporated CGI instruction. Compared to students whose teachers had not gone through the training program, students in the CGI classrooms showed higher problem-solving abilities and better recall (Carpenter et al., 1989, as cited in Wei et al., 2009). Another study observed classrooms whose teachers had received donated libraries. Some of the teachers also underwent 30 hours of professional development in reading instruction and library use. The students in their classrooms demonstrated significantly higher achievement than those whose teachers received the libraries but did not participate in the PD (McGill-Franzen et al., 1999, as cited in Wei et al., 2009).

Research shows that effective professional development is long-term and consistent in follow-up (Guskey & Yoon, 2009). Ideally, there should be a synergy between PD and all educational reform efforts and standards, and professional development programs should be presented as "a coherent part of the school reform effort" (Wei et al., 2009, p. 6).

**Relevant Legislation** Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act has historically required low-performing schools to put 10% of their allocations toward professional development. As a result of Title II, $3 billion has been allocated to professional development for low-performing schools (Wei et al., 2009). Fuhrman (2010) reported that Race to the Top has encouraged teacher evaluation methods that include student achievement metrics. In the future, it is likely that teacher evaluations will incorporate student achievement in some form. In anticipation of these changes, teachers can and should seek professional development opportunities that will help them contribute to improvements in student learning and achievement.
 * Relevant Models **

Wei et al. (2009) argued that the design of any professional development experience should consider how teachers learn best. The traditional vision of PD often included workshops, conferences, and training session. These were typically short in duration and took teachers outside of their work environment. Research has increasingly emphasized the value of job-embedded and collaborative teacher learning (Wei et al., 2009). Job-embedded professional development includes professional learning communities, joint work within a school, peer observation, shared analysis of students’ work, and study groups. In this model, “teachers learn by working with their colleagues in professional learning communities (PLCs), engaging in continuous dialogue and examination of their practice and student performance to develop and enact more effective instructional practices” (Wei et al., 2009 p. 9). Coaching and mentoring is another proven strategy. Coaches external to the school setting can help connect the material learned in PD with teachers’ application in the classroom through follow-up. Research often notes that coaching scenarios should be conducted by expert colleagues, matched to teachers’ content areas, and incorporated with ongoing classroom modeling and feedback (Wei et al., 2009). Coaching and mentoring programs for new teachers have also proven very effective. More than 30 states have adopted new teacher mentoring programs, and these are often the main source of PD for first-year teachers. Research suggests that these early training programs increase teacher retention and performance ratings (Wei et al., 2009). **Best Practices** When it comes to professional development, there is not one set of best practices for every school environment. Wei et al. (2009) report that effective professional development includes a combination of methods based on the unique needs of schools and their teachers. However, experts agree that effective PD strategies typically have the following features: focus on content area knowledge, opportunities for active learning and collaboration, and substantiality in time and duration (Wei et al., 2009 and Abadiano & Turner, 2004). Klinger (2004, as cited in Abadiano & Turner, 2004) also found that successful PD programs recognize the potential of teachers to contribute their own knowledge to the process, instead of seeing them simply as receptors of external knowledge.

Guskey and Yoon (2009) suggested that any proposed PD strategy be initially tested for effectiveness as a pilot study before broad implementation. Educators should also call for stronger supporting evidence from PD strategists that proposed programs have demonstrated a positive effect on student learning. Less formal comparisons between schools that implement different PD strategies could also be valuable.

**Funding Sources**

Funding for professional development comes from a variety of sources. Every school gets federal, state, and local/district financing, depending on their location and whether or not they are privatized.  Types of funding also differ:  -__Embedded subsidies__: provide money for teacher training and pay for teacher release-time for development.  -__Direct Subsidies__: provide money for specific professional development programs ( Kroeger, M., Blaser, S., Raack, L., Cooper, C., & Kinder, A., 2000).  __Funding & Grants:__  When it comes to In-service professional development, there are a wide range of resources for obtaining either privately funded or government based grants. Some are subject specific and attached to Professional teaching organizations, while others are offered by Education Associations, such as the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) and the National Education Association (NEA). There are also grants available from private foundations or corporations as well as Government agencies, including the U.S. department of Education ([]).

 These grants may have detailed, preexisting instructions for use or be tailored to a plan written by a grant-writer. Writing a grant requires a clear understanding and explanation of grant objectives. Educators have the power via grant writing to advocate for certain kinds of professional development, as long as they can convincingly explain how funding and implementation of their plan would improve education ([|http://www.schoolgrants.org]).

 __Research:__  Most of the data that has been found on funding of professional development is derived from fiscal accounting codes. This means that while there is a wealth of data on the percentages of school budget that are allocated to professional development, there is little to be found on the details of how that funding is spent within each development endeavor (Gallagher, 2002). Moreover, there is a greater focus on compliance/attendance with the programs than there is on assessing the quality of the programs themselves (Hetert, 1997).

 Based on a 1995-96 study, the division of spending within the training allocation can be represented by these percentages:

 -Inservice training days: 41.4%  -Non-district conferences, workshops: 20.5%  -District conferences, workshops: 16.9%  -University college coursework: 9.3% <span style="display: block; font: 13px/19px Arial; margin: 0px;"> -District professional development offices: 6.9% <span style="display: block; font: 13px/19px Arial; margin: 0px;"> -Temporary Reassignments: 3.7% <span style="display: block; font: 13px/19px Arial; margin: 0px;"> -Sabbaticals: 1.3% (Hetert, 1997. p. 10).

<span style="display: block; font: 13px/19px Arial; margin: 0px;"> The areas in which professional development spending can’t be tracked as easily are in uncompensated teacher development time and in raises attributed to teachers getting credits based on professional development activities (teacher’s salaries are a contractual issue and do not exist within the realm of professional development allocations). A district-wide reliance on uncompensated teacher time may prove to be unsustainable, as far as development goes. Moreover, confusion about what constitutes professional development further complicates the issue of whether or not spending is effective. For example, should audio/visual resources be included in accounting for professional development? The activities that fall through the cracks in accounting may not be properly assessed for efficacy or funded again in the future (Gallagher, 2002).

<span style="display: block; font: 13px/19px Arial; margin: 0px;"> There are particular concerns with funding as technology gets integrated into professional development. (An example of this might be distance-learning systems that train teachers via satellite). Using technology requires time, training, and there are costs for the technology itself, so although it might increase the efficacy of professional development efforts, it requires some thoughtful redistribution of funds. (Hetert,1997).

** Action Opportunities ** <span style="display: block; font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;">Those who study the efficacy of professional development often feel frustration at the lack of data tying specific professional development activities (and their funding) to positive shifts in student achievement. Lobbying for schools to take greater care with making accounts of development spending would give a better empirical sense of where money is actually going (Hetert, 1997). Those looking to clarify with educational research should keep in mind that any studies conducted within a school system should be organized with the goal of producing transparent, easily understood results that can be compared across districts (Gallagher, 2002). <span style="font: 13px/24px Arial; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">By advocating for greater teacher input in development planning at your local school board and staff meetings, one can ensure that teachers are giving experience based reflections on the perceived worth of development activities (Was the workshop a waste of time? How was what the teacher learned from it directly applied in their teaching practice?) By critiquing the existing programs educators and administrators can get a better sense of whether or not the funding is well spent.

<span style="font: 13px/24px Arial; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Familiarize yourself with the funding practices at your district. Listen to—and make heard—the anecdotal evidence from teachers and staff as to what works best for them so that better policy can be made (Kroeger et al,, 2000).

<span style="font: 13px/24px Arial; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">__Learning Forward:__ <span style="font: 13px/24px Arial; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Learning Forward is a non-profit association which works towards more effective professional development as a means for improving education. <span style="font: 13px/24px Arial; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">This association provides current news, overviews of existing policy, and "What can you do?"-style, suggested means for advocating for professional development that is more effectively designed and implemented. <span style="cursor: pointer; font: 13px/24px Arial; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">[]

<span style="display: block; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; font-weight: normal;">** Resources ** Links to PD resources: <span style="display: block; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; font-weight: normal;">[] <span style="color: #000000; display: block; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; font-weight: normal;">[|National Staff Development Council] and its [|list of standards] for staff development Title I information: [] <span style="color: #000000; display: block; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; font-weight: normal;">Title II information: [] <span style="font: 13px/19px Arial; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Links to available grants that would fund Professional Development endeavors: [] <span style="font: 13px/19px Arial; margin: 0px;">[] [] []

= Teacher Evaluation =

Current Teacher Assessment
**Introduction** Teacher assessment is an area of much debate among current educators. There are many different approaches that are currently being implemented in different school districts. This section will attempt to discuss some of the more prevalent standards and methods used, along with a brief summary of the history of teacher evaluation.

**Historical Context**

Teacher evaluation can be split up into three main overlapping periods of time: (1) The search for great teachers; (2) Inferring teacher quality from student learning; and (3) Examining Teacher Performance (McNergney, Imig, & Pearlman, 2002). The search for great teachers really began as far back as 1896 with H.E. Kratz and his study of what is most important when it comes to what makes teachers effective. Through his study it was found that some 87 percent favored “helpfulness” but a large portion, around 58 percent, mentioned “personal appearance” as the second most favorable factor. (McNergney et al., 2002). This was a big surprise to many people to see that students thought personal appearance made such a difference. This relates back to the concept of teacher authority and how that plays into the atmosphere of the classroom. In the second period of time, inferring teacher quality from student learning, researchers assumed that supervisors' assessments of teachers was lacking good information and did not reveal anything of note about the teachers themselves. Up until this point assessment had mainly been reliant on the administrators. Questions began to be raised about depending on the assessment of administrators, as several different studies revealed conflicting data about student achievement, which administrators relied on, and how that correlated with teacher effectiveness (Domas & Tiedeman, 1950). This concept of bad correlation brought the idea that achievement tests were not a good measurement for assessment. This caused assessments based on achievement tests to fall out of favor as an evaluation method for a time, only to be brought back later. The third period, examining teacher performance, went into the inadequacies of achievement tests even further. Researchers found that student learning, as measured by standardized tests, did not depend on their teachers' education, intelligence, gender, age, personality, attitudes, or any other personal attribute (McNergney et al, 2002). This period is also marked by a shift from teacher characteristics to teaching behaviors that can be linked to student learning. We are still within a period in which it has been increasingly difficult to nail down the exact behaviors that can result in positive student learning. To exacerbate the problem some of the old ideas of assessing teachers through students' performance on achievement tests are coming back even though previous research, as mentioned above, did not definitively establish a relationship between teacher quality and student learning.

**Connection to Policy**

__INTASC Standards:__ In the late 1980s there was a resurgence of interest in teacher assessment. Thus in 1987 the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC) was established by Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) for the purpose of developing standards to assess new teachers (Weber, Somers, & Wurzbach, 1998). The INTASC functions as a think tank on many different issues related to new teacher assessment and their preparation. The INTASC provides a way for states to collaborate on different issues surrounding teachers and schools but the organization does not supersede the states’ authority. It recognizes the states sovereignty in education policy (Weber et al., 1998). Through the collaboration of the states involved, the INTASC developed a set of ten standards that reflected the professional consensus of what beginning teachers should know and be able to do. This was one of the first times a comprehensive list of standards was released that a majority of organizations could agree with. These standards are listed below:
 * Standard 1: CONTENT PEDAGOGY
 * The teacher understands the central concepts, tools of inquiry, and structures of the discipline he or she teaches and can create learning experiences that make these aspects of subject matter meaningful for students.
 * Standard 2: STUDENT DEVELOPMENT
 * The teacher understands how children learn and develop, and can provide learning opportunities that support a child’s intellectual, social, and personal development.
 * Standard 3: DIVERSE LEARNERS
 * The teacher understands how students differ in their approaches to learning and creates instructional opportunities that are adapted to diverse learners.
 * Standard 4: MULTIPLE INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES
 * The teacher understands and uses a variety of instructional strategies to encourage student development of critical thinking, problem solving, and performance skills.
 * Standard 5: MOTIVATION AND MANAGEMENT
 * The teacher uses an understanding of individual and group motivation and behavior to create a learning environment that encourages positive social interaction, active engagement in learning, and self-motivation.
 * Standard 6: COMMUNICATION AND TECHNOLOGY
 * The teacher uses knowledge of effective verbal, nonverbal, and media communication techniques to foster active inquiry, collaboration, and supportive interaction in the classroom.
 * Standard 7: PLANNING
 * The teacher plans instruction based upon knowledge of subject matter, students, the community, and curriculum goals.
 * Standard 8: ASSESSMENT
 * The teacher understands and uses formal and informal assessment strategies to evaluate and ensure the continuous intellectual, social, and physical development of the learner.
 * Standard 9: REFLECTIVE PRACTICE: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
 * The teacher is a reflective practitioner who continually evaluates the effects of his or her choices and actions on others and who actively seeks out opportunities to grow professionally.
 * Standard 10: SCHOOL AND COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
 * The teacher fosters relationships with school colleagues, parents, and agencies in the larger community to support students’ learning and well-being.

Based on these standards the INTASC developed a 3-year Performance Assessment Development Project (PADP) (Weber et al, 1998). This was created to assess new math teachers and was field tested in 10 separate states. The program focused on a portfolio that contained several different components. Included in the portfolio was a context of the educators teaching, a series of lessons, two featured lessons, a cumulative evaluation of learning assessment, and an analysis of teaching and professional growth supply by an outside assessor. This modeled an earlier evaluation strategy that encompassed the idea of 360-degree feedback where feedback was retrieved from everybody that had a connection with the teacher. It was the hope of the creators that a system such as this could produce a comprehensive view of the teacher’s ability as an educator (McNergney et al, 2002).

__NBPTS:__ Also founded in 1987 was the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS). They were formed with the purpose of identifying and rewarded the best teachers. They focused on the same idea as the medical profession that at the time did board certifications. In much the same way the NBPTS awarded certification to teachers of certain qualifications. They awarded the certifications based on certification tests and by requiring teachers to go through professional development programs as a secondary component. Teachers would not get the board certification if they did not complete both components. As of the year 2000 almost 10,000 teachers had received a board-certification, however, that is a very small percentage of all of the teachers in the USA. As of 2001 the certification produced by the NBPTS had become the first-ever, widely accepted national standard for teacher excellence (McNergney et al, 2002).

__NCLB Standards:__ Even though the INTASC was slightly successful with teacher evaluation it got trumped with The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). The NCLB came about during the Bush administration in 2002. It was developed as a comprehensive overhaul of the education system and outlined a way for the schools to achieve 100% reading competency by 2014. However, there were several problems with the NCLB act as it focused on student assessment through standardized testing. By doing so it caused teachers to focus on teaching to the test instead of teaching more fundamental skills. Even though this issue developed, the NCLB did focus on accountability of the teachers (Noguera, 2006). However, it did not provide a set of standards for assessing teachers beyond the results of the student performance on the standardized tests. The major failures of judging teachers in this way are outlined below (McNergney et al., 2002, p. 5):


 * It does not take into account the teaching context as a performance variable
 * It is unreliable, it can’t account for the sufficient time to see learning effects in students with any new program
 * The measures used are not congruent with best practices of instruction in modern education

Despite these problems, the concept of using student test scores as teacher assessment still came back into practice with many educators focusing on test scores instead of general knowledge. This method has since become a major issue as students are still failing their classes and tests. Not teaching general knowledge along with the content of the test has shown to put our future students behind the curve compared to the rest of the world (McNergney et al., 2002).

**Connection to Research** There has been much research done on the topic of current teacher assessment. In this wiki we focus on two studies: one about using the assessment to dismiss chronically ineffective teacher (Chait, 2010) and another about the failings and benefits of the teacher assessment methods in California in 1995 (Izu, Long, Stansbury, & Tierney, 1995).

__Dismissing Chronically Ineffective Teachers__ Among the problems associated with dismissing chronically ineffective teachers is that each state has its own definition of an ineffective teacher. There is no national standard to base state standards off of. For example, Pennsylvania statute describes incompetence as “A continuing or persistent mental or intellectual inability or incapacity to perform the services expected of a professional educator or a charter school staff member” (Chait, 2010, p. 7). Tennessee's statute defines incompetency as > “Being incapable, lacking adequate power, capacity or ability to carry out the duties and responsibilities of the position. This may apply to physical, mental, educational, emotional, or other personal conditions. It may include lack of training or experience, evident unfitness for service, a physical, mental or emotional condition making the teacher unfit to instruct or associate with children or the inability to command respect from subordinates or to secure cooperation of those with whom the teacher must work” (Chait, 2010, p. 7). These two examples demonstrate how widely different the definition of an ineffective teacher can be.

On top of the above problem states don’t have the funding or the necessary staffing to carry out teacher assessment properly (Chait, 2010). Over the years budget cuts have been made to the education system that have caused districts to cut out non-essential portions of education. Unfortunately, teacher assessment has fallen into this category. It has become the responsibility of the administrators to fill the vacant role of a teacher assessor. However, most administrators don’t have the time to carry out teacher assessment programs and lack the qualifications to make a proper evaluation. School administrators surveyed listed the following barriers to teacher dismissal: “Length of time required for termination process (59.5%); effort required for documentation (64.6%); tenure (71.8%); and teacher associations or unions (61.2%)" (Chait, 2010, p. 10).

Some administrators have found the time to implement assessment programs. But these are usually limited because they have to abide by union rules of documenting the qualities of a teacher. This process usually takes, on average, several years to fully complete. Even when an ineffective teacher is documented the process for dismissal can take up to another year because of an appeal process (Chait, 2010). Teachers can use this appeal process to fight the decision and the district has to front the money to fight the teacher in court while usually paying the teacher full wages during the process. Even if the dismissal is finalized there is no guarantee that the district can even find a replacement that is any better. Currently there is a serious lack of professional development that produces quality teachers (Chait, 2010).

__Existing Teacher Assessment Practices in California__ Senate bill 1422 provided an opportunity for those interested in improving the quality of classroom teachers in California. It called upon the Commission of Teacher Credentialing (CTC) to “review the requirements for earning and renewing multiple and single subject (elementary and secondary) teaching credentials...” (Izu et al, 1995, p. 63). From this The Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development (FWL) conducted a research study on current teacher assessment under the guidance of the California New Teacher Project (CNTP). This study focused on the prospective teachers. Information was collected on eight points (Izu et al, 1995, p. 65), at which beginning teachers are often examined in their teaching career, including:

1) undergraduate coursework examinations in content areas; 2) admission to teacher preparation programs; 3) advancement to student teaching; 4) performance assessment in student teaching and other teacher education courses; 5) CBEST and other state-mandated examinations to satisfy credentialing requirements; 6) applications for employment; 7) formative assessment of new teachers for support purposes; 8) summative assessment of new teachers for continued employment decisions

After the assessment was done of over 1000 different school districts the CNTP note “that the uncoordinated patchwork of existing legislation regarding state assessment practices and the lack of a generally accepted framework for depicting effective teaching probably widened the disparity in assessment practices across institutions” (Izu et al, 1995, p. 72). It determined that any assessment program that produced good results required rigor, which takes time, and qualified assessors. Many of the districts involved lacked one or more commonly both of these qualities. Through this study a serious effort to address these shortcomings was produced and 30 new programs across the state sprang up to assess new teachers. California has also moved towards the development of a framework for defining the knowledge and skills that all teachers must possess to be effective. Research groups are analyzing this framework in relation to other national teaching standards efforts such as the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS), the Interstate New Teacher Support and Assessment Consortium (INTASC), and the recent revision of the standards of the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC).


 * Relevant Legislation and Federal Initiatives/Programs **

NCLB and Obama's Race to the Top (RTTT) [|Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Reauthorization: No Child Left Behind (NCLB), 2001__] [|American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: Race to the Top_]

The NCLB lacked any major assessment standards but did have some focus on accountability with the teachers. Obama’s Race to the Top has yet to fully mature throughout the education system but so far it has more focus on teacher assessment than the NCLB but yet again includes no direct set of standards or assessment practices outlined to accomplish it.


 * Organizations **

California New Teacher Project (CNTP) []

<span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-weight: normal;">Commission of Teacher Credentialing (CTC)** [] ** <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC) <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">** [] **

<span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) []

Alternative Teacher Assessment
**Introduction** The emphasis created by NCLB on high-stakes accountability for teachers has frequently caused teacher evaluation to rely solely on one factor: student achievement on standardized test scores (Toch, 2008). Although these scores can be useful in assessing how well a teacher has prepared his or her students for a certain test, they are very limited when it comes to evaluating overall teacher quality. As such, a great deal of interest has been generated in recent years to discover better ways for assessing the quality of teachers. Although there is a large variety in the types of proposed measures, certain trends have emerged among the various research that has been generated on the subject. Nearly all teacher assessment reformers agree that new forms of evaluation need to be comprehensive, collaborative, and intended to improve struggling teachers, rather than weed them out (Feeney 2007; Oliva, Mathers, & Laine 2009; Palazuelos & Conley 2008).

**Connection to Research** A wealth of information has been collected on the various factors affecting teacher evaluation methods. Although there has been no breakthrough research identifying one particular method of teacher evaluation that is superior to the rest, nearly all the research seems to agree that proper teacher evaluation should include a variety of assessment techniques. Harris (2008) suggests, “evaluating and improving teacher quality requires a comprehensive strategy that few current or proposed policies provide” (pp. 56-57). She adds, “it is necessary to use multiple measures, including formative and summative assessments” (Harris, 2008, p. 56).

Palazuelos and Conley (2008) concur with Harris, adding, “scholars confirm what principals already know: classroom observation alone does not guarantee good evaluation” (p. 20). Palazuelos and Conley conducted research on the benefits of allowing teachers choice in their own forms of evaluation, and concluded that the benefits to creating such an option outweighed the potential costs: “This brief look at the personnel evaluation system in Oxnard Union High School District indicates that choice appeared to provide much potential in maximizing the formal and informal benefits of evaluation” (Palazuelos & Conley, 2008, p. 23).

Thomas Toch (2008) further emphasized the importance of variety in teacher evaluation by proposing among his list of suggested reforms that evaluations be comprised of a variety of measures. When standard observations are combined with portfolios, for example, the data that is generated on a teacher’s performance is more comprehensive, and more helpful in improving that teacher’s craft.


 * Relevant Models **

In addition to advocating variety in teacher evaluations, researchers also seem to agree on a few specific measures of assessment, although to varying degrees. One suggestion, as advocated by Toch (2008), Feeney (2007), and Oliva et al. (2009), is to improve the quality of the feedback that teachers are provided. Feeney (2007) explains, “Feedback is part of any effective assessment plan… The problem is that many teacher evaluation instruments depend on a simplistic rating scale ranging from ‘needs improvement’ to ‘satisfactory’” (p. 192). Oliva et al. (2009) agree, noting, “Teacher evaluation practices are typically not seen as a tool for improving teacher effectiveness, yet regular, consistent feedback on classroom instruction can be enormously empowering to new and veteran teachers alike” (p. 17). These researchers recommend a higher level of collaboration between teachers and evaluators, for purposes of not only identifying struggling teachers, but providing specific support for those teachers to improve their craft. Additionally, Feeney (2007) and Oliva et al. (2009) agree that ideal evaluation models will allow for feedback and experimentation on their implementation. The impact that teachers and administrators can have on each other’s performance has proven immeasurable, and formal evaluations should attempt to harness that collaborative power to provide more useful feedback.

Another prevailing alternative to standards-based teacher assessment is the development of teaching portfolios. Portfolios were among the options that Palazuelos and Conley (2008) explored in their Oxnard observations, and they concluded that although a smaller percentage of teachers elected the portfolio option, “portfolios appear a viable choice for those who want to use documentation of their activities, such as a teacher-developed language arts test, as a basis for evaluation” (pp. 21-22). One specific possibility for portfolio-based assessment has been developed by The University of Iowa. Called ePortfolio ([]), the system “allows new teachers to upload their professional work easily and it allows administrators to review that work at any time simply by linking to the teacher’s web address” (Jun, Anthony, Achrazoglu, & Coghill-Behrends, 2007, p. 45). In a study conducted to assess the effectiveness of the ePortfolio system, Jun et al. (2007) declared that their findings, “support that the ePortfolio framework promoted a meaningful conversation between teachers and administrators during formative and summative evaluations” (p. 50). Considering their uniquely comprehensive and subjective nature, portfolios seem like the perfect compliment to other methods of assessment in a thorough evaluation policy.


 * Best Practices **

The question of “what makes a good teacher?” is one that is at the very core of education. There is no denying the incredible importance of quality instruction in student academic performance. Unfortunately, teachers are currently assessed solely by the performance of their students on standardized tests. Although it is important not to discount the significance of student achievement in evaluating teacher performance, that criteria should just be one part of a larger, more comprehensive structure for assessing teacher quality. Research such as that done by Feeney (2007), Oliva et al. (2009), and Palazuelos & Conley (2008) agrees that the ideal evaluation policy is one that consists of a variety of measures, and which recruits the teacher being evaluated into the process. Only when evaluation is based on a variety of purposeful, reflective, and collaborative efforts, can teachers truly be fairly assessed and improve. Although it may be necessary to weed out the most unsatisfactory of educators, it is also important to recognize that evaluation should serve as more than a punitive assessment; it should be a way of recognizing teachers’ strengths and weaknesses, and helping them rely on the former while improving the latter.
 * The Teacher Advancement Program (TAP)**

[] A program developed to identify and develop effective teachers in specific districts. They are a huge advocate for the importance of teacher quality, and their programs have proven very effective in providing progressive and productive teacher evaluation and development frameworks.

Performance Pay
**Introduction** Performance pay is a variable salary system for paying teachers in which educators are compensated (given bonuses of varying degrees) on a group or individual basis for measured performance factors—mainly student achievement as measured by standardized test scores. Performance pay systems take on various forms of implementation, from being a minor modification to a current single salary scale to a complete overhaul of the teacher compensation system of a school or district. Though current research cannot draw any definitive conclusions about the effectiveness of such merit pay systems, Podgursky and Springer (2007) claim that “along with motivation effects, there is potential for substantial positive long run selection effects from teacher performance pay systems,” differentiating effective educators from ineffective ones (p. 551). Additionally, they claim that performance pay incentives will tend to attract those that will excel within such a system in the first place: those that can produce student achievement results consistently.

Due to the heightened call for accountability under No Child Left Behind, performance pay systems have increased in popularity in recent years. Because teacher effectiveness is measured primarily by student achievement (standardized test scores) in these systems, it is important to consider the research available in order to evaluate such compensation systems. **Historical Context** For most of the past century, the United States has used single salary systems—those that increase pay based on tenure and professional development hours—to compensate elementary and secondary teachers (Azordegan, J., Byrnett, P., Campbell, K., Greenman, J., & Coulter, T.., 2005).

According to Podgursky and Springer (2007), the National Commission on Excellence in Education’s 1983 issuance of //A Nation at Risk// acted as an early stimulus for experimentation in performance pay systems. In order to create a stronger relationship between teacher pay and effectiveness, policymakers in the 1980s and 1990s introduced experimental merit pay and career-ladder systems. Early objections by Murnane and Cohen (1986) included the difficulty in measuring performance and that merit pay would reduce incentives for teachers to collaborate and undermine morale due to the individualistic nature of such programs.

Additional findings tended to demonstrate no evidence that merit pay improved teacher quality while the data suggested that career-ladder systems exhibited some potential (Azordegan et al., 2005). Ultimately, funding was pulled before any conclusive data could be collected and these early efforts were short-lived due to lack of rigorous evaluations, opposition from unions, and small incentives (Podgursky and Springer, 2007).

More recently, No Child Left Behind’s call for accountability is a large influence on the implementation of performance pay systems (Podgursky and Springer, 2007).

**Connection to Research** <span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">Value-added studies of teacher effectiveness have generally found that teacher effects are largely unrelated to measured teacher characteristics (credentials), such as type of certificate, education, licensing exam scores, and experience, but principal evaluations are a reliable indicator of teacher effectiveness as measured by student achievement (Podgursky and Springer, 2007). The results of these studies, however, relate to low-stakes evaluation situations and may not be an indicator of what would actually happen in a high-stakes evaluation situation (Podgursky and Springer, 2007). <span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">Dee and Keys (2004) found that teachers who opted to be compensated through the Tennessee Project STAR (a system in which teacher pay was based partially on passing principal evaluations), were more effective than those that did not. However, since consideration for the program was optional, the validity of the results of this study are questioned on the basis that teachers who are more effective to begin with may have been more likely to be attracted to such a performance-based system (Podgursky and Springer, 2007). <span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">Additional short-falls of currently available research include the multitasking critique of Hannaway (1992), which posits that many attributes of teacher performance are not currently being measured adequately. Also, when teacher pay is connected to student achievement, it seems to encourage gaming, or “cheating” (Podgursky and Springer, 2007). <span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">Though research cannot point to a specific design to use, it is sufficiently positive to indicate that performance-pay systems are worthy of further exploration (Podgursky and Springer, 2007). **Relevant Legislation** Teacher Incentive Fund Act []

**Policy** No Child Left Behind [] Blueprint for Reform, Race to the Top []


 * Models **

<span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">According to Podgursky and Springer (2007), examples of current districts and schools that utilize performance-pay systems include:
 * <span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">Florida’s E-Comp (Effectiveness Compensation) merit pay system rewards the top 10% of teachers with bonuses based on value-added assessments. []
 * <span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">Denver’s ProComp dictates that annual teacher raises are determined by factors such as students’ standardized test scores. []
 * <span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">Minnesota’s QComp program. []
 * <span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">Texas’s Governor’s Educator Excellence Awards provides funding for performance pay for teachers in 100 high-achieving, low-income schools. []
 * <span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">Milken Family Foundation’s Teacher Advancement Program schools. []

**Best Practices** <span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">The effectiveness in design and implementation varies greatly for performance-based systems and, thus, has led to mostly inconclusive research on the topic. However, the following research provides suggestions for best practice: <span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">Studies by Lavy (2004) and Eberts, R., Hollenbeck, K., and Stone, J. (2002) found that individual incentive programs (versus group-performance programs) demonstrated gains in student achievement, even when the incentive system was poorly designed and Lavy (2004) found that such systems were also more cost-effective. <span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">Courty and Marschke (2003) conclude that “trial and error” is likely required in order to develop an appropriate and effective incentive system. <span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">Azordegan et al. (2005) outline three specific qualities of effective systems, including “stakeholder involvement,” “educator support and training,” and “sustained commitment” (p. 3). They caution, though, that research has shown that maintaining such systems is costly and attempts at completely overhauling the pay system are often halted by union negotiations. They also say that those with experience in such systems cite communication and shared understanding of the pay system amongst all stakeholders as crucial for its acceptance. **Funding Sources**

<span style="color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 96%;">The U.S. Department of Education’s Teacher Incentive Fund provides $100 million annually to schools (on a competitive basis) who would like to enact an experimental plan for performance-pay (Podgursky and Springer, 2007). []

**Action Opportunities**

<span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">National Education Association, “Take Action on Professional Pay” <span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">[] **Resources** <span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">Education Commission of the States [|www.ecs.org] <span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">A Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983) [] **Organizations** <span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">Center for Educator Compensation Reform <span style="background-position: 100% 50%; cursor: pointer; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; padding-right: 10px;">[] National Center on Performance Incentives <span style="background-position: 100% 50%; cursor: pointer; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; padding-right: 10px;">[|www.performanceincentives.org] National Education Association <span style="background-position: 100% 50%; cursor: pointer; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; padding-right: 10px;">[] U.S. Department of Education <span style="background-position: 100% 50%; cursor: pointer; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; padding-right: 10px;">[|http://www.ed.gov]

Seniority-Based Layoffs
**Introduction**

Seniority-based layoffs are the norm in American public education. According to the National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ), 20 of the nation’s 25 largest school districts follow such practices, as set by contracts or state law; also, 75 percent of its TR3 database of large districts employ seniority-based layoffs, which some call ‘last hired, first fired’ (NCTQ, 2010, p.1). ("The TR3 database posts data from 100 school districts across all 50 states, including the 75 largest districts in the nation as well as the 25 largest districts in the states that would not be otherwise represented. These 100 districts represent 20 percent of all public school students in the United States" (NCTQ, 2010, p.1)). The dominance of seniority-based layoff policies is increasingly becoming an issue of importance for Americans, as a growing body of evidence is establishing a link between teacher quality and student performance. There is growing concern that a policy largely organized around seniority is not in step with this evidence, and so is not in the best interest of American students, as it may be leading to the elimination of new, high-quality teachers in deference to the interests of more experienced educators, some of whom may be less effective, despite their more extensive experience.

**History, Policy, and Legislation** Most states do not require that school districts base their layoff decisions largely or even solely on seniority, but rather, leave the criteria for layoff decisions up to the districts themselves. However, there are 14 states that do have layoff policies: Alaska, California, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, West Virginia and Wisconsin (National Council on Teacher Quality, 2010). Some state laws governing educator layoffs have been in place for many years. For example, Ohio state law has required that teacher layoffs be carried out in order of seniority since 1941, and the state renewed that policy as recently as 2006 (Marshall, 2010). Other states are taking steps to reduce or eliminate seniority’s influence on teacher layoffs. In 2009, Arizona passed a law prohibiting the sole use of seniority in district layoff decisions. In 2010, due to school budgetary crises brought about by declining state revenues, the governors of California and New York have been pushing for similar measures (Martinez, 2010). On the city level, in 2009, Michelle Rhee, Chancellor of Washington D.C. schools, laid off some teachers who would otherwise have been protected by union seniority rules (Martinez, 2010). The issue has also recently become a major controversy in other cities facing major budgetary problems, including Seattle (St. Clair, 2010), Cleveland (Marshall, 2010), and Detroit (Arellano, 2010). Those desiring to lessen the influence of seniority eventually must grapple with the unions, as evidenced in Detroit, where Public Schools Emergency Financial Manager Robert Bobb, who pledged that he would end seniority-based layoffs in Detroit, was forced to compromise significantly during union contract negotiations (Arellano, 2010). In the absence of laws like the one passed in Arizona, policy will likely continue to be decided largely in the same way it has in the past, by districts as they establish contracts with teachers’ unions, who consistently oppose alternatives to seniority as the sole or predominant factor in teacher layoff decisions (Wingert & Thomas, 2010).

**Connection to Research**

As stated above in the introduction to this topic, a key theme in current research is that there is a link between teacher quality and student performance (NCTQ, 2010, p. 3; Sawchuck, 2009a; Chait & Miller, 2009). Proponents of seniority-based layoffs have long been making the case that experience is the dominant factor in quality, but again, research is calling this into question, suggesting that new teachers become “generally about as effective as long-tenured teachers” as soon as their third year (NCTQ, 2010, p. 2). The obvious conclusion toward which these two research themes point is that laying off less experienced teachers on the belief that they are less qualified may well be based on a specious assumption, and would hardly seem to be in the best interest of students.

Another drawback to seniority-based layoff policies, current research suggests, is that they also may be threatening recent gains in teacher diversity. For example, during the six years ending in the 2007-2008 school year, the percentage of teachers of an ethnicity other than white increased from 24% to 29% in California, an increase of 14,000 jobs (Goossen, 2009). However, in the massive budget driven round of seniority-based layoffs, these teachers would be “among the junior teaching force most likely to receive pink slips” (Goossen, 2009, p. 1), effectively guaranteeing that the pain of these layoffs would disproportionately be felt by minorities. Exacerbating this issue, such layoffs impact the lowest-performing schools the most, “because they tend to have the highest proportion of new teachers. In some Los Angeles schools last year [2009] such cuts wiped out 50 to 70 percent of the faculty” (Wingert and Thomas, 2010. p. 1).

Even when one considers seniority-based layoffs strictly from the perspective of teachers, at least one major drawback is unavoidable. Given that they fall largely on newer teachers, who have lower incomes on average than their peers of longer standing, seniority-based layoffs by nature require more job losses to achieve targeted cuts in total salary. In one documented situation, a cut of 9 percent in salary necessitated the elimination of 13 percent of a district’s total workforce (Roza, 2009). The upshot is that seniority-based layoffs cause more teachers to lose their jobs than would layoff policies that take teacher effectiveness into account. The bad news does not end there, either; this greater number of job eliminations translates into larger class sizes than a more quality-based policy would bring about (Chait & Miller, 2009), which means less face-time with teachers for each student. This also means that more children are being shuffled around due to the fact that more teachers have to be eliminated in a seniority-based layoff scenario, more evidence that seniority-based layoffs are not likely in the best interest of students.

**Best Practices**

__State and National Policy__

Unfortunately, teacher layoff policies that do //not// work are easier to find and discuss than those that //do//. However, there is one state that may be pointing the way toward effective reform in this area, reform that is consistent with the direction of change in Washington; that state is Colorado ([]). The state “is now considered a front-runner to win Race to the Top, the federal grant competition for states, after passing among the country’s boldest education reforms in recent American history” (Arellano, 2010, p. 1). Colorado’s new law requires annual teacher evaluations, and half of teachers’ ratings are based on whether their students made progress during the school year; in addition, new teachers will have to demonstrate three straight years of boosted student achievement to earn tenure (Arellano, 2010). Part of what allowed Colorado to pass this legislation was the development of new teacher evaluation methods called “value-added systems.” “The development of new ‘value-added systems’ now allows school districts and states to consider performance, attendance, and other factors” (Arellano, 2010. p. 1). Experts say that these systems “may be developed to fairly take those issues into account” “…by considering how far behind students are when a teacher gets them…and how much the teacher accomplishes in teaching them” (Arellano, 2010, p. 1). These methods may help other states and districts successfully counter union arguments that seniority is the only fair and unbiased way to evaluate teachers so that they can move away from seniority-based layoff policies.

__The PAR Method__ Another path forward may be the peer-review (PAR) method pioneered by Dal Lawrence in 1981. This method raised the stakes on peer-mentoring programs designed to address underperforming teachers through mentoring by consultant teachers; it did so by also “permitting consulting teachers…to conduct formal evaluations and make recommendations for dismissal or further assistance” (Escmilla, Clarke & Linn, 2000, p. 2). Ten years ago, this method was being employed in only a few cities in the country, including Chicago, Columbus, and Toledo (Escmilla, Clarke & Linn, 2000). The idea had not gained much additional traction until just recently, when it began to experience a small renaissance; just “this year, affiliates in Anderson, Ind., and St. Louis have signed on to institute PAR. Detroit and New Haven, Conn., are now considering the idea. And in October [of 2009] the American Federation of Teachers “dedicated a chunk of its…Innovation Fund to support new programs in New York state and Rhode Island” (Sawchuck, 2009b, p. 21).

= Organizations =

National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality [](features a searchable database of publications on teacher quality).

National Council on the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) []

National Council on Teacher Quality [|http://www.nctq.org/]

National Staff Development Council (NSDC) []

Teacher Education Accreditation Council (TEAC) []

<span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">Project on the Next Generation of Teachers[|http://www.gse.harvard.edu/~ngt/] <span style="color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 22px;">Value-Added Research Center<span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">[] = References =

<span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Abadiano, H., & Turner, J. (2004). Professional staff development: What works? <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">//<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The NERA Journal //<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">, //<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">40 //<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">(2), 87-91. <span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Allen, M. (2003). Eight Questions on Teacher Preparation: What Does the Research Say? //<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Education Commission of the States //<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">, 6. <span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Ashton, P., & Webb, R. (1986). //Making a difference: teacher’s sense of efficacy and student achievement.// New York, NY: Longman <span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Arellano, A. (2010, July 8). //Good teachers for all.// The Detroit News. Retrieved from[| http://detnews.com/article/20100708/OPINION01/7080329/Good-teachers-for-all] <span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Azordegan, J., Byrnett, P., Campbell, K., Greenman, J., & Coulter, T. (2005, December). <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">//<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Issue paper: Diversifying teacher compensation //. Denver: Education Commission of the States. Retrieved from [] <span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Lankfod, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2006). How changes in entry requirements alter the teacher workforce and affect student achievement. //<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Education Finance and Policy //. //<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">1 // (2). 176-216. <span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Bryk, A., Rollow, G., & Pinnel, G. (1996). Urban school development: literacy as a lever for change. //<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Education Policy 10 // (2). 172-201. Chait, R. (2010). //Removing chronically ineffective teachers: Barriers and opportunities.// Center for American Progress, 1-26. Retrieved from [|http://www.americanprogress.org]

Chait, R., & Miller, R. (2009, January 14). //Shooting yourself in the foot: Mid-year layoffs undermine teacher quality.// Retrieved from []

<span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Courty, P., & Marschke, G. (2003, Summer). Dynamics of performance-measurement systems. <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">//<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 19 //, 268-284. <span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Educational Policy Analysis Archives. 8(1). <span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Darling-Hammond, L. (2001). The challenge of staffing our schools. //<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Educational Leadership. 58 // (8). 12-17. <span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Dee, T., & Keys, B.J. (2004). Does merit pay reward good teachers? Evidence from a randomized experiment. <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">//<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, // 23, 471-488. <span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Desimone, L. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">//<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Educational Researcher //, <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">//<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">38 // (3), 181-199. Domas, S.J., & Tiedeman, D.V. (1950). Teacher competence: An annotated bibliography. //Journal of// //Experimental Education, 19//, 99-218.

<span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Eberts, R., Hollenbeck, K., & Stone, J. (2002). Teacher performance incentives and student outcomes. <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">//<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The Journal of Human Resources 37 // (4), 913-927. <span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Escamilla, P., Clarke, T. & Linn, D. (2000, January, 2). //Exploring Teacher Peer Review.// Retrieved from [] <span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Feeney, E. J. (2007). Quality feedback: The essential ingredient for teacher success. //The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas. 80// (4). 191-198. <span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Fickel, L. (2001). The high school department as collaborative community: What teachers learn from colleagues. //<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Teacher Education and Practice. 14 // (2). 119-155. Fiestrizter, C.E. (2005). //Profile of Alternative Route Teachers//. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Information. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Fuhrman, S. (2010, April 7). Tying teacher evaluation to student achievement: caution, yellow light ahead. <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">//<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Education Week // <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">, <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">//<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">29 // <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">(28), 32-33.

<span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Gallagher, H. A. (2002, May 31). Elm Street School: A case study of professional development expenditures. //<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Education Policy Analysis Archives //, //<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">10 // (28). <span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Goe L. (2002). Legislating equity. The distribution of emergency permit teachers in California. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 10(42), 20. <span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Goossen, C. (2009, March 3). //Diversity will be a casualty of teacher layoffs.// Retrieved from [] <span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Guskey, T., & Yoon, K. (2009). What works in professional development? <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">//<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Phi Delta Kappan //, <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">//<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">90 // (7), 495-499. <span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Hannaway, J. (1992, Spring). Higher order skills, job design, and incentives: An analysis and proposal. American Educational Research Journal, 29, 3-21. <span style="color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 19px;">Harris, D. (2008). Value-added and other measures of teacher quality: Policy uses and policy validity. //Education Digest, 74//(3), 56-58 <span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Hess, F. (2002). //Tear down this wall: The case for a radical overhaul of teacher certification//. White House Conference for Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers. <span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/admins/tchrqual/learn/preparingteachersconference/hess.html <span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Hetert, L. (1997). Investing in teacher professional development: A look at 16 school districts. Report ED416201, Education Commission of the States. 2-38 . <span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Ingersoll, R. (2002). The teacher shortage: A case of wrong diagnosis and wrong prescription. National Association of Secondary School Principals. NASSP Bulletin, 86(631), 16. <span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Ingersoll, R. (2003). //No dream denied//. Washington D.C.: National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. <span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Izu, J.A., Long, C., Stansbury, K, & Tierney, D.S. (1995). Exploring existing teacher assessment practices in California: Implications for potential reforms. //Teacher Education Quarterly,// 63-74 <span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Jun, M.-K., Anthony, R., Achrazoglou, J., & Coghill-Behrends, W. (2007). Using ePortfolio for the assessment and professional development of newly hired teachers. //TechTrends//, 51 (4), 45-50. <span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Kroeger, M., Blaser, S., Raack, L., Cooper, C., & Kinder, A. (2000). Professional development & student achievement. //<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">NCREL’s Learning Point //, 2(1), 2-29. [] <span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Lavy, V. (2004, June). //Performance pay and teachers' effort, productivity and grading ethics// (Working Paper No. 10622). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. <span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Marshall, A. (2010, April 28). //Seniority-based system for laying off teachers has a long history.// The Plain Dealer. Retrieved from [] <span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Martinez, B. (2010, February 19). //Teacher seniority rules challenged.// The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from [] McNergney, R.F., Imig, S.R., & Pearlman, M.A. (2002). Teacher evaluation. //Encyclopedia of Education, 7// <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">(2), 2453-2461

Murnane, R., & Cohen, D. (1986). Merit pay and the evaluation problem: Why most merit pay plans fail and a few survive. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">//Harvard Education Review//, 56, 1-17.

<span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">National Council on Teacher Quality. (2010, February). //Teacher layoffs: Rethinking “last-hired, first-fired” policies.// Retrieved from [] Noguera, P.A. (March, 2006). //School reform and second generation discrimination: Toward the// <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">//development of equitable schools//. Retrieved July, 2010, from []

Oliva, M., Mathers, C., & Laine, S. (2009). Effective evaluation. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">//Principal Leadership// (Middle School Ed.), 9 (7), 16-21.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Organization for Co-Operative and Economic Development. (2003). //First results from PISA 2003: executive summary.// Paris, FR: Organization for Co-Operative and Economic Development.

<span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Ostinelli, G. (2009). Teacher education in Italy, Germany, England, Sweden and Finland. //European Journal of Education,// 44 (2). 291-308. <span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; letter-spacing: 1px;">Palazuelos, A.E., & Conley, S. (2008). Choice in teacher evaluations. <span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">//<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Leadership 37 //(4), 20-23. <span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Podgursky, M., & Springer, M. G. (2007). Credentials versus performance: Review of the teacher performance pay research. //Peabody Journal of Education//, 82 (4), 551-573. Doi:10.1080/01619560701602934 <span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Roza, M. (2009, February 2). //Seniority-based layoffs will exacerbate job loss in public education.// Retrieved from [] <span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Sawchuck, S. (2009a). Layoff policies could diminish teacher reform. Education Week, 28, 22. <span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Sawchuck, S. (2009b). Judging their peers: An old concept that calls for teachers to assess their own is gaining traction as evaluation comes under the spotlight. Education Week, 29, 20-23. <span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">St. Clair, S. (2009, June 10). //Seniority-based layoffs at Seattle schools may be crumbling.// Retrieved from [] <span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Toch, T. (2008). Fixing teacher evaluation. //Educational Leadership,// 66 (2), 32-7. Weber, W., Somers, L., & Wurzbach, L. (1998). Improving the teaching and learning of mathematics: Performance-based assessment of beginning mathematics teachers. //School Science and Mathematics, 98// (8), 430-437

Wei, R. C., Darling-Hammond, L., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009). //Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development in the United States and abroad//. Dallas, TX. National Staff Development Council.

Wingert, P. & Thomas, E. (2010, July 17). //Chicago’s lessons in layoffs.//<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> Retrieved from []