Sorting Out Teacher Quality

TEACHER has become a hot topic. Everyone wants to measure it, reward it, or improve it. One reason for this interest is that we now have evidence that teachers differ dramatically in their ability to raise student test scores. We don't know why some teachers are better than others, so we say the differences are due to Another reason for our current interest in teacher is that recent No Child Left Behind requirements focus on highly qualified teachers, so we tend to think about indicators of Yet another reason for this interest is that advocates for equity often seek to ensure that schools serving lower-income students provide the same of teachers as those serving more advantaged students. The problem is that teacher has become such a ubiquitous term that it lacks a clear meaning. As researchers and policy analysts enter into debates about teacher quality, they often use the phrase to refer to very different things. For example, people interested in recruitment tend to use the phrase quality to refer to tested ability. (1) These writers want us to design recruitment practices that entice people with higher test scores to become teachers. For them, test scores are an indicator of teacher quality. Meanwhile, people interested in the equitable distribution of teachers across student populations often use the phrase quality to refer to credentials. (2) These writers want to ensure that all students have access to teachers who have obtained comparable licenses and certificates. For them, certificates and teaching experience are indicators of teacher quality. Still other people use the phrase quality to refer to the of teachers' classroom practices. (3) These writers want to improve the work teachers do inside their classrooms, when actually teaching students. For them, specific teaching practices are indicators of teacher quality. Then there are people who think about school finance and who seek the most productive use of expenditures. (4) They often use the phrase quality to refer to teachers' effectiveness in raising student achievement. For them, gains in student achievement are indicators of teacher quality. And, of course, there are people who want teachers to subscribe to particular beliefs and values. In their minds, such values are the chief indicators of teacher quality. These are not the only definitions available, nor are these indicators--test scores, certificates, and so forth--the only available indicators of teacher quality. Such variations in meanings should not be a surprise, for there are indeed numerous dimensions to teacher quality, each of which may be important for different reasons to different people. But unless we can become more precise in our use of the term, we will not improve our ability to measure it, improve it, or reward it. True understanding of teacher requires us to recognize that these many facets are distinct, not always overlapping, and not always related to one another. Moreover, we aren't even sure how they influence and interact with one another when they do. A TAXONOMY OF QUALITIES Recognizing all these aspects of teacher means that we need to start talking about teacher qualities, rather than This slight change in language reminds us that there are many different dimensions of teacher and if we want to improve the broad, general of the American teacher work force, we need to be able to sort out all the specific qualities that are part of it. More important, we need to understand how these different qualities are related to one another and how they complement, contradict, or influence one another. For example, do teachers' own higher test scores actually lead to different or better classroom practices? Do the practices defined in national curriculum frameworks actually yield better student achievement? …