Good afternoon, as the Commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), I am pleased to release today the findings from Teacher Quality: A Report on the Preparation and Qualifications of Public School Teachers. The findings I present today are based on data collected from full-time public school teachers in the spring of 1998.

This report was undertaken by NCES in response to growing concern over the condition of education and the nation’s need for excellent teachers. At the core of educational reforms to raise standards, reshape curricula, and restructure the way schools operate is the call to reconceptualize the practice of teaching. Now more than ever, teachers are being asked to learn new methods of teaching, while at the same time facing the greater challenges of rapidly increasing technological changes and greater diversity in the classroom.

This national profile of teacher quality, the first in a series of biennial reports, is a necessary tool for tracking our progress toward improving the quality of classroom teachers. However, providing a national profile of teacher quality is not an easy task. Teacher quality is a complex phenomenon, and there is little consensus on what it is or how to measure it. For example, definitions range from those that focus on what should be taught and how knowledge should be imparted to the kinds of knowledge and training teachers should possess.

There are, however, two broad elements that most observers agree characterize teacher quality: (1) teacher preparation and qualifications and (2) teaching practices. The first refers to preservice learning—such as postsecondary education and certification—and continued learning—such as professional development and collaboration with colleagues. The second refers to the actual behaviors and practices that teachers exhibit in their classrooms. Of course, these elements of teacher quality are not independent; excellent teacher preparation and qualifications should lead to exemplary teaching behaviors and practices.

This report is based on current NCES efforts to collect data on the first of these elements—teacher preparation and qualifications—using a nationally representative survey of full-time public school teachers. This national profile of teacher preparation and qualifications provides a context for understanding why, as indicated in the report, many teachers do not report feeling very well prepared to meet many of the challenges they currently face in their classrooms. The findings are revealing. For example, at a time when 78 percent of public schools have access to the Internet, Figure A (excerpted from table 21 of the report) shows us that only 20 percent of teachers reported feeling very well prepared to integrate educational technology into classroom instruction.

Today, I will briefly highlight two important issues addressed in the report: (1) academic background and (2) professional development.

Despite the lack of consensus on teacher quality, there is little dispute that in order for teachers to provide the highest quality learning experiences for students, they must first understand and be able to communicate the subject matter. Critics argue that this requires that teachers have a postsecondary degree in an academic field—for example, a chemistry teacher should have a degree in chemistry rather than science education.

And teachers should be assigned to teach in a field in which they have been trained; that is, a teacher with a degree in chemistry should be assigned to teach chemistry, not English literature. This report provides information on the percent of teachers with degrees in academic fields and on the mismatch between teacher training and teaching assignment—also known as out-of-field teaching.

What percent of teachers have a degree in an academic field? Overall, 38 percent of full-time public school teachers had an undergraduate or graduate major in an academic field, 18 percent had a major in subject area education (such as mathematics education), and 37 percent had a major in general education. This varied by instructional level of the school and years of teaching experience. As Figure B (excerpted from table 1 of the report) shows, more high school teachers had an undergraduate or graduate major in an academic field (66 percent), compared with elementary school teachers (22 percent), and middle school teachers (44 percent). That elementary school teachers should have a degree in an academic field, rather than in general education, is an issue of great debate.

Having a degree in an academic field is important, but it is only meaningful if teachers are assigned to teach in that field. This raises an important question: What percent of teachers are teaching out of field? First, a few words about the measurement of out-of-field teaching. Investigations of out-of-field teaching are not straightforward; there are a number of different ways of defining and measuring out-of-field teaching and different measures result in different estimates of the problem. In this report, out-of-field teaching is defined as full-time teachers who do not have an undergraduate or graduate major or minor in their main teaching assignment field. This measure is conservative—it does not include part-time teachers, secondary assignments, or subjects outside the core fields of English/language arts, social studies/social sciences, foreign languages, mathematics, or science. Thus, it underestimates the magnitude of the problem. However, despite the conservative nature of the measure, the results indicate that a number of educators were teaching out of field. In 1998, the percent of teachers in grades 7 through 12 who were teaching out of field was 18 percent for mathematics, 14 percent for English/language arts, 12 percent for science, and 11 percent for social studies/social sciences. The percent of teachers in grades 9 through 12 who were teaching out of field was lower—10 percent of mathematics teachers, 4 percent of English/language arts, 6 percent of science teachers, and 4 percent for social studies/social science teachers. This indicates that the problem of out-of-field teaching was more prevalent among teachers of grades 7 and 8.

As I discussed, teaching is complex and the demands continue to change and grow. In order to meet the changing demands of their jobs, high-quality teachers must be capable and willing to continually learn and relearn their trade. Opportunities for continued learning, such as through professional development, are key to building educators’ capacity for effective teaching, particularly in a profession where the demands are changing and expanding. However, traditional approaches to professional development, such as workshops and conferences, have been criticized for being relatively ineffective. In light of these concerns, this report describes professional development activities, including teachers’ participation rates, the duration of professional development activities, and teachers’ perceptions of the extent to which professional development improved their teaching.

As discussed in the report, virtually all teachers participated in professional development activities in the last 12 months (99 percent), although participation varied by activity. For example, 81 percent of teachers participated in activities in state or district curriculum and performance standards, whereas, 31 percent participated in activities in addressing the needs of students with limited English proficiency or from diverse cultural backgrounds.

Of those teachers who participated in professional development, how many hours did they spend in these activities? Most teachers spent 8 hours or less in a given professional development activity. As Figure C (excerpted from table 11 of the report) illustrates, 70 percent of teachers spent 1 to 8 hours in activities in addressing the needs of students with limited English proficiency or from diverse cultural backgrounds; 62 percent spent 1 to 8 hours in activities in educational technology. Recall that these are the same areas that only 20 percent of teachers reported feeling very well prepared to address.

Although a majority of teachers spent limited time in a particular professional development activity, increased time in such activities was strongly associated with perceptions of improvement in teaching. For every content area of professional development, a larger proportion of teachers who participated for more than 8 hours believed it improved their teaching "a lot"

compared with teachers who participated for 1 to 8 hours. As Figure D (excerpted from table 15 of the report) shows, teachers who spent more than 8 hours in professional development in new methods of teaching were more likely than those who spent 1 to 8 hours to report that participation in the program improved their teaching a lot (39 percent versus 12 percent).

The report also found similar patterns for collaboration with colleagues. As discussed in the report, 62 percent of teachers participated in a common planning period for team teachers, and 40 percent of them reported that it improved their teaching a lot. However, 52 percent of teachers who participated in a common planning period for team teachers at least once a week reported that it improved their teaching a lot, compared to only 13 percent of teachers who participated a few times a year.

Conclusions

Overall, this report addresses some of the major concerns about the quality of American teachers. We have seen that a majority of teachers didn’t feel very well qualified to meet many of the challenges they face in their classrooms; most high school teachers had a degree in an academic field, whereas most elementary school teachers did not; a substantial number of teachers were teaching out of field; and although most teachers participated in at least one professional development activity in the past 12 months, most participated in activities that lasted 8 hours or less. In addition, we have learned that more beginning teachers had degrees in an academic field, and teachers who spent more time in professional development and collaborative activities were much more likely to feel that the activity improved their teaching. In addition to the findings I’ve just discussed, this report also provides important information on certification and the work environments in which educators teach—such as formal induction procedures for new teachers and parental support.

Teacher quality is a critical area of focus for the education community and for the National Center for Education Statistics. As the first in a series of biennial reports, Teacher Quality: A Report on the Preparation and Qualifications of Public School Teachers, serves as a benchmark for tracking progress toward improving the quality of teachers in America’s classrooms.