America's Challenge: Effective Teachers for At-Risk Schools and Students

Full text

America’s Challenge:
America’s Challenge:
Effective T
Ef
eachers
fective Teachers
for At-Risk Schools
for At-Risk Schools
and Students
and Students

America’s Challenge: Effective Teachers
for At-Risk Schools and Students
Editor
Carol A. Dwyer, Ph.D.
Contributing Authors
Michael Allen, Ph.D.
Tricia Coulter, Ph.D.
Carol A. Dwyer, Ph.D.
Laura Goe, Ph.D.
John Immerwahr, Ph.D.
Amy Jackson
Jean Johnson
Regina M. Oliver
Amber Ott
Daniel J. Reschly, Ph.D.
Jonathan Rochkind
Cortney Rowland
Susan M. Smartt, Ph.D.
1100 17th Street NW, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20036-4632
877-322-8700 • 202-223-6690
www.ncctq.org
Copyright © 2007 National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality, sponsored under government
cooperative agreement number S283B050051. All rights reserved.
This work was originally produced in whole or in part by the National Comprehensive Center for Teacher
Quality with funds fr
om the U
.S. Department of Education under cooperative agreement number
S283B050051. The content does not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the Department of
Education, nor does mention or visual representation of trade names, commercial products, or organizations
imply endorsement by the federal government.
The National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality is a collaborative effort of Education Commission
of the States, ETS, Learning Point Associates, and Vanderbilt University.

Acknowledgments
The editor and authors who contributed to this report would like to express our deep
appreciation to the colleagues whose constructive input helped shape this report.
In addition to the many National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality (NCCTQ)
staff who assisted us in every stage from planning through production, we would
especially like to thank the following reviewers:
• Charles Coble, The Third Mile Group
• Richard Correnti, University of Michigan
• Sarah Enterline, Boston College
• Phoebe Gillespie, National Association of State Directors of Special Education
• M. Rene Islas, B & D Consulting
• Catherine Oleksiw, Academy for Educational Development
• George Ann Rice, Clark County (NV) School District (retired)
• Mona Wineburg, American Association of State Colleges and Universities
We would also like to thank Peirce Hammond, Bonnie Jones, and Elizabeth Witt of the
U.S. Department of Education for their guidance and for their helpful, substantive reviews
of the content and NCCTQ’s director, Sabrina Laine, for her vision and commitment to
serving at-risk students through activities such as this report.
Carol A. Dwyer, Editor

NCCTQ Advisory Groups
To help ensure its relevance to current policy concerns, regional and state data, and technical
assistance needs, NCCTQ’s work is guided by three groups of advisors: the Advisory Board,
the Communication and Coordination Council, and the Higher Education Council.
Their expertise is vital to the success of NCCTQ’s mission.
The Advisory Board consists of distinguished researchers and professionals in the area of
K–12 education. This group oversees NCCTQ’s work at all levels.
• Pamela Y. England, Forrest City (AK) High School
• Deb Hansen, Iowa Department of Education
• Shirley E. Harris, North Carolina State Board of Education
• Wendy Hughes, Georgia Department of Education
• Teresa Lubbers, Indiana State Senator
• Harry Moberly, Kentucky State Representative
• Colleen Seremet, Maryland State Department of Education
• Shawn Sriver, Indiana Department of Education
• Julie K. Underwood, University of Wisconsin–Madison
• Beverly A. Williams, Arkansas Department of Education
The Communication and Coordination Council helps NCCTQ coordinate research,
dissemination, and capacity-building efforts with other organizations engaged in teacher quality
efforts to share resources and maximize impact.
• Roy Einreinhofer, National Association of State Directors of Teacher Education and Certification
• Phoebe Gillespie, National Center for Special Education Personnel and Related Service
Providers, National Association of State Directors of Special Education
• Susan Karr, American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
• Paul Koehler, Southwest Comprehensive Center, WestEd
• Richard Mainzer, Council for Exceptional Children
• Kathleen Paliokas, Center for Improving Teacher Quality, Interstate New Teacher
Assessment and Support Consortium, Council of Chief State School Officers
• Angela Penfold, Center on Instruction, RMC Research Corporation
•
Kristin Myers Reedy, Northeast Regional Resource Center, Learning Innovations at WestEd
• Michele Rovins, Academy for Educational Development
• Carol Smith, Vice President, Professional Issues, American Association of Colleges for
T
eacher Education
• Bradley Scott, South Central Collaborative for Equity, Intercultural Development
Research Association
• Doris W
illiams, The Rural School and Community T
rust
The Higher Education Council is composed of experts in college and university schools of
education. These teacher scholars and educators provide NCCTQ with invaluable teacher quality
input from the perspective of those who prepare highly qualified and highly effective teachers.
• Albert L. Bennett, Roosevelt University
• Kar
en McLean Donaldson, Spelman College
• Daniel Fallon, Car
negie Corporation
• Gerald Gipp, American Indian Higher Education Consortium
• Nora Her
nandez Hendrix, Miami Dade College
•
Mary Kay Kickels, National Association of Community College Teacher Education Programs
• Herbert Rieth, University of Texas at Austin
• Carol Smith, American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education
• Jon Snyder, Bank Street College of Education
• Mona Wineburg, American Association of State Colleges and Universities
• Jeff Wetzler, Teach for America

Contents
Introduction by Carol A. Dwyer, Ph.D. 1
Chapter 1. Linking Teacher Quality and Student Outcomes by Laura Goe, Ph.D. 7
Chapter 2. Innovation Configurations to Improve Teacher Preparation in 25
Reading, Classroom Behavior Management, and Inclusive Practices
by Daniel J. Reschly, Ph.D., Susan M. Smartt, Ph.D., and Regina M. Oliver
Chapter 3. The Teacher Preparation ➔ Teacher Practices ➔ Student Outcomes 45
Relationship in Special Education by Laura Goe, Ph.D.
Chapter 4. Implementing NCLB: State Plans to Address the Challenge of Equitable 55
Distribution of Effective Teachers by Tricia Coulter, Ph.D.
Chapter 5. Emerging Strategies and Practices to Improve Teacher Quality in 71
At-Risk and Hard-to-Staff Schools and Subject Areas by Cortney Rowland
and Michael Allen, Ph.D.
• How the Fifth Largest County in the Country Recruits and Retains Teachers:
A Case Summary of the Clark County School District
• Recruiting and Retaining Teachers in Shaw, Mississippi: How a Small,
Rural District Staffs Its Classrooms
Chapter 6. Getting Started: A Survey of New Public School Teachers on Their 89
Training and First Months on the Job by Jonathan Rochkind,
John Immerwahr, Ph.D., Amber Ott, and Jean Johnson
Chapter 7. The National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality: A Resource 105
for Systemic Improvement in the Equitable Distribution of Teachers
by Carol A. Dwyer, Ph.D., and Amy Jackson
Glossary 109

Introduction
Carol A. Dwyer, Ph.D., ETS
The National Comprehensive Center for
Teacher Quality (NCCTQ) was launched in
2005 as part of a comprehensive system of
content-based technical assistance to support
states in implementing the priorities of the
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act. NCCTQ’s
mission is to support Regional Comprehensive
Centers (RCCs), states, and other education
stakeholders, such as institutions of higher
education that prepare teachers, in
strengthening the quality of teaching—
especially in high-poverty, low-performing,
and hard-to-staff schools. NCCTQ also
provides guidance in addressing issues related
to highly qualified teachers (HQTs) effectively
serving students with special needs. This report
provides the opportunity to update and report
on what is currently known about successful
teaching in at-risk schools—especially as it
relates to the availability, recruitment, and
retention of HQTs, as well as the opportunity
to report on areas in which more research or
changes in policy or practices remain to be
accomplished. The main body of this report
consists of six chapters related to the main
streams of activity engaged in by NCCTQ
during the past two years:
• A research analysis of the links between
good teaching and student learning. What
do we know about the strength of these
links? How can we harness this knowledge
for the benefit of all students?
• An action-oriented review and analysis of
gaps in the preparation of effective teachers
for at-risk students, including those with
disabilities. Why is effective preparation
critical for both general education and
special education teachers?
• An analysis of the complexity of the issues
involved in improving teaching for special
education students and a demonstration that
this knowledge is put to use in classrooms
and that it ultimately turns out to be
effective for students.
• A review of state policies and strategies that
currently address the challenge of equitable
distribution of effective teachers. Two
distinctive state approaches are highlighted.
• Promising new and emerging teacher
recruitment and retention strategies
and practices that states and districts
are using to improve teacher quality in
at-risk and hard-to-staff subject areas.
A selective review.
• Results from a nationally representative
survey of first-year teachers. A look at the
issues that most relate to their willingness,
preparation, and ability to work in high-
needs schools.
The report also contains an additional chapter,
which describes the nature of NCCTQ’s mission
to improve the equitable distribution of teachers
through a collaborative, systemic approach.
The Issues
It is clear that there is much room for
improvement in American education in
terms of reducing the achievement gaps
that characterize high-risk schools and that
recruiting and retaining motivated, caring,
and effective teachers is key to addressing
these large and long-standing gaps. NCLB
was created to address gaps such as those
illustrated by the following facts:
• According to the National Assessment
of Educational Progress (NAEP), white
12th-grade students are more than twice
as likely as Hispanic students, and almost
three times as likely as black students, to
demonstrate proficient or advanced reading
skills. In mathematics, the disparities are
even more disturbing—only 6 percent of
black 12th-grade students and 8 percent of
Hispanic 12th-grade students score at or
above the proficient level, compared with
29 percent of white students (Grigg,
Donahue, & Dion, 2007).
Introduction
1
1

2
2
• Among high school graduates, black and
Hispanic students have lower grade point
averages than white or Asian-American
students and are less likely to have
completed a rigorous high school
curriculum (Shettle et al., 2007).
• The high schools attended by white or
Asian-American students are more likely
to offer high-level mathematics courses,
such as trigonometry or calculus, than are
high schools with students who are of low
socioeconomic status or who are black or
Hispanic (Adelman, 2006). Intensity of
high school coursework is, in turn, the
factor most closely associated with
completion of a bachelor’s degree.
• Although state accountability assessments
show shrinking achievement gaps and
increased achievement levels for all,
stagnant NAEP scores suggest that state-
administered test scores are inflated,
especially for poor, black, and Hispanic
students (Lee, 2006).
• Students who do not have the advantage
of effective teachers will not only remain
behind others academically, but the gaps
between them and other students will
continue to widen. Most vulnerable are the
students in schools plagued by chronic low
achievement. Not only do these schools
often lack adequate physical facilities and
instructional materials, they also are often
served by teachers who do not have levels
of experience or qualifications comparable
to teachers in higher performing schools.
• In North Carolina, students in the highest
poverty quartile had teachers who were
consistently less qualified than those of
their better-off peers (Clotfelter, Ladd,
Vigdor, & Wheeler, 2006). Specifically,
Students who do not have the advantage
of effective teachers will not only remain
behind others academically, but the gaps
between them and other students will
continue to widen.
teachers in the highest poverty quartile
high schools were more likely than teachers
in the lowest poverty quartile high schools
to be inexperienced (17.3 percent vs.
14.6 percent); less likely to have attended
a selective undergraduate institution
(27.4 percent vs. 14.2 percent); and less
likely to hold a full, regular teaching
license (20.5 percent vs. 13.3 percent).
• High-poverty urban and rural schools
were 4.4 percent to 6.5 percent more
likely to have difficulty hiring special
education teachers and 4.5 percent to
9.6 percent more likely to have difficulty
hiring mathematics teachers (Strizek,
Pittsonberger, Riordan, Lyter, &
Orlofsky, 2006).
• Teachers in high-poverty schools are
7 percent more likely to move to another
school or leave the teaching profession than
those in low-poverty schools, concentrating
the adverse impact of teacher turnover in
these at-risk schools (Ingersoll, 2003).
Even when teachers in these schools have
the experience, credentials, and content
expertise comparable to that of their
counterparts in more successful schools,
they often have not had the preparation or
the ongoing support that is needed to handle
the enormous instructional challenges and
learning environments presented by at-risk
schools. These challenges directly affect
states’ and districts’ abilities to recruit and
retain teachers to staff the nation’s neediest
schools and students.
NCLB’s mandate is clear: All students should
have access to HQTs. For NCLB purposes,
HQTs must possess the following paper
qualifications: full state certification,
bachelor’s degree, and demonstrated subject
matter competency in each of the academic
subjects he or she teaches.
In addition, the law requires that states ensure
an equitable distribution of HQTs. In the
first two years of its operation, NCCTQ has
focused on challenges related to ensuring that
HQTs serve students with special needs—
America's Challenge: Effective Teachers for At-Risk Schools and Students

students who are at risk of poor educational
outcomes and students with disabilities.
This means that there should not be a
disproportionate number of students in high-
poverty urban and rural school districts who
are taught by teachers who are not highly
qualified. These are the complex challenges
addressed in this report.
Highly Qualified Teachers and Highly
Effective Teachers
There are approximately 3 million K–12
teachers in the United States, and their salaries
and benefits are by far the largest share of
any school’s budget. Given this investment
of resources in teachers, it is critical to attend
to the qualities, characteristics, and abilities
teachers bring to the classroom. The standards
by which teacher qualifications, or inputs, are
measured, however, vary widely from state
to state and from district to district and do
not address the issue of whether teachers with
the required qualifications actually improve
students’ academic achievement. Additional
study is needed to identify teachers who
are producing student-learning gains and
determine how and under what conditions
these gains occur.
Recruiting and retaining the highest quality
teachers is important for many reasons.
With a growing population of ethnic minority
students and children living in poverty in
the United States, helping all students achieve
at high levels presents an immense challenge
to our educational system. Although there is
some evidence indicating that achievement
gaps are narrowing, the increasing numbers
of students in K–12 public schools who
historically perform poorly on tests is grounds
for renewed efforts to increase the academic
achievement of this population of learners
and thus further narrow achievement gaps.
Perhaps the most important means of
facilitating high achievement is ensuring that
all students have access to highly effective
teaching. Research using value-added models
and other means of assessing students’
academic growth has been useful in gathering
substantive evidence on whether students have
access to highly effective teaching. Research
has clearly revealed that teacher effectiveness
is not only key to student achievement, but
its impact on student learning is cumulative.
Having a teacher who produces student-
learning gains (perhaps even more than one-
year’s growth) each year for several years in a
row adds significantly to student achievement
(Sanders & Rivers, 1996). Value-added
measures can suggest that students in some
teachers’ classrooms learn more than students
in other classrooms; however, they are not
designed to explain the unique qualities of
these teachers of high-scoring students.
Perhaps the most important means
of facilitating high achievement is
ensuring that all students have
access to highly effective teaching.
A substantial amount of research conducted
during the past several years has examined
various teacher characteristics and attributes
believed to be related to student performance.
These studies have been limited to a certain
extent by the data available. In general,
the teacher characteristics that have been
examined have been those for which data
could be readily obtained, such as experience;
college degrees; subject majors; certifications;
and sometimes, teachers’ test scores on a
variety of state and national teacher licensure
tests. The same is true for students—
standardized test scores have usually been
used as the outcome measure for determining
teachers’ contribution to student learning. It
has always been difficult, however, to obtain
teacher characteristics data that are reliably
linked to student test scores. With the advent
of NCLB, states that previously did not have
data systems for tracking individual students
and teachers are putting such systems into
place, which will make more analyses possible
in the future.
Introduction
3
3

4
4
Solutions and Promising Practices
Nothing will go as far toward improving
the educational attainment of all students—
and especially those in the most troubled
schools—as ensuring that there is an HQT
in every classroom in every state. Research
has shown convincingly that students who lack
effective teachers are destined to fall behind
their peers (e.g., Jordan, Mendro, &
Weerasinghe, 1997; Sanders & Rivers, 1996).
Efforts to address the disparities between
the quality of teachers in high-poverty, low-
performing schools and those in more affluent
schools with high student achievement
generally have been insufficiently focused and
have lacked intensity. States or districts may
tackle the general problem of teacher supply,
for instance, and assume that increasing the
overall number of teachers will benefit all
schools, including those that are hardest to
staff. The positive effects of such efforts,
however, rarely trickle down to the most
vulnerable schools. Furthermore, schools and
districts typically attempt to devise piecemeal
solutions that have minimal, short-term
impact. Developing policies and practices
capable of adequately addressing staffing
problems in at-risk schools requires sustained
work on both the state and district levels.
This, in turn, requires the ongoing
commitment of key stakeholders and
adequate resources. It also requires a solid
understanding of the issues and strategies
to address them. An example of a specific
solution contributed by NCCTQ is the work
that the Vanderbilt University team has
contributed to increasing the availability
of highly qualified and effective teachers.
This work has focused on establishing
evidence-based practices that are especially
important to producing improved achievement
among students with disabilities and at-risk
characteristics. Innovation configurations
defining these practices and varying levels
of implementation have been developed
for RCCs and states to use to improve
teacher preparation, national association
teacher preparation standards, and
licensure procedures.
State and local policymakers, educators, and
technical assistance providers face a variety
of challenges and require assistance.
Policymakers need help identifying proven
academic programs and practices, using
technology, gaining access to rigorous
research and evaluations, and maintaining and
analyzing data. Teachers and school leaders
need access to professional development—
including training, developing, and sharing
strategies for effective teaching. We hope that
this report will contribute to achieving these
complex and challenging goals.
America's Challenge: Effective Teachers for At-Risk Schools and Students

References
Adelman, C. (2006). The toolbox revisited: Paths to degree completion from high school through college. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved September 11, 2007, from http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/
toolboxrevisit/toolbox.pdf
Clotfelter, C., Ladd, H. F., Vigdor, J., & Wheeler, J. (2006).
High-poverty schools and the distribution of teachers and principals.
Washington, DC: National Center for the Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research (CALDER). Retrieved
September 11, 2007, from http://www.caldercenter.org/PDF/1001057_High_Poverty.pdf
Grigg, W., Donahue, P., & Dion, G. (2007). The nation’s report card: 12th-grade reading and mathematics 2005
(NCES 2007.468).Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Ingersoll, R. (2003). Is there really a teacher shortage? (Document R-03-4). Philadelphia: Center for the Study of Teaching and
Policy. Retrieved September 11, 2007, from http://www.ecs.org/html/offsite.asp?document=http%3A%2F%2Fdepts%
2Ewashington%2Eedu%2Fctpmail%2FPDFs%2FShortage%2DRI%2D09%2D2003%2E.pdf
Jordan, H., Mendro, R., & Weerasinghe, D. (1997, July).
Teacher effects on longitudinal student achievement. Paper presented at
the CREATE annual meeting, Indianapolis, IN.
Lee, J. (2006).
Tracking achievement gaps and assessing the impact of NCLB on the gaps: An in-depth look into national and
state reading and math outcome trends. Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University. Retrieved
September 11, 2007, from http://www.civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/esea/nclb_naep_lee.pdf
Sanders, W., & Rivers, J. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future student academic achievement. Knoxville:
University of Tennessee, Value-Added Research and Assessment Center. Retrieved September 11, 2007, from
http://downloads.heartland.org/21803a.pdf
Shettle, C., Roey, S., Mordica, J., Perkins, R., Nord, C., Teodorovic, J., et al. (2007).
The nation’s report card: America’s high
school graduates
(NCES 2007-467). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved September 11,
2007, from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/studies/2007467.pdf
Strizek, G. A., Pittsonberger, J. L., Riordan, K. E., Lyter, D. M., & Orlofsky, G. F. (2006). Characteristics of schools, districts,
teachers, principals, and school libraries in the United States: 2003-04 schools and staffing survey (NCES 2006-313).
Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved September 11, 2007, from http://nces.ed.gov/
pubs2006/2006313_1.pdf
Introduction
5
5

6
6
America's Challenge: Effective Teachers for At-Risk Schools and Students

Chapter 1
Linking Teacher Quality
and Student Outcomes

Chapter 1
Linking Teacher Quality and Student Outcomes
Laura Goe, Ph.D., ETS
Although it is almost universally accepted that
teacher quality is the most important school-
based factor affecting student learning,
there is no clear consensus in the education
community on what dimensions of teacher
quality matter most. The ability to recognize
teacher quality is important for the
following reasons:
• Hiring the highest quality teachers available
is a primary goal of schools and districts.
• Determining teacher quality among
teachers already in classrooms is important
for understanding the distribution of teacher
quality, particularly in relation to student
poverty, minority students, and students
with disabilities, as well as for determining
teacher effectiveness.
• Evaluating the effects of policies and
programs (such as alternative certification
and National Board for Professional
Teaching Standards [National Board]
certification) is important in terms of
establishing their links with teacher quality.
• It is crucial to learn more about how
specific professional development programs
(which may include learning about new
practices, techniques, and strategies) impact
teacher quality.
Teacher effectiveness, here defined as the
contribution a teacher makes to his or her
students’ achievement, is perhaps the most
important dimension of teacher quality
because schools and school systems are
increasingly being held accountable for
student achievement. Parents, policymakers,
and taxpayers want to know about the ways in
which teachers contribute to student learning,
no matter how qualified teachers may appear
to be on paper and regardless of their personal
characteristics and their classroom practices.
Now that the 2005–06 No Child Left Behind
(NCLB) deadline for all states to fill their
classrooms with highly qualified teachers
(HQTs) has passed, the focus is shifting as
states and others try to figure out whether they
have teachers in every classroom who will
contribute appreciably to students’ learning. As
research on the link between teacher qualities
and student outcomes has shown, identifying
effective teachers is an arduous endeavor.
In recent years, as the emphasis on measuring
student learning has increased, the focus has
shifted from holding
schools accountable
for student achievement to holding
teachers
accountable for student learning. Teachers
have been studied and evaluated for years,
usually in their classrooms; however, more
accurate and easily available teacher
information—along with advances in statistical
software and computing power—has led to an
emphasis on evaluating teachers by focusing
on specific qualifications and characteristics
rather than on their classroom behavior. The
most common approach is trying to measure
teachers’ contributions to student achievement
using growth models or value-added models.
In recent years, as the emphasis
on measuring student lear
ning has
incr
eased, the focus has shifted from
holding schools
accountable for student
achievement to holding teachers
accountable for student learning.
As recently as 1978, using student achievement
data to establish teacher effectiveness was
still a somewhat unfamiliar idea. For
example, eight ways of measuring teacher
“effectiveness” were described at the
Conference of the International Association
for Educational Assessment, and only
one
of them focused on measuring teacher
7
7
Linking Teacher Quality and Student Outcomes

8
8
effectiveness through the analysis of students’
achievement scores (Schlusmans, 1978). At
that time, student achievement was used to
evaluate teacher effectiveness in only “some
exceptional cases” (Schlusmans, 1978, pp.
19–20). The other seven methods focused
on examining teacher characteristics using
“existing educational, psychological or
sociological theories”; pupil evaluations; and
the opinions of experienced professionals,
such as principals.
Times have changed; now the push toward
establishing teacher quality by measuring
teachers’ contributions to student achievement
is seen as legitimate and is often even preferred
over other methods. The rapid expansion of
policies using value-added models at the
district and state level is testimony to the
increased interest in this way of measuring
teacher quality. In addition, the policy
expansion has been facilitated by increasingly
sophisticated data systems that permit student
achievement scores to be linked to teachers.
In the past, most teacher quality studies
focused primarily on
inputs, such as a teacher’s
Table 1. Categories and Dimensions of Teacher Quality
tests, and teacher quality is thus defined
empirically by students’ test scores (see
Fetler, 1999; Monk, 1994; Rockoff, 2004;
Vandevoort, Amrein-Beardsley, & Berliner,
2004). This outcomes approach includes
using value-added models, such as the model
developed by William Sanders, which has been
used for many years to evaluate teachers in
Tennessee (Sanders, Saxton, & Horn, 1997).
To help organize thought and discussion
around the various dimensions of teacher
quality, Goe (2007) developed a framework
for analyzing the categories of teacher
quality, as represented in Table 1. There
are four dimensions (teacher qualifications,
characteristics, practices, and effectiveness)
associated with three broad categories (inputs,
processes, and outcomes) that can be used to
analyze teacher quality.
Both teacher qualifications and teacher
characteristics are considered
inputs because
they are what go into the making of a teacher.
Teacher practices are considered
processes
because they are what teachers can be
observed doing in classrooms in the process
Dimensions
Categories
Inputs Processes Outcomes
Teacher Qualifications X
Teacher Characteristics X
T
eacher Practices
X
Teacher Effectiveness X
education, certification, or experience, rather
than on what teachers actually do in the
classroom (see Ferguson & Womack, 1993;
Goldhaber & Brewer, 1999; Milanowski, 2004;
Mullens, Murnane, & Willett, 1996; Sanders,
Skonie-Hardin, Phelps, & Minnis, 1994).
Some research has defined teacher quality
by
outcomes—that is, by how much students
actually learn in the classroom. Student
learning is typically measured by standardized
of teaching. Teacher effectiveness is
considered an outcome because it involves
student learning, the end result of teaching.
There is a natural division among the four
categories: teacher
effectiveness is determined
by student test scores, while teacher
qualifications, characteristics, and practices
can all be used as determinants of teacher
quality, independently of student achievement.
America's Challenge: Effective Teachers for At-Risk Schools and Students

In other words, a teacher has certain
qualifications and characteristics and
exhibits certain practices, whether or not
these categories are ever linked to student
achievement. Teacher effectiveness, however,
is determined wholly by measuring student
achievement: teacher effectiveness cannot
be determined in the absence of outcome
measures, such as standardized test scores.
Qualifications, characteristics, and practices
can be theoretically connected to student
learning and measured by standardized
test scores, but these categories exist
whether or not student learning is measured.
In contrast, effectiveness (as defined by
student achievement) does not exist without
linked student-teacher data.
Many policies in force today, such as those
intended to ensure that poor and minority
students have access to highly qualified,
experienced teachers, use some combination
of inputs and processes to define teacher
quality. There is, however, no large-scale
policy that uses teacher effectiveness—as
determined by teachers’ contribution to student
learning—to define teacher quality for policy
purposes, such as the equitable distribution
of effective teachers.
Teacher Qualifications. Commonly called
teacher inputs, teachers’ qualifications are part
of the resources they bring with them to the
classroom. Inputs are generally thought to
be important in establishing who should be
allowed to teach. The strong reliance on paper
qualifications to determine teacher quality is
probably practical: These qualifications are
easily measured. For example, how many
courses a teacher candidate took in his or her
subject area or what score was obtained on a
licensing test are not difficult to determine.
Inputs can also include teachers’ coursework
and grades, subject matter studied, degrees,
test scores, experience, certification,
and credentials, as well as evidence of
participation in continued learning such as
internships, induction, supplemental training,
and professional development. Experience
can also be considered an input because
it is counted as a qualification for many
reasons, including determining the equitable
distribution of teachers for NCLB purposes.
NCLB has used input qualifications to define
highly qualified relative to a specific teacher
assignment, and teacher quality has often
been conflated with the idea of an HQT.
For NCLB purposes, HQTs must possess
the following inputs (paper qualifications):
full state certification, bachelor’s degree,
and demonstrated subject matter competency
in each of the academic subjects taught.
It is obvious, of course, that simply meeting
the NCLB requirements is, in itself, no
guarantee that teachers will be “high quality,”
in the sense of being effective in their
classrooms, even when they have been
classified as having highly qualified status
for their teaching assignment. The advantage
There is no large-scale policy that uses
teacher effectiveness—as determined by
teachers’ contribution to student
learning—to define teacher quality for
policy purposes, such as the equitable
distribution of effective teachers.
of using qualifications is that they allow
educational decision makers to use
documentation
alone in an attempt to
predict a teacher’s potential effectiveness for
licensing and hiring purposes, prior to any
determination of a teacher’s suitability for
a specific teaching position or demonstrated
effectiveness in the classroom. The major
disadvantage of using qualifications as the
definition of teacher quality is that a teacher
can be deemed to be of high quality on paper
and yet perform poorly in the classroom. By
the same token, teachers who do not appear
to be high quality on paper may actually be
desirable teachers for specific contexts.
9
9
Linking Teacher Quality and Student Outcomes

10
10
Teacher Characteristics. A second category
for defining teacher quality focuses on
teachers’ characteristics, which include
changeable attributes and attitudes of
teachers, as well as immutable (or assigned)
characteristics such as race and gender.
Research linking such characteristics to
student outcomes is still relatively scarce.
The advantage of this view is that it expands
the scope of teacher quality and thus creates
an opportunity for greater precision in our
definition. The main drawback to defining
teacher quality in this way is that it focuses
on characteristics that are often logically,
ethically, or practically beyond the teacher’s
(or school’s) ability to change.
Teacher Practices. A third category of teacher
quality focuses on teachers’ actual classroom
practices and on correlating those practices
with student learning outcomes. The following
examples are ways of examining teacher
practices: evaluating teachers’ questioning
strategies and linking them to student learning,
documenting their classroom management
strategies, determining how they interact
with students, looking at lesson plans, and
recording lesson delivery. By this definition,
teacher quality is ascertained not by what
qualifications teachers have on paper but by
what they actually do in the classroom with
their students.
Higher correlations with what are considered
“better” practices thus define good teaching.
The focus is not on assessing the connection
between what individual teachers do and
what their students learn but rather on the
correlation between certain practices
recommended for all teachers and student-
learning outcomes.
The advantage of assessing teacher practices
is that this method focuses on the classroom—
where the teacher and student interact and
where learning actually takes place. The chief
disadvantage of this approach is that evaluating
teachers in their classrooms is difficult to do
with acceptable validity and reliability. It is
also time-consuming, expensive, and subject to
the complications of context (e.g., differences
among urban and rural schools, high-poverty
and wealthy schools, schools serving large
numbers of English language learners [ELLs],
or a classroom that includes students with
severe behavioral problems).
Another disadvantage of this approach is that
although researchers may focus on looking only
at whether teachers are using a small number of
specific “best” practices, it is likely that teachers
using these best practices are also using other
best practices at the same time. For example,
a teacher who uses a particular questioning
strategy, like “wait time,” may be more likely
to use other good questioning strategies (e.g.,
asking higher order thinking skills questions or
calling on students by a random method rather
than calling on only those who raise their
hands). Thus, linking student learning outcomes
to one best practice (and excluding all others)
is virtually impossible.
Similarly, another limitation of measuring
teacher quality by examining teacher practices
is that it is difficult to control for other
contributions to student learning (e.g., a
classroom climate that is conducive to
learning) or distractions that prevent students
from learning (e.g., a disruptive classmate).
Teacher Effectiveness. The fourth category
of the framework for defining teacher quality
is analyzing teacher effectiveness—by looking
at their students’ learning gains. This is
typically measured by using standardized
achievement tests. This category most closely
approximates a comprehensive measure of
teaching quality, rather than teacher quality.
Teachers might be considered HQTs if their
students learn significantly more than would
have been predicted, given those students’
prior achievement.
A major disadvantage of the effectiveness
definition is that it provides no mechanism
for
predicting who will be HQTs prior to
their actual teaching. In other words, if
teacher quality is to be determined solely by
effectiveness, how will we decide who should
America's Challenge: Effective Teachers for At-Risk Schools and Students

be allowed to teach in the first place—before
any student gains can be assessed? How can
we best ensure that students are protected from
exposure to ineffective teachers?
The difficulty in measuring teacher
effectiveness is that there are many things
that contribute to student learning, making
it difficult to sort out “teacher effects” from
“classroom effects” or even “school effects.”
For example, two Grade 4 teachers with
similar qualifications and experience teaching
in two different schools may have different
results, even if they are both competent
teachers. This is because there are other
contributors to (and detractors from) student
learning besides teacher quality that may
impact learning conditions and thus affect
student performance. Although the following
list is not exhaustive, it includes many of the
variables often correlated with differences in
student achievement:
• School climate
• Students’ peers
• Absenteeism
• Students’ fluency in English
• Community support for schooling
• Parental “press” for schooling
• Availability of resources (textbooks,
supplementary materials to support
learning, laboratories, computers,
Internet connectivity, libraries)
• Appropriate facilities (orderly, safe, and
comfortable, with adequate space to
conduct a range of learning activities)
• Instructional offerings appropriate to the
grade level
• Time on task without intrusions (from
announcements, disturbances in the halls,
disruptive classmates, other adults or
students entering and exiting the classroom)
• Alignment of curriculum with books
and materials
• Alignment of books and curriculum with
the standardized test
• Appropriate support for teachers (induction,
mentoring, and high-quality professional
development opportunities)
• Teachers’ sense of community
and collegiality
• Release time during regular school hours
for teachers to engage in professional
development (observing colleagues’
classrooms, engaging in collaboration,
and attending professional development)
Thus, substantial differences among these
context variables may impact how similarly
qualified and experienced teachers actually
perform when student achievement is used
to define teacher quality. This is an important
cause for concern when using value-added
models to compare teachers to one another.
Some researchers, particularly Sanders who
designed and implemented value-added
models for ranking Tennessee teachers, have
argued that because students’ prior test scores
are used as controls in the calculations, there
is no need to take into account other variables
such as those listed above (Sanders & Horn,
1998). The theory behind this belief is that
demographic variables (e.g., race, poverty,
and parental education) and context variables
(e.g., school climate, peers, and access to
appropriate curriculum and materials for
learning) change little over time. These
variables affect student test scores, so they
are assumed to be included in the test scores.
This theory only holds if the context variables
actually do not change. Given the myriad
variables that go into the making of a school
or a classroom within a school, it is difficult
to ensure that, after controlling for students’
prior achievement, teachers alone are the sole
contributors to students’ test scores.
Not everyone agrees that the current generation
of value-added models has sufficient validity
and reliability to be used for teacher evaluation
(Braun, 2005; Kupermintz, 2003; Lockwood,
Louis, & McCaffrey, 2002), and using them to
measure teacher effectiveness and determine
teacher quality remains highly controversial.
11
11
Linking Teacher Quality and Student Outcomes

12
12
Another practical issue with using value-added
models to measure teacher effectiveness is that
the score tells us virtually nothing about what
happened within a particular classroom. What
did the teacher do, and what occurred in the
classroom that impacted student achievement
and thus yielded a particular value-added score
for the teacher? Although a score for each
teacher may be useful in identifying classrooms
in which more or less learning than expected
is taking place, education professionals,
administrators, and policy makers learn
nothing about how to improve teaching
from such analyses.
In addition, using value-added models to
measure teacher effectiveness is not well
suited to evaluating teachers of students with
disabilities or ELLs because these students’
performance on standardized achievement
tests may reflect different rates of growth in
language ability or in other abilities for which
they require special curriculum and instruction.
Thus, predicting future achievement for
students with disabilities or ELLs is
problematic, making the evaluation of their
teachers based on those scores uncertain at best.
More research needs to be conducted
before rewards are given or remediation
efforts are undertaken based solely on
students’ gain scores on standardized tests.
Findings
Goe (2007) presented summaries of more
than 50 recent studies that measured some
aspect of teacher quality, including teacher
qualifications, characteristics, and practices.
Other studies used value-added models to
suggest that certain scores reflected teacher
quality, although these studies do not identify
what these teachers are doing in their
classrooms or which particular qualifications
and characteristics they possess. In that sense,
using value-added models to identify teacher
quality is a measure that holds promise but
provides little information without conducting
additional research into the backgrounds of
teachers and their classroom practices.
The end result of synthesizing these studies
was to find some evidence that suggests that
particular qualifications matter, but in most cases,
the evidence is either weak (i.e., there does not
appear to be a significant effect on student
achievement) or mixed (i.e., some studies suggest
that a particular qualification, characteristic, or
behavior was significantly related to teacher
quality, while other studies found that it was not).
There are, however, some findings that are both
consistent and strong. These findings are
described in the following section.
Interpreting the Findings
Caveats.
It is important to note that measuring
teacher quality by student achievement is
problematic. In some studies, factors that
would logically and theoretically be related
to student achievement may appear to be only
weakly related or not related at all. This might
be a sample size issue (smaller sample sizes
make it difficult to determine effects), or it
could be that the theory is wrong or that
student mobility or data quality is the culprit.
In addition, the measurement tools and
statistical analyses might not be sensitive
or precise enough to capture effects that
are actually present.
State standardized student achievement tests
are not ideal for measuring the effects of
changes in instructional practice because they
were designed to measure student learning,
not to identify differences in teachers based on
student gains. The achievement tests commonly
used throughout the United States have not been
designed or validated for purposes of sorting
teachers. This makes the results of such efforts
difficult to interpret. More research needs to
be conducted before rewards are given or
remediation efforts are undertaken based solely
on students’ gain scores on standardized tests.
Another concern is that in many of the studies
reviewed, the measurement instruments used
may not be appropriate for detecting subtle
America's Challenge: Effective Teachers for At-Risk Schools and Students

differences in teacher practices. For example,
most of the scales used for teacher evaluation
or for survey research are simple Likert scales.
Likert scales indicate a level of agreement
with a particular statement, usually on a 4-
or 5-point scale from “strongly agree” to
“strongly disagree.” Problems with the use
of these scales include the tendency that
respondents have to avoid the “extreme”
answers and to choose only the middle answers
and an unwillingness to answer in ways that
might be considered “wrong” by others. When
evaluating a teacher with a 4-point scale, it
is unlikely that a teacher will score an average
of 1 or 4. Instead, he or she will probably score
a few 1s, mostly 2s and 3s, and a few 4s. The
average score will thus probably fall between
2.5 and 3.5. When the spread of the teachers’
scores on this instrument is so constrained,
it is very difficult to correlate the scores with
student achievement and find meaningful,
statistically significant effects. Thus, improving
instruments to increase the range and precision
of scores from surveys and evaluations may
produce more useful results.
Finally, doing teacher observations in an attempt
to link particular strategies or practices with
student achievement gains is a complex
endeavor. As noted above, teachers who
are found to use one promising strategy for
improving student learning may be using others
as well, but if observation instruments are only
noting the specific strategies of interest and
ignoring others that may also contribute to
improved achievement, this could create a
false impression that the strategy of interest to
the evaluator is causing the improved student
achievement when, in truth, a constellation
of good strategies might be operating
simultaneously. Similarly, a teacher who is using
a good strategy may be working in a classroom
or school context that is not optimal for student
learning. In such a case, it may appear that the
strategy of interest is not effective; therefore, it is
important to consider the repertoire of teaching
strategies as well as teaching context when
determining the impact of a particular teacher
practice on student achievement.
There Are Subject Matter and Grade Level
Differences in What Matters
A teacher’s certification to teach mathematics
and a teacher’s degree in mathematics are
positively correlated with students’ mathematics
achievement in all grades but particularly so
in secondary school. This is not to say that
certification does not matter for social studies,
science, and other important school subjects,
but the evidence is inconsistent on whether
there are significant gains in student
achievement based on teachers’ certification
status in these areas. It remains to be
demonstrated that subject-specific coursework,
degrees, and certifications in these other areas
are essential for high levels of student learning.
It may seem puzzling that mathematics is
apparently more sensitive to instruction than,
say, reading. There is, however, an interesting
theory that may explain why teachers who take
more mathematics courses and are certified
to teach mathematics have a stronger impact
on student learning. Nye, Konstantopoulos,
and Hedges (2004) have theorized that
“mathematics is mostly learned in school
and thus may be more directly influenced by
teachers [while reading] is more likely to be
learned (in part) outside of school” (p. 247).
Thus, if students are exposed to mathematics
concepts and are given opportunities to explore
and practice mathematics in only one place—
the classroom—it is very important that the
teachers be fully competent to guide their
students’ learning. The evidence is not clear
on how important it is for teachers in other
subjects to have focused competence and
adequate courses in their subjects.
Does this mean that requirements for
mathematics teachers should be stricter than
for other teachers? At this time, there is no
evidence that suggests tightening requirements
for mathematics teachers would improve
educational outcomes for students.
Even if it were evident, the practical issue of
supply and demand must be resolved before
attempting to tighten requirements for
13
13
Linking Teacher Quality and Student Outcomes

14
14
mathematics teachers. Mathematics teachers
are in short supply (National Commission
on Mathematics and Science Teaching for
the 21st Century, 2000; The Urban Teacher
Collaborative, 2000; U.S. Department of
Education & Office of Postsecondary
Education, 2005). The supply of mathematics
teachers is unlikely to increase as long as
there are few salary incentives to become
mathematics teachers and many salary
incentives to go into other careers in which
mathematics skills are highly valued.
For years, differential pay has been considered
to attract more mathematics teachers, but there
is no convincing evidence that such a strategy
has actually increased the number of highly
qualified mathematics teachers, particularly
in at-risk schools.
It should be noted that the same supply-and-
demand considerations apply to special
education teachers. Appropriate training and
certification are particularly important for
this group because of the highly specialized
nature of instruction involved in working
with students with disabilities, yet in some
areas, appropriately certified special education
teachers are in short supply.
For years, differential pay has been
considered to attract more mathematics
teachers, but there is no convincing evidence
that such a strategy has actually increased
the number of highly qualified mathematics
teachers, particularly in at-risk schools.
Teacher Experience Matters, but Only
in the First Few Years of Teaching
The research summarized in Goe (2007)
suggests that teachers reach their peak
performance by increments within the
first four or five years of teaching. After
that, student learning is affected little by
additional years of teaching.
This suggests that we need to continue efforts
to ensure that the most
inexperienced teachers,
particularly teachers in their first year or two
of teaching, are not routinely assigned to
schools where the challenges are greatest,
such as schools with large percentages of
students living in poverty, minority students,
ELLs, students with disabilities, and low-
achieving students.
As part of NCLB’s HQT requirements, states
are under increasing pressure to ensure that
highly qualified,
experienced teachers are
equitably distributed among schools. Few
states appear to have effective policies in place
to ensure that beginning teachers are
not placed
in hard-to-staff schools. States, however, will
need to develop, implement, and evaluate
targeted strategies to address the problem
because of the pressure to demonstrate
improvements in teacher distribution.
Teacher turnover patterns suggest that poor
and minority students are more likely to be
taught by inexperienced teachers (Clotfelter,
Ladd, & Vigdor, 2005), and as teachers gain
more experience, they move to schools with
higher achievement, fewer minority students,
and fewer poor students (Lankford, Loeb,
& Wyckoff, 2002; Useem & Farley, 2004).
Keeping teachers in at-risk schools long enough
for the students to have the benefit of their
teachers’ increased experience may require new
policies and incentives. For example, North
Carolina began paying mathematics teachers a
bonus of $1,800 per year for teaching in certain
at-risk schools. The bonus appeared to have an
impact on teachers’ retention in these schools,
and the teachers most likely to stay were those
with more experience (Clotfelter, Glennie,
Ladd, & Vigdor, 2006). Other similar efforts to
provide incentives for teachers to remain in at-
risk schools are under way. These efforts are
hampered because it is not known how much
money is enough to keep teachers in at-risk
schools, especially because the amount may
differ among schools—teachers may want
more money to stay in some particularly
challenging schools.
America's Challenge: Effective Teachers for At-Risk Schools and Students

Furthermore, it is impossible to predict with
certainty which teachers are likely to transfer,
so the incentive money may be given to all
teachers meeting a similar requirement (e.g.,
teaching mathematics), even if many of them
have no intention of transferring. Thus, it is
not simply a matter of paying $1,800 to each
teacher who intends to transfer but $1,800 to
each teacher in a particular category, regardless
of his or her intentions. This is one of the
serious limitations of “blanket incentives.”
Targeted incentives are far more cost-effective;
they apply funds only to certain individuals.
Putting such policies into place is often
difficult, however, because of collective
bargaining agreements and policies that
discourage differential pay.
Recommendations
Toward a New Definition of
Teacher Quality
The definition of teacher quality is currently
in flux, but there are some factors that seem
likely to contribute to a more progressive
definition. Such a definition of teacher quality
(and perhaps teacher certification) might
encompass two stages: (1) an initial set of
qualifications tied to the subject matter and
grade level being taught that must be met
before a teacher is allowed to take charge of a
classroom and (2) mechanisms for evaluating
a teacher’s effectiveness in producing student
learning—with the caveat that teaching
experience must be taken into consideration
as part of this evaluation, given that teachers
appear to incrementally gain increasing ability
to impact student learning in the first five
years or so of teaching. In this two-stage
process for determining teacher quality,
teachers would be evaluated initially on
their
paper qualifications and later on their
effectiveness once they have begun instructing
students in the classroom. The effectiveness
component may involve some combination
of expert and/or peer evaluation, teacher
portfolios, and value-added scores.
The expert and/or peer evaluation component
will ensure that a teacher is meeting
expectations as judged by another education
professional. The teacher portfolio component
will ensure that teachers also have a way of
documenting what they know and can do.
The value-added scores provide additional
documentation of teachers’ effectiveness from
the standpoint of student achievement scores.
Using any of these measures as the
sole
means of determining teacher quality would
be problematic, but combining such measures
may result in the identification of HQTs, which
makes sense empirically as well as practically.
As part of NCLB’s HQT requirements, states
are under increasing pressure to ensure that
highly qualified, experienced teachers are
equitably distributed among schools.
15
15
Linking Teacher Quality and Student Outcomes

Bringing Quality Online
The National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality’s Teaching
Quality (TQ) Source
website (www.tqsource.org) is the premier source
for information on teacher quality and leadership quality.
The TQ Source website offers links to policy and publication databases,
interactive data tools, and exciting regional and national programs and
initiatives relating to teacher quality. The site also includes TQ Source
Tips and Tools, with user-friendly guides to emerging strategies as well
as established practices for enhancing the quality of teaching and learning
in our schools.
Access a multitude of resources related to the career continuum of
teachers and leaders—from preparation and certification to recruitment,
retention, and advancement.
16
16
• State Policy Databases
• Interactive Data Tools
• Publications Databases
• Exciting Initiatives
• TQ Source Tips and Tools: Emerging Strategies to
Enhance Educator Quality
Every topic features links
to all of these resource pools!
Preparation
Certification
and Licensure
Recruitment
and Retention
Accountability
and Advancement
TEACHING
QUALITY
Educator Quality Topic

Data Sources Used to Define Teacher Quality
Surveys
Author-Developed Teacher Surveys
Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning, measure, and
impact on student achievement.
American Educational Research Journal, 37(2), 479–507.
Hill, H. C., Rowan, B., & Ball, D. L. (2005). Effects of teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching on
student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 317–406.
Leana, C. R., & Pil, F. K. (2006). Social capital and organizational performance: Evidence from urban
public schools.
Organization Science, 17(3), 353–366.
McCaffrey, D. F., Hamilton, L. S., Stecher, B. M., Klein, S. P., Bugliari, D., & Robyn, A. (2001).
Interactions among instructional practices, curriculum, and student achievement: The case of
standards-based high school mathematics.
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,
32(5), 493–517.
McColsky, W., Stronge, J. H., Ward, T. J., Tucker, P. D., Howard, B., Lewis, K., et al. (2005).
Teacher
effectiveness, student achievement, and National Board Certified teachers. Arlington, VA: National
Board for Professional Teaching Standards.
Smith, J. B., Lee, V. E., & Newmann, F. M. (2001).
Instruction and achievement in Chicago elementary
schools. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
Vandevoort, L. G., Amrein-Beardsley, A., & Berliner, D. C. (2004). National Board certified teachers and
their students’ achievement.
Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12(46). Retrieved September 11,
2007, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v12n46/
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Questionnaires
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence.
Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1). Retrieved September 11, 2007, from
http://e
paa.asu.edu/e
paa/v8n1/
Monk, D. H. (1994). Subject area preparation of secondary mathematics and science teachers and student
achievement.
Economics of Education Review, 13(2), 125–145.
W
englinsk
y
, H. (2000).
Ho
w teac
hing ma
tters: Bringing the classroom back into discussions of teacher
quality
(Policy Information Center Report). Princeton, NJ: ETS.
W
englinsk
y, H. (2002). How schools matter: The link between teacher classroom practices and student
academic perf
or
mance
.
Educa
tion P
olic
y
Anal
ysis Archives, 10
(12). Retr
ie
v
ed Se
ptember 11,
2007,
from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n12/
Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) Questionnaires
Marcoulides, G. A., Heck, R. H., & Papanastasiou, C. (2005). Student perceptions of school culture and
achievement: Testing the invariance of a model. International Journal of Educational Management,
19(2), 140–152.
17
17
Linking Teacher Quality and Student Outcomes

18
18
National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS: 1988)
Ehrenberg, R. G., Goldhaber, D. D., & Brewer, D. J. (1995). Do teachers’ race, gender, and ethnicity
matter? Evidence from the National Educational Longitudinal Study of 1988. Industrial and Labor
Relations Review, 48
(3), 547–561.
Goldhaber, D. D., & Brewer, D. J. (1999). Teacher licensing and student achievement. In M. Kanstoroom
& C. E. Finn, Jr. (Eds.), Better teachers, better schools (pp. 83-102). Washington, DC: The Thomas B.
Fordham Foundation.
Rowan, B., Chiang, F. S., & Miller, R. J. (1997). Using research on employees’ performance to study the
effects of teachers on students’ achievement.
Sociology of Education, 70, 256–284.
Prospects National Longitudinal Survey
Rowan, B., Correnti, R., & Miller, R. J. (2002). What large-scale, survey research tells us about
teacher effects on student achievement: Insights from the Prospects Study of Elementary Schools.
Teachers College Record, 104(8), 1525–1567.
California Basic Education Data System (CBEDS)
Betts, J. R., Zau, A. C., & Rice, L. A. (2003). Determinants of student achievement: New evidence from
San Diego. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California.
Brazilian EDURURAL Project
Harbison, R. W., & Hanushek, E. A. (1992). Educational performance of the poor: Lessons from rural
northeast Brazil. New York: Oxford University Press.
Student Surveys
Frome, P., Lasater, B., & Cooney, S. (2005). Well-qualified teachers and high-quality teaching: Are they
the same? (Research Brief). Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Education Board. Retrieved September
11, 2007, from http://www.sreb.org/programs/hstw/publications/briefs/
05V06_Research_Brief_high-quality_teaching.pdf
Marcoulides, G. A., Heck, R. H., & Papanastasiou, C. (2005). Student perceptions of school culture and
achievement: Testing the invariance of a model. International Journal of Educational Management,
19(2),
140–152.
Parental Surveys
Leana, C. R., & Pil, F. K. (2006). Social capital and organizational performance: Evidence from urban
pub
lic sc
hools.
Or
g
aniza
tion Science
,17
(3),
353–366.
Teacher Interviews
Jacob, B. A., & Lefgren, L. (2005). Principals as agents: Subjective performance measurement in
education (Faculty Research Working Paper Series RWP05-040). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Kannapel, P. J., & Clements, S. K. (with Taylor, D., & Hibpshman, T.) (2005). Inside the black box of
high-performing high-poverty schools. Lexington, KY: Prichard Committee for Academic Excellence.
Noell, G. H. (2006). Value added assessment of teacher preparation (Annual Report). Baton Rouge:
Louisiana State University.
America's Challenge: Effective Teachers for At-Risk Schools and Students

Nye, B., Konstantopoulos, S., & Hedges, L. V. (2004). How large are teacher effects? Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26
(3), 237–257.
Rockoff, J. E. (2004). The impact of individual teachers on student achievement: Evidence from panel
data.
American Economic Review, 94(2), 247–252.
Instructional Artifacts
Matsumura, L. C., Garnier, H., Pascal, J., & Valdés, R. (2002). Measuring instructional quality in
accountability systems: Classroom assignments and student achievement. Educational Assessment,
8
(3), 207–229.
Matsumura, L. C., Slater, S. C., Junker, B., Peterson, M., Boston, M., Steele, M., et al. (2006).
Measuring
reading comprehension and mathematics instruction in urban middle schools: A pilot study of the
Instructional Quality Assessment
(CSE Technical Report No. 681). Los Angeles: Center for the Study
of Evaluation.
McColsky, W., Stronge, J. H., Ward, T. J., Tucker, P. D., Howard, B., Lewis, K., et al. (2005). Teacher
effectiveness, student achievement, and National Board Certified teachers.
Arlington, VA: National
Board for Professional Teaching Standards.
Newmann, F. M., Bryk, A. S., & Nagaoka, J. K. (2001).
Authentic intellectual work and standardized tests:
Conflict or coexistence? Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
Observations
Researcher
Matsumura, L. C., Slater, S. C., Junker, B., Peterson, M., Boston, M., Steele, M., et al. (2006). Measuring
reading comprehension and mathematics instruction in urban middle schools: A pilot study of the
Instructional Quality Assessment (CSE Technical Report No. 681). Los Angeles: Center for the Study
of Evaluation.
McColsky, W., Stronge, J. H., Ward, T. J., Tucker, P. D., Howard, B., Lewis, K., et al. (2005).
Teacher
effectiveness, student achievement, and National Board Certified teachers. Arlington, VA: National
Board for Professional Teaching Standards.
Sc
hacter, J., & Thum, Y. M. (2004). Paying for high- and low-quality teaching.
Economics of Educa
tion
Review, 23
, 411–430.
Administr
a
tor
Borman, G. D., & Kimball, S. M. (2005). Teacher quality and educational equality: Do teachers with
higher standards-based evaluation ratings close student achievement gaps? The Elementary School
Journal, 106(1), 3–20.
Galla
gher, H. A. (2004). Vaughn Elementary’s innovative teacher evaluation system: Are teacher evaluation
scores related to growth in student achievement?
Peabody Journal of Education,
79(4), 79–107.
Heneman,
H. G
.,
Milanowski, A., Kimball, S. M., & Odden, A. (2006).
Standar
ds-based teac
her
evaluation as a foundation for knowledge- and skill-based pay
(CPRE Policy Brief No. RB-45).
Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education. Retrieved September 11, 2007, from
http://www
.wcer
.wisc.edu/cpre/publications/rb45.pdf
19
19
Linking Teacher Quality and Student Outcomes

20
20
Holtzapple, E. (2003). Criterion-related validity evidence for a standards-based teacher evaluation system.
Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 17(3), 207–219.
Jacob, B. A., & Lefgren, L. (2005). Principals as agents: Subjective performance measurement in
education
(Faculty Research Working Paper Series RWP05-040). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Kimball, S. M., White, B., Milanowski, A. T., & Borman, G. (2004). Examining the relationship between
teacher evaluation and student assessment results in Washoe County.
Peabody Journal of Education,
79(4), 54–78.
Milanowski, A. (2004). The relationship between teacher performance evaluation scores and student
achievement: Evidence from Cincinnati.
Peabody Journal of Education, 79(4), 33–53.
Auditor
Kannapel, P. J., & Clements, S. K. (with Taylor, D., & Hibpshman, T.). (2005). Inside the black box of
high-performing high-poverty schools.
Lexington, KY: Prichard Committee for Academic Excellence.
Observations Using Charlotte Danielson’s Enhancing Professional Practice: A Framework
for Teaching
Borman, G. D., & Kimball, S. M. (2005). Teacher quality and educational equality: Do teachers with
higher standards-based evaluation ratings close student achievement gaps? The Elementary School
Journal, 106(1), 3–20.
Gallagher, H. A. (2004). Vaughn Elementary’s innovative teacher evaluation system: Are teacher evaluation
scores related to growth in student achievement? Peabody Journal of Education,
79
(4), 79–107.
Heneman, H. G., Milanowski, A., Kimball, S. M., & Odden, A. (2006).
Standards-based teacher
evaluation as a foundation for knowledge- and skill-based pay (CPRE Policy Brief No. RB-45).
Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education. Retrieved September 11, 2007, from
http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/cpre/publications/rb45.pdf
Holtzapple, E. (2003). Criterion-related validity evidence for a standards-based teacher evaluation system.
Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 17(3), 207–219.
Kimball, S. M., White, B., Milanowski, A. T., & Borman, G. (2004). Examining the relationship between
teacher evaluation and student assessment results in Washoe County. Peabody Journal of Education,
79(4),
54–78.
Milanowski, A. (2004). The relationship between teacher performance evaluation scores and student
ac
hie
vement: Evidence from Cincinnati.
P
ea
body Journal of Education, 79
(4),
33–53.
Archival Data
State or District Administrative Records
Aar
onson,
D
., Barrow, L., & Sander, W. (2003).
T
eac
her
s and student achievement in the Chicago public
high schools
(Working Paper Series No. WP 02-28). Chicago: Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.
Bo
yd, D., Grossman, P., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2005).
Ho
w changes in entry requirements
alter the teac
her w
or
kf
or
ce and affect student achievement.
Alban
y
,
NY
:
Teacher Policy Research.
Carr, M. (2006).
The determinants of student achievement in Ohio’s public schools (Policy Report).
Columb
us,
OH:
Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions.
America's Challenge: Effective Teachers for At-Risk Schools and Students

Cavalluzzo, L. C. (2004). Is National Board Certification an effective signal of teacher quality? (Report
No. IPR 11204). Alexandria, VA: CNA Corporation.
Clotfelter, C. T., Ladd, H. F., & Vigdor, J. L. (2006).
Teacher-student matching and the assessment of
teacher effectiveness
(NBER Working Paper No. 11936). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of
Economic Research.
Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. C. (1998).
Instructional policy and classroom performance: The mathematics
reform in California (CPRE Research Report No. RR-39). Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy
Research in Education.
Darling-Hammond, L., Holtzman, D. J., Gatlin, S. J., & Vasquez Heilig, J. (2005). Does teacher
preparation matter? Evidence about teacher certification, Teach for America, and teacher effectiveness.
Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(42). Retrieved September 11, 2007, from
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v13n42/
Decker, P. T., Mayer, D. P., & Glazerman, S. (2004).
The effects of Teach for America on students:
Findings from a national evaluation.
Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research.
Frome, P., Lasater, B., & Cooney, S. (2005).
Well-qualified teachers and high-quality teaching:
Are they the same? (Research Brief). Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Education Board.
Retrieved September 11, 2007, from http://www.sreb.org/programs/hstw/publications/briefs/
05V06_Research_Brief_high-quality_teaching.pdf
Goe, L. (2002). Legislating equity: The distribution of emergency permit teachers in California.
Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(42), 1–50.
Goldhaber, D., & Anthony, E. (2005). Can teacher quality be effectively assessed? (Working Paper).
Seattle, WA: Center on Reinventing Public Education. Retrieved September 11, 2007, from
http://www.crpe.org/workingpapers/pdf/NBPTSquality_report.pdf
Harbison, R. W., & Hanushek, E. A. (1992). Educational performance of the poor: Lessons from rural
northeast Brazil. New York: Oxford University Press.
Harris, D. N., & Sass, T. R. (2007). The effects of NBPTS-certified teachers on student achievement
(CALDER Working Paper No. 4). Washington, DC: National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal
Data in Education Research. Retrieved September 11, 2007, from
http://www.caldercenter.org/PDF/1001060_NBPTS_Certified.pdf
Jacob, B. A., & Lefgren, L. (2005).
Principals as agents: Subjective performance measurement in
educa
tion
(F
aculty Resear
c
h
W
orking Paper Series RWP05-040). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Kane, T. J., Rockoff, J. E., & Staiger, D. O. (2006, March).
What does certification tell us about teacher
effectiveness? Evidence from New York City. New York: New York National Bureau of Economic Research.
Kannapel, P. J., & Clements, S. K. (with Taylor, D., & Hibpshman, T.). (2005). Inside the black box of
high-perf
orming high-poverty schools.
Le
xington, KY: Prichard Committee for Academic Excellence.
Leana, C. R., & Pil, F. K. (2006). Social capital and organizational performance: Evidence from urban
public schools. Organization Science, 17(3), 353–366.
Noell,
G
. H. (2006).
V
alue ad
ded assessment of teac
her pr
e
paration
(Ann
ual Re
por
t). Ba
ton Roug
e:
Louisiana State University.
Roc
k
of
f
, J. E. (2004). The impact of individual teachers on student achievement: Evidence from panel
da
ta.
Amer
ican Economic Re
vie
w
,
94
(2),
247–252.
21
21
Linking Teacher Quality and Student Outcomes

22
22
Sanders, W. L., Ashton, J. J., & Wright, S. P. (2005). Comparison of the effects of NBPTS certified teachers
with other teachers on the rate of student academic progress.
Arlington, VA: National Board for
Professional Teaching Standards. Retrieved September 11, 2007, from http://www.nbpts.org/
UserFiles/File/SAS_final_NBPTS_report_D_-_Sanders.pdf
Smith, J. B., Lee, V. E., & Newmann, F. M. (2001).
Instruction and achievement in Chicago elementary
schools.
Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System
Dee, T. S. (2004). The race connection: Are teachers more effective with students who share their
ethnicity?
Education Next, 2, 52–59.
Nye, B., Konstantopoulos, S., & Hedges, L. V. (2004). How large are teacher effects? Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(3), 237–257.
Texas Schools Project
Hanushek, E. A., Kain, J. F., O’Brien, D. M., & Rivkin, S. G. (2005). The market for teacher quality
(Working Paper No. 11154). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau for Economic Research.
Rivkin, S. G., Hanushek, E. A., & Kain, J. F. (2005). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement.
Econometrica, 73(2), 417–458.
References
Braun, H. I. (2005). Using student progress to evaluate teachers: A primer on value-added models. Princeton, NJ: Educational
Testing Service.
Clotfelter, C., Glennie, E., Ladd, H., & Vigdor, J. (2006). Would higher salaries keep teachers in high-poverty schools? Evidence
from a policy intervention in North Carolina (Working Paper No. 12285). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic
Research. Retrieved September 11, 2007, from http://www.caldercenter.org/PDF/1001057_High_Poverty.pdf
Clotfelter, C. T., Ladd, H. F., & Vigdor, J. L. (2005). Who teaches whom? Race and the distribution of novice teachers.
Economics
of Education Review, 24(4), 377–392.
Ferguson, P., & Womack, S. T. (1993). The impact of subject matter and education coursework on teaching performance. Journal
of Teacher Education, 44(1), 55–63.
Fetler, M. (1999). High school staff characteristics and mathematics test results. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 7(9).
Retrieved September 11, 2007, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v7n9/
Goe, L. (2007).
The link between teacher quality and student outcomes. Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for
Teacher Quality.
Goldhaber, D. D., & Brewer, D. J. (Eds.). (1999). Teacher licensing and student achievement. Washington, DC: Thomas B.
Fordham Foundation.
Kupermintz, H. (2003). Teacher effects and teacher effectiveness: A validity investigation of the Tennessee value added assessment
system. Educa
tional Ev
alua
tion and P
olicy
Analysis, 25
(3),
287–298.
Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2002). Teacher sorting and the plight of urban schools: A descriptive analysis. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24
(1), 37–62.
Lockwood, J. R., Louis, T. A., & McCaffrey, D. F. (2002). Uncertainty in rank estimation: Implications for value-added modeling
accountability systems.
Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 27(3), 255–270.
Milanowski, A. (2004). The relationship between teacher performance evaluation scores and student achievement: Evidence from
Cincinnati. Peabody Journal of Education, 79(4), 33–53.
Monk, D. H. (1994). Subject area preparation of secondary mathematics and science teachers and student achievement.
Economics
of Educa
tion Re
vie
w, 13
(2),
125–145.
America's Challenge: Effective Teachers for At-Risk Schools and Students

Mullens, J. E., Murnane, R. J., & Willett, J. B. (1996). The contribution of training and subject matter knowledge to teaching
effectiveness: A multilevel analysis of longitudinal evidence from Belize. Comparative Education Review, 40(2), 139–157.
National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century. (2000).
Before it’s too late: A report to the
nation from the National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century.
Washington, DC: U.S.
De
partment of Education. Retrieved September 11, 2007, from http://www.ed.gov/inits/Math/glenn/report.pdf
Nye, B., Konstantopoulos, S., & Hedges, L. V. (2004). How large are teacher effects? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
26(3), 237–257.
Roc
koff, J. E. (2004). The impact of individual teachers on student achievement: Evidence from panel data.
Amer
ican Economic
Review, 94(2), 247–252.
Sanders, W. L., & Horn, S. P. (1998). Research findings from the Tennessee value-added assessment system (TVAAS) database:
Implications for educational evaluation and research.
Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 12(3), 247–256.
Sanders, W. L., Saxton, A. M., & Horn, S. P. (1997). The Tennessee value-added assessment system: A quantitative, outcomes-
based approach to educational assessment. In J. Millman (Ed.),
Grading teachers, grading schools: Is student achievement
a valid evaluation measure? (pp. 137-162). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Sanders, S. L., Skonie-Hardin, S. D., Phelps, W. H., & Minnis, T. L. (1994, November). The effects of teacher educational
attainment on student educational attainment in four regions of Virginia: Implications for administrators.
Paper presented
at the Annual Meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, Nashville, TN. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. 386 455). Retrieved September 11, 2007, from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/
content_storage_01/0000019b/80/14/24/97.pdf
Schlusmans, K. (1978).
What is an effective teacher? Paper presented at the Conference of the International Association for
Educational Assessment, Baden, Austria.
The Urban Teacher Collaborative. (2000). The urban teacher challenge: Teacher demand and supply in the great city schools
(Report). Belmont, MA: Council of the Great City Schools. Retrieved September 11, 2007, from
http://www.cgcs.org/pdfs/utc.pdf
U.S. Department of Education & Office of Postsecondary Education. (2005).
A highly qualified teacher in every classroom:
The secretary’s fourth annual report on teacher quality. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved September 11, 2007, from
http://www.title2.org/TitleIIReport05.pdf
Useem, E., & Farley, E. (2004). Philadelphia’s teacher hiring and school assignment practices: Comparisons with other districts.
Philadelphia: Research for Action.
Vandevoort, L. G., Amrein-Beardsley, A., & Berliner, D. C. (2004). National board certified teachers and their students’
achievement. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12(46). Retrieved September 11, 2007, from http://epaa.asu.edu/
epaa/v12n46/
23
23
Linking Teacher Quality and Student Outcomes

24
24
America's Challenge: Effective Teachers for At-Risk Schools and Students

Chapter 2
Innovation Configurations to Improve
Teacher Preparation in Reading, Classroom
Behavior Management, and Inclusive Practices

Chapter 2
Innovation Configurations to Improve Teacher Preparation in
Reading, Classroom Behavior Management, and Inclusive Practices
Daniel J. Reschly, Ph.D.,
Vanderbilt University
Susan M. Smartt, Ph.D.,
Vanderbilt University
Regina M. Oliver,
Vanderbilt University
Innovation configurations (IC) involving tables
specifying key components of an instructional
practice or behavioral intervention on one
dimension and levels of implementation on
the other have been developed at the National
Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality
(NCCTQ) by Vanderbilt University to improve
teacher preparation and professional
development. The ICs address the areas of
reading instruction, classroom organization
and behavior management, and inclusive
practices. Many current teacher education
and professional development programs do
not implement the scientifically based research
on reading (Smartt & Reschly, 2007; Steiner &
Rozen, 2004; Walsh, Glaser, & Wilcox, 2006),
behavior management (Horner & Sugai, 2000;
Kellam, Xiange, Merisca, Brown, & Ialongo,
1998; Oliver & Reschly, in press), and inclusive
practices (Scruggs, Mastropieri, & McDuffie,
2007; U.S. Department of Education, 2004).
Inadequate implementation of this knowledge
base in teacher preparation reduces the
qualifications of teachers and undermines the
national policy goals to improve achievement
and other educational outcomes.
The ICs described in this chapter are
designed to improve teacher preparation and
professional development, which will, in turn,
improve teacher qualifications and enhance
educational outcomes. The reading instruction
and behavior management ICs are based on
research regarding improving achievement and
other outcomes for children and youth. We
believe improved teacher preparation reflecting
these research-based approaches will improve
teaching practices, which will, in turn, improve
student achievement. The policy bases, as well
as the need, development, and intended uses
for the ICs are discussed in this chapter.
Federal Policy Priorities and Foundations
for Scientifically Based Instruction
The ICs in reading instruction, behavior
management, and inclusive practices are
firmly grounded in federal policies established
in the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 2002 (ESEA), now known as the No
Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, and in the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of
2004 (IDEA). Both statutes place high priority
on improving results for all students with
additional emphasis on the following:
(2) meeting the educational needs of low-
achieving children in our nation’s highest-
poverty schools, limited English proficient
children, migratory children, children with
disabilities, Indian children, neglected or
delinquent children, and young children in
need of reading assistance;
(3) closing the achievement gap between
high- and low-performing children,
especially the achievement gaps between
minority and nonminority students, and
between disadvantaged children and their
more advantaged peers… (NCLB, 2002,
Section 1001)
Historically, different terms have been used
to refer to the children described in NCLB
Section 1001. Regardless of terminology,
the focus is clearly on students with poor
educational outcomes in terms of achievement
levels; behavior regulation; school completion;
career development; and assumption of
positive citizenship roles, including
economic self-support.
25
25
Innovation Configurations to Improve Teacher Preparation in Reading, Classroom Behavior Management, and Inclusive Practices

26
26
NCLB and IDEA Mechanisms
The key mechanisms for accomplishing NCLB
goals are school reform, scientifically based
instruction delivered by highly qualified
teachers (HQTs), and accountability for
improved results. IDEA also places strong
emphasis on improving academic achievement
and success in the general education curriculum
for students with disabilities as well as
improving broader outcomes, such as
graduation with a regular diploma and
positive early-adult outcomes.
NCLB emphasizes the use of instruction that
is structured according to scientifically based
research (SBR) as one of the key foundations
for improving results in general and remedial
education. The term
scientifically based
appears 181 times in the statute, a clear
indication of the importance Congress placed
on the implementation of instructional
procedures grounded in science. As defined
in NCLB, the research base for SBR was
largely limited to randomized control designs.
Although the NCLB and IDEA laws have not
changed, terminology in recent discussions has
evolved from
SBR to evidence-based research
for at least two reasons. First, the narrow
criteria for SBR excluded evidence from less
rigorous research methodologies. In addition,
only a limited number of true randomized
control trial experiments have been conducted
on many important educational research
questions. The criteria for evidence-based
research include a broader array of evidence
from different research methodologies and
have the effect of including a much larger
number of research studies on which to base
instruction and interventions. Randomized
control designs with clear implications for
instruction and interventions, however, do exist
in some areas, most notably for Vanderbilt
University’s work in reading and classroom
organization and behavior management.
Federal NCLB and IDEA policy clearly
encourages instruction firmly grounded in
science. Early identification and treatment of
problems in general education are emphasized
in both NCLB and IDEA, as well as the
importance of HQTs to implement scientifically
based instruction. Unfortunately, teacher
preparation and professional development
programs often do not provide adequate
preparation in the key areas of reading, behavior
management, and inclusive practices.
Innovation Configurations as Program
Improvement Tools
ICs typically are established through tables
that have two dimensions (Hall & Hord, 1987;
Roy & Hord, 2004). Tables 1 and 2 (which
appear later in this chapter) define the reading
instruction and classroom organization and
behavior management ICs. The essential
components of the innovation or program
are listed in the rows of the far left column,
along with descriptors and examples to guide
application of the criteria to coursework,
standards, and classroom practices. The
essential components of the ICs presented
originate in research or policy (preferably
both), with practice demonstrations and
applications establishing the feasibility of
wide dissemination and implementation.
The research- and policy-based components
are the critical features of ICs.
NCLB emphasizes the use of instruction
that is structured according to scientifically
based research (SBR) as one of the key
foundations for improving results in
general and remedial education.
The second dimension to be considered in the
use of ICs is the degree of implementation.
In the top row of the tables, several levels of
implementation are defined. For example,
no mention of the essential component is the
lowest level of implementation and might
be assigned a score of zero. Increasing levels
of implementation are usually assigned
progressively higher scores. Examples of
higher implementation levels are as follows:
America's Challenge: Effective Teachers for At-Risk Schools and Students

• The component is mentioned in the
syllabus. (Score = 1)
• The component is
mentioned, plus
readings/tests
are specified in the syllabus.
(Score = 2)
• The component is mentioned, plus
readings/tests, and assignments, such
as papers, or projects,
are required in
the syllabus. (Score = 3)
•
All prior levels, plus supervised practice
(field work) with feedback about degree
of success are required in the syllabus.
(Score = 4)
The scores created to represent different levels
of implementation are based on an ordinal
scale—that is, a higher number indicates more
of something, in this case more thorough
implementation of an IC component. These
scale points cannot, however, be interpreted
as if the intervals between the scores are equal.
For example, the difference between 1 and 2
cannot be assumed to be the same amount as
the difference between 3 and 4. Furthermore,
a score of 4 indicates more thorough
im