Responding to Teacher Quality and Accountability Mandates: The Perspective of School Administrators and Classroom Teachers

Abstract

In this article, we examine how the federal, state, and district policy environments affect the decisions and work of principals and teachers. Specifically, we examine principal and teacher perceptions of policies and practices focused on: (1) increasing the overall supply of qualified teachers; (2) recruiting qualified teachers; (3) distributing qualified teachers to hard-to-staff schools and subject areas; and (4) retaining qualified teachers over time. This paper draws on interview and focus-group data from multilevel case studies of teacher policy to better understand how principals and teachers function in the current teacher policy context. It is part of a broader research effort to explore practitioner perspectives on the array of policies and practices aimed at enhancing teacher quality across all levels of the education system in three states: Maryland, Connecticut, and New York. In the article, we consider the implications of our findings for salient policy concerns, including the highly qualified teacher provisions of No Child Left Behind (NCLB).

Notes

1. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) defines a “highly qualified teacher” as one who (1) has obtained full state certification or licensure, (2) holds at least a bachelors degree, and (3) has demonstrated proficiency in subject knowledge and teaching skills related to the teaching assignment, as demonstrated by passing a rigorous state test. Requirements for middle and high school teachers also include successful completion of an academic major, a graduate degree, coursework equivalent to an undergraduate degree, or advanced certification or credentialing in each of the academic subjects that the teachers teach.

2. Core subjects include English, reading or language arts, mathematics, science, foreign languages, civics and government, economics, arts, history, and geography.

3. The New York context is a bit different from the others. We selected Region 9 of New York City as our district, and four schools in four different subdistricts within Region 9.

4. Each participant in the study signed an informed consent agreement that describes the study goals and methods, and their role in providing data for the study. We assigned each participant an identification code so that the researchers could attribute responses to specific individuals without using participant names. Individuals' names and other identifiable information were not used in written transcripts, coded data, or written reports or papers describing the study or its findings. However, since we identify the states and districts used in the study, it may be possible to identify participating district and state administrators, given the public nature of their positions. While teachers and principals provided personal information on their decisions about where to work and their perceptions of state, district, and school policies, the information provided by district and state administrators is more public in nature (i.e., describing public policies and investments in them).

5. For a more detailed description of our sites, including the complete case profiles, see Rice, Roellke, & Sparks (2006).

6. In 1986, Connecticut adopted a comprehensive policy approach to teacher quality with the statewide Educational Enhancement Act (EEA). The first stage of teacher quality enhancement under the EEA involved making teacher salaries comparable to those in fields requiring similar levels of education and training.

7. Readers should note that this chapter does not include the perspective of district-level administrators. For a complete discussion of administrator perspectives across all three states, see Rice, Roellke, & Sparks (2006).

8. It should be noted that the individual with the positive response constituted her own staff development team.

9. For a full discussion of state- and district-level approaches to supply and distribution, see Rice, Roellke, & Sparks (2006).

10. However, it is important to note that additional resources alone are sometimes insufficient to increase the capacity for improvement (Malen & Rice, 2004).