|
Items in cart [1] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 90
6
Indicators of Teaching Quality
TEACHERS AS KEY ACTORS
In its earlier report (Ralzen and Jones, 1985), the committee dis-
cussed potential indicators relating both to the quantity and quality
of teachers responsible for science and mathematics instruction. One
of the major conclusions in that report is that "the construction of . . .
an indicator on teacher demand and supply is at present not feasible
at the national level because of the lack of a meaningful common
measure of qualification" (p. 71~. At the state and local levels, stan-
dards on teacher quality vary among school districts within a state
and among schools within a district- appropriately so, if the schools
or districts serve student populations with different needs (Wise et
al., 1987~. Yet a panel, set up under the committee's aegis to de-
velop better models for estimating teacher demand and supply, is
stressing "that satisfactory models of supply and demand for science
and mathematics teachers must be specific regarding teacher quali-
fications" (Pane! on Statistics on Supply and Demand for Precollege
Science and Mathematics Teachers, 1987:58~. Obviously, questions
concerning the adequacy of instruction in science and mathematics
cannot be answered until some measures of teaching effectiveness are
developed and found acceptable.
What constitutes effective teaching of mathematics or science?
On what should indicators of teaching effectiveness focus-character
90
OCR for page 91
INDICATORS OF TEACHING QUALITY
91
istics of the teachers themselves? Measures of what teachers do in
the classroom? In attempting to resolve this issue, the committee
devoted considerable attention to the research literatures on the char-
acteristics of effective teachers and on the determinants of effective
teaching. We found strong research support for parents' conviction
that teachers matter. This support comes from studies showing
clearly that children enrolled in different schools, and even in dif-
ferent classrooms within the same school, learn different amounts
during the school year (Hanushek, 1972; Murnane, 1975; Armor et
al., 1976~. While these studies by themselves do not demonstrate
that differences among teachers alone account for why more learning
takes place in some classrooms than in others, it is reasonable to
infer from these and other studies that differences among teachers
are one important factor contributing to these differences in student
-
earnmg.
The evidence that teachers matter led us to turn to the studies
that have attempted the more difficult research task of exploring the
specific characteristics of teachers and the specific teacher behaviors
that are related to high student achievement. Unfortunately, we
concluded that such studies (whether in traditions known as input-
output studies or process-product studies) do not provide significant
guidance for the development of indicators of effective mathematics
and science teaching. In part this may be the case because the
studies are largely based on current conceptions of teaching that
emphasize the learning of procedural skills rather than the larger
vision of the teacher's role set out by, for example, the Holmes Group
Consortium (1984) and the Carnegie Forum on Education and the
Economy (1986~. It is conceivable that the research results would
be different if student scores on tests of higher-order thinking skills
were used to measure teaching effectiveness. This hypothesis has
not been tested, however, since all existing studies have measured
teacher effectiveness by student scores on multiple-choice tests that,
as Chapter 4 on learning assessment explains, do not measure the full
range of higher-order thinking skills. The following section explains
why the results of input-output studies and process-product studies
do not provide guidance for indicator development.
OCR for page 92
92
INDICATORS OF SCIENCE AND MARTHA TICS EDUCATION
Fir~clings from the Literature
One type of study, called educational production functions or
input-output studies, has explored the extent to which gains in stu-
dent achievement can be explained by information on teachers' de-
mographic characteristics, education, test scores, and teaching expe-
rience. There are a few relatively consistent findings. For example,
teachers with at least three to five years of experience are more effec-
tive on average than beginning teachers (Hanushek, 1972; Murnane,
1975; Murnane and Phillips, 1981), and this appears to hold true
for science teachers (Druva end Anderson, 1983; Penick and Yager,
1983~. A somewhat less solid finding is that teachers with high scores
on tests of verbal ability may be more effective than teachers with
Tower scores (Coleman et al., 1966; Hanushek, 1972), although there
are exceptions to this pattern (Summers and Wolfe, 1977~.
While it is common to focus attention on positive findings, the
dominant conclusion from input-output research is that the vast
majority of the variables user] to depict teachers, including sex, race,
possession of a master's degree, and whether the teacher was an
education major as an undergraduate, are not consistently related
to teaching effectiveness, whether measured by student gains on
standardized achievement tests or by evaluative judgment (see, e.g.,
Schalock, 1979~.
A second type of research, sometimes referred to as process-
product studies or studies of teaching electiveness, has examined
whether specific actions of teachers are systematically related to
teaching effectiveness. In recent years, this research has provided
support for the sensible proposition that students' achievement in a
specific subject is positively related to the amount of in-cIass time de-
votect to instruction in the subject, as noted in the preceding chapter
and the committee's earlier report. The research also supports the
proposition that just as important as the amount of time allocated
to mathematics, science, or other subjects is how the time is used
(Weber, 1978; Evertson et al., 1980; Good, 1983~. This has led to
studies of how best to use instructional time, including how to de-
velop lessons and how to manage the classroom. These studies have
produced insights that are helpful in teacher education, for exam-
ple, by demonstrating the importance of presenting all students with
challenging work and expecting them to complete it, and making
smooth transitions from one activity to another (Good and Grouws,
1979; Brophy and Good, 1986~.
OCR for page 93
INDICATORS OF TEACHING QUALITY
93
If the process-product research had found that teachers who de-
velop lessons effectively and manage their classrooms well do so by
engaging in particular well-defined actions, then these actions could
provide the basis for indicators of teaching effectiveness. Observa-
tional techniques could be used to record the extent to which teachers
of mathematics and science employ these superior techniques. In fact,
such a mapping of concepts that characterize effective teaching to
well-defined teaching actions has not been possible, however. Con-
sequently, the process-product literature provides little guidance for
the development of indicators of teaching effectiveness. There are at
least two reasons for this: first, effective teaching requires carrying
out more than one action. Carrying out requisite actions in isolation
may not result in effective teaching; and, as a result, observations of
the frequency with which teachers carry out a single particular action
would not provide the basis for a reliable indicator. Second, the set
of particular actions that results in effective teaching may depend on
the type of classroom situation the teacher is in. The actions that are
most effective would be expected to vary with grade level and with
the subject matter and skills being taught. In addition, there is some
evidence that effective teaching of children with different characteris-
tics and backgrounds requires different sets of actions by the teacher
(Cronbach and Snow, 1977; Brophy and Good, 1986~. These com-
plexities in mapping concepts to actions would make it very difficult
to base reliable indicators of teaching effectiveness on observations
of whether teachers carry out specific, well-defined actions (Brophy,
1986~.
In summary, review of the research on the determinants of teach-
ing electiveness led us to the conclusion that neither input-output
studies nor process-product studies provide sure guidance for the
development of indicators of the quality of mathematics and science
instruction in school. In one sense this is discouraging, because it
makes the task of developing reliable indicators of teaching effec-
tiveness more difficult. In a different sense, however, the results are
encouraging, because they underline the fact that effective teachers
cannot be defined merely as individuals with specific demographic
characteristics who have earned particular academic degrees, or as
people who have been trained to behave in predictable, routinized
ways in the classroom. Such definitions obscure the characteristics
that effective teachers have in common the skills and attitudes of
professionals (Holmes Group Consortium, 1984; Carnegie Forum on
OCR for page 94
94 INDICATORS OF SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS EDUCATION
Education and the Economy, 1986; Darling-Hammond and Hudson,
1986).
The Professional Teacher
In recent years, at least 44 states, several major commissions, and
the national teachers' unions have moved toward a definition of the
professional teacher. The following attributes are generally included
in the definition: professional teachers understand the subject matter
they teach and its relation to other subjects in the curriculum. They
possess a high degree of intellectual curiosity, which is reflected in how
they spend their time. Professional teachers also have the desire to
help students increase their skills and self-confidence, and they have
the skills to achieve these goals, including being able to adapt the
curriculum to fit the needs of their students (Good and Weinstein,
1986~. Finally, professional teachers continue to learn new things
as they progress through their careers. It is teachers with these
attributes that are wanted and needed to provide instruction in
mathematics and science.
Schools cannot attract and retain professional teachers unless
they provide the support that professionals need and can find in other
occupations (Darling-Hammond, 1984; Rosenholtz, 1985~. This sup-
port includes competitive salaries, opportunities for professional de-
velopment, and significant control over the time, space, materials,
and curriculum needed to teach effectively (Lightfoot, 1983; Purkey
and Smith, 1983~.
The committee's recommendations for indicators of the effective-
ness of science and mathematics teaching are based on this concep-
tion of the professional teacher and the support that the schools must
provide to attract and retain such teachers. The rest of the chapter is
organized into three categories of information about professionalism
in science and mathematics teaching:
1. What are the educational backgrounds and knowledge levels
of individuals who teach science and mathematics?
2. How do these individuals spend their time?
3. What are the working conditions for teachers of science and
mathematics?
OCR for page 95
INDICATORS OF TEACHING QUALITY
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUNDS AND
LEVELS OF KNOWLEDGE
College Education
9s
One attribute of professional teachers is that they understand the
subjects that they teach. To assess the extent to which the nation's
secondary school science and mathematics teachers have adequate
subject matter preparation, NSF has sponsored two surveys that
have collected information on the education that teachers received
in college in the subject matter fields that they teach tWeiss, 1978;
Research Triangle Institute, 1985~. More than half the states also
collect information on college courses in science and mathematics
taken by newly hired teachers. At present, the Center for Educa-
tion Statistics of the U.S. Department of Education is considering
plans for collecting information on teachers' undergraduate major
and minor fields of preparation and, for both secondary and elemen-
tary teachers, on the number of college courses taken in mathematics
and science and in teaching mathematics and/or science (Darling-
Hammond et al., 19863. The premise underlying this sort of survey
is that high school physics teachers, for example, who have taken
little physics in college are unlikely to have a solid understanding of
physics and consequently are unlikely to have the knowledge needed
to teach physics well.
The committee recognizes that the extraordinary variety of un-
dergraduate institutions in the United States that prepare teachers
makes it virtually impossible to assess accurately the subject matter
preparation of the nation's teachers. Nonetheless, we support con-
tinuation of the collection of information on teachers' college courses
and degrees because it will provide at least basic information on the
preparation of the teachers who teach science and mathematics to dif-
ferent types of children in the United States. Moreover, information
on changes over time in teacher preparation and in the distribution
of teachers among diffferent types of students will provide a sense
of direction about the nation's success in staffing all schools with
teachers who are well prepared in science and mathematics.
The committee does suggest one major change in the data col-
lection and reporting method: information on teacher preparation
should be collected and reported according to different subgroups
of students taking mathematics and science courses, so that the in-
formation will be more useful in assessing the distribution of well
OCR for page 96
96 INDICATORS OF SCIENCE AND MATHEM24 TICS EDUCATION
prepared teachers among groups of students with different charac-
teristics. For this purpose, data collected on individual students
should include gender, race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, grade
level, type of community (urban, suburban, rural), and region or
state. Reporting by student subgroups will allow the following types
of questions to be addressed:
.
~ it, ~
What proportion of the students taking high school physics
are taught by teachers who have an undergraduate major or unknot
in physics?
~ Is the proportion of black students studying biology with
teachers who have an undergraduate major or minor in biology dif-
ferent from the percentage of white students studying biology with
teachers with the same preparation?
~ What proportion of elementary school students in particular
grades and with particular characteristics are taught science by a
teacher who has taken at least six college courses in science? What
proportion are taught mathematics by a teacher who has taken at
least six college courses in mathematics?
As the questions indicate, collecting and reporting information
on teacher preparation by student subgroups permits one to examine
whether the college education of the teachers who teach science
and mathematics to students with particular characteristics differs
from the college education of teachers teaching children with other
characteristics. This strategy supports the focus on equity and access
that the committee endorses. It will make it possible to learn whether
the teachers with the most substantive college backgrounds are being
selected to teach certain categories of students rather than others.
This strategy also reduces the problem of how to assess the subject-
matter knowledge of teachers teaching both mathematics and science
and of high school teachers who teach more than one type of science.
Subject-Matter Knowledge
It has proven very difficult to establish that teachers with supe-
rior subject-matter knowledge are more effective in teaching students
than are teachers who have merely an adequate knowledge of the
material they teach to students (Byrne, 1983~. For example, the ev-
idence on the relation between graduate credits or advanced degrees
and electiveness is tenuous (Begle, 1979; Shymanski et al., 1983;
OCR for page 97
INDICATORS OF TEACHING QUALITY
97
U.S. General Accounting Office, 1984~. Nevertheless, it is reason-
able to believe that teachers who have mastered the material that
they teach to their students are more effective than teachers who
have not mastered this material. Therefore, some appropriate mea-
sure of subject-matter knowledge should be used as an indicator of
teacher effectiveness, even though agreement on specifics of optimal
preparation for teaching a subject at a given grade level or in a
particular course remains difficult. For this reason, the committee
endorses periodic sample testing of teachers' basic competency in
the subject matter they teach. The problem to date has been the
development of an appropriate measure. Even if the relationship be-
tween subject-matter knowledge and effective teaching of a subject
were better understood, there would still be problems with current
tests analogous to those discussed in Chapter 4 with respect to tests
of student learning. The committee suggests that the tests used to
establish basic subject-matter competency of teachers should probe
essentially the same domain as the tests used to assess students' mas-
tery of science and mathematics. The results of this testing should
be reported in summary statistical distributions rather than as in-
dividually identifiable scores, since the purpose is to establish an
indicator of teachers' knowledge of the subject matter being taught,
not to evaluate individuals in order to make decisions on hiring,
promotions, or pay.
In implementing the committee's recommendation to test teach-
ers' basic subject-matter competence in science and mathematics, it
will be important to retain linkages not only to changes in the dis-
ciplines themselves but also to changes in science and mathematics
curricula and in the content and form of student tests. In Chapter
4, the committee recommends that new tests be designed that more
adequately assess students' higher-order thinking skills than existing
tests and that are more closely tied to exemplary curricula. As the
tests used to assess students' science and mathematics knowledge
and skills change, so should the tests used to assess teachers' basic
subject-matter competence. In this manner, any systematic deficien-
cies can be uncovered in teachers' mastery of the changing material
on which their students are being assessed.
As with subject-matter preparation and for the same reason, the
results of the teacher tests should be reported by student subgroup.
Reporting the percentage of students with particular characteristics
who are taught mathematics or science by teachers who possess basic
OCR for page 98
98 INDICATORS OF SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS EDUCATION
subject-matter competence supports the committee's desired focus
on equity concerns in the development of useful indicators of the
quality of science and mathematics education.
Clearly, a measure of teachers' mastery of the same knowledge
and skills on which their students are tested provides only a mod-
est amount of information about their subject-matter competence.
Even so, results of such tests may show that not all teachers have
mastered the basic knowledge and skills. It is important to recognize
that not all the reasons one might posit for this possible outcome
blame teachers. For one thing, school district responses to declining
enrollments during the 1970s- and in some parts of the country, dur-
ing the 1980s led to many teachers being reassigned from such fields
as history or social science, in which there was a surplus of teachers,
to such fields as mathematics and the physical sciences, in which
there were vacancies (Darling-Hammond, 1984; Flowers, 1984~. Of-
ten the preparation of these teachers in science or mathematics was
very limited and outdated. Unfortunately, not all mandated changes
in curriculum or in skill emphasis are accompanied by adequate in-
service programs for the teachers who are required to implement the
new ideas. Future shortages of qualified mathematics and science
teachers may continue to induce some school districts to staff science
and mathematics courses with teachers with little preparation or
knowledge in these subject areas.
It is important to reiterate that the reason we recommend test-
ing teachers' basic subject-matter competency in science and math-
ematics is to assess the extent to which students are taught science
and mathematics by teachers who have mastered the knowledge and
skills they teach, not to denigrate the ability or aptitudes of par-
ticular teachers. Thus, although the committee advocates collecting
information on the characteristics and backgrounds of the students
who are taught by the teachers sampled for testing, we do not sug-
gest that comparable data be collected on the individual teachers
being tested. However, since the ultimate goal is to provide teachers
competent in science and mathematics to all students, individual
states may wish to collect demographic data on teachers in order to
examine the question of whether out-of-field teacher placement, ac-
cess to in-service opportunities, and high-quality teacher preparation
programs are evenly distributed among different population groups
of teachers.
OCR for page 99
INDICATORS OF TEA CLING QUALITY
TABLE 6-1 Suggested Schedule for Assessing Subject-Matter
Knowledge of Teachers of Science and Mathematics
Teacher Survey
Year (elem. and sec.)
New Hires (sec.)
Survey Foilow-Up
1988 X
1989 X
1990 X
1991 X
1992 X
1993 X
1994 X
1995 X
1996 X
Sampling Strategy
99
The subject-matter preparation and subject-matter knowledge
of a random sample of the nation's science and mathematics teachers
ought to be assessed at least every four years. The sample should be
drawn so that it is possible to discern trends not only in the prepa-
ration and subject-matter knowledge of the nation's science and
mathematics teachers as a whole, but also trends in the preparation
and knowledge of such critical subsets of teachers as those teach-
ing particular sciences, those teaching remedial mathematics, those
teaching science in the elementary schools, those teaching minority
group children, and those teaching special education students.
In addition, the subject-matter preparation and subject-matter
knowledge of a sample of newly hired secondary school science and
mathematics teachers should be assessed every two years, with a
follow-up survey administered one year after the original survey to
determine whether the new hires are still teaching and, if not, why
they left teaching (see Table 6-1 for suggested survey scheduler.
Newly hired teachers in this context are defined as those teachers
employed to teach mathematics or science within the last year who
did not teach mathematics or science in the year prior to this em-
ployment.
There are three reasons to focus particular attention on newly
hired teachers. First, collecting information every two years on
the college backgrounds and subject-matter knowledge levels of this
group is one way to provide early warning of incipient changes in
the backgrounds and skills of the profession. Second, the newly hired
OCR for page 100
100 INDICATORS OF SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS EDUCATION
teachers are the most likely to leave teaching (Charters, 1970; Green-
berg and McCall, 1974; Murnane, 1981~. By learning which newly
hired teachers leave teaching after one year, it is possible to examine
whether those who leave have better preparation and subject-matter
knowledge than those who stay, as one study of North Carolina teach-
ers has found (Schiechty and Vance, 1983~. Moreover, by learning
what teachers who left did in the year after they left, it may be
possible to make inferences concerning whether changes in salaries
or working conditions might have induced these teachers to stay in
the classroom. A third reason to study newly hired teachers is that
the resulting information could shed light on sources of supply of
new teachers in mathematics and science. For example, recent stud-
ies of newly hired science and mathematics teachers in Connecticut
(Connecticut State Department of Education, 1985), Illinois (Illinois
State Board of Education, 1983), and New York (New York State Ed-
ucation Department, 1983) indicate that the majority were teachers
with previous teaching experience- members of the much discussed
but elusive "reserve pool" of individuals who are certified to teach
but are not currently employed by any school system. Very little is
known about the size of the reserve pool or about the backgrounds
and skills of individuals in this pool. In fact, the U.S. Department of
Education's current mode! for national teacher supply and demand
does not even acknowledge the reserve pool as a source of supply
(Pane] on Statistics on Supply and Demand for Precollege Science
and Mathematics Teachers, 1987~.
By collecting information biennially on the backgrounds and
subject-matter knowledge of newly hired mathematics and science
teachers and determining whether these teachers are still in the
classroom in the next year, it would be possible to learn:
.
whether the reserve pool is a greater source of supply of
science and mathematics teachers in some parts of the country than
others;
~ whether the significance of the reserve pool as a source of
supply of science and mathematics teachers changes over time;
whether the educational backgrounds and knowledge levels
of the newly hired coming from the reserve pool differ from the
educational backgrounds and skills of the newly hired coming directly
from teacher education programs; and
0 whether the newly hired teachers coming from the reserve
pool are more or less likely to remain in the classroom than those
coming directly from teacher education programs.
OCR for page 108
108 INDICATORS OF SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS EDUCATION
and teaching effectiveness should be conducted to help refine this
indicator.
Research and Development: The committee recommends
research on the following aspects of the behavior of teachers
in science and mathematics instruction (see also the related
research recommendations in Chapter 5 on student behav-
ior):
the factors affecting teacher responses to changes in the
intended curriculum;
the use of hands-on experiences involving concrete ma-
terials, laboratory experiments, and computers; and
allowing an adequate period of time for students to for-
mulate responses to questions.
The recommendations in Chapter 5 on the amount of time given
to the study of science and mathematics in elementary school and
on the amount of homework can be considered indicators of teacher
behavior as well as student behavior. In either case, we consider
them important indicators of the quality of science and mathematics
education.
IMPLICATIONS FOR STATE EDUCATION AGENCIES
Up to this point, the emphasis in implementing teacher evalu-
ation schemes in the various states has been on knowledge of the
subject matter rather than on other characteristics. A major ex-
ception is Tennessee, which more comprehensively than other states
has developed an on-site observation and interview schedule to com-
plement simple subject-matter knowledge. This approach needs to
be more fully explored if a more complete picture of science and
mathematics education is to be drawn.
The main data source currently available to states for analyzing
teacher effectiveness is subject-matter knowledge of teacher candi-
dates. What is not known (because it is not systematically analyzed)
includes the following:
. Are there significant variations among objectives that all new
mathematics and science high school teachers as well as elementary
teachers need to know, as reflected in teacher job-analysis surveys,
polls of college of education faculty, test questions, and test results?
OCR for page 109
INDICATORS OF TEACHING QUALITY
109
Are the variations greater from state to state, between school sys-
tems of different types (e.g., large urban versus rural) within a state,
between different sorts of institutions preparing teachers? Is a na-
tional consensus emerging on what individuals need to know to be
effective science or mathematics teachers?
. Is science knowledge part of the requirements for elementary
teachers? Tests for elementary teachers generally lack science con-
tent; typically, they are dominated by questions on general pedagogy.
The low expectation for instruction in science at the elementary level
may be a contributing factor, as may be the absence of any agreement
as to what the science content of the elementary school curriculum
should be, even when science is being taught.
. With regard to testing for certification: Are there fewer
minorities, proportionately or in actual numbers, entering teacher-
preparation programs than in the past especially those training
to be future mathematics and science teachers? Are tests and test
results such that they systematically discourage members of some
population subgroups from choosing teaching careers? Are there
patterns in geographic distribution of the Towest-scoring test takers-
for example, are they entering urban schools or small rural ones in
greater proportion than suburban schools?
The periodic collection and analysis of even this small part of the
information needed about the potential education work force could
have the following state-level policy implications:
. Recruiting and preparing minority teacher candidates may
need to begin in the junior year of high school; special scholarship
programs may have to be initiated especially in mathematics and
science if the number of rn~norities in these fields fails significantly
below a predetermined standard.
. Approval procedures for undergraduate teacher-education
programs could be revised to ensure that prospective teachers are
exposed to sufficient mathematics and science experiences.
. Entrance examination systems for teacher-education pro-
grams may need to be structured in such a way as to provide diagnos-
tic information about the strengths and weaknesses in mathematics
and science of entering candidates; such profiles could be used to
guide candidates to specific academic sequences that would ensure
that they had at least been exposed to appropriate mathematics and
science courses.
OCR for page 110
110 INDICATORS OF SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS EDUCATION
. Analysis of the mathematics and science test results from
successful teacher candidates could lead to targeted regional and
state staff-development programs if it is found that the least prepared
teachers are locating in certain areas.
If the committee's recommendation to follow up the candi-
ciates who pass the certification tests and become new hires were to
be implemented, it could establish a useful data base on the abil-
ity of the education establishment to provide conditions that induce
teachers to stay, thereby assisting in future projections of supply and
demand.
The Recertification information can be collected and used an-
nually in those states that possess the requisite data base. However,
few states carry out systematic testing of certified teachers, and it
is unlikely that this approach will become more widespread. Even
if it did, the results would not enrich the general knowledge about
teachers because current tests typically avoid science and touch only
the basics of mathematics.
The committee's recommendation on teacher testing rejects any
connection between the use of a nationwide sampling of teachers'
mathematics or science knowledge and any use of the information
for purposes of personnel decisions. Instead, the data from the tests
recommended by the committee would provide a national benchmark
on the continuing intellectual growth of school faculty and whether
they are staying current. Such data would provide to the states as
well as other units of government information that could drive the
creation of relevant staff development programs and materials.
Finally, assuming some consensus within a state on curriculum,
observation of how teachers of mathematics and science organize and
present the material and the context in which they present it (time
spent on planning and presenting, availability of equipment, etc.)
become important indicators of teaching quality in a state's schools.
This is especially so since more state legislative bodies are requiring
local as well as state "report cards" to document class time spent
in subject areas. By themselves, the statistics on minutes spent per
day or week on a curriculum area are almost meaningless; they can
become indicators only in conjunction with information on other
variables. For example, collecting information on whether pupils are
asked weekly to write a Misword science laboratory report is quite
superficial; it takes on meaning only when one also knows how often
these same reports are actually read and critically evaluated, with the
OCR for page 111
INDICATORS OF TEACHING QUALITY
111
results returned to the student. Only then is the writing requirement
likely to help improve the quality of student understanding of science.
WORKING CONDITIONS FOR TEACHING SCIENCE AND
MATHEMATICS
Resources for Teaching Science and Mathematics
Effective teaching is best sustained if schools are places where
professional teachers like to work and places that provide support
for activities that characterize effective teaching. Consequently, it is
important to develop indicators of the extent to which the nation's
schools are able to provide the resources and support needed to
sustain fully professional teaching of science and mathematics for all
, . ~
· . . .
students. for reasons explained in Chapter 8, the committee does not
recommend the collection of data on per-pupi} expenditures devoted
to science and mathematics or on specific budgets available to science
and mathematics teachers. What we do see as important, however,
is to collect detailed information on the uses to which money devoted
to mathematics and science instruction is put within a school and
within a classroom.
The following information on working conditions in schools is
pertinent:
the availability and use of equipment, materials, textbooks
and laboratory facilities appropriate to the intended curriculum;
1,
the number of students and different types of courses taught
by each teacher;
the availability and use of professional time for planning dur-
ing school hours, and support for professional activities (further
education, curriculum development, collegial exchanges) during the
year and during summers; and
~ the availability and use of assistance such as classroom or
laboratory aides.
At first glance, this information may appear relatively easy to
collect using closed-ended questionnaires. This may not be the case,
however, for several reasons. First, the mere presence of a facility or
materials and equipment does not ensure their use. Even in 1965,
most secondary schools had, for example, some facility that was
called a laboratory (Coleman et al., 1966~. Analyses of the data
indicated relatively minor differences among schools in the number
of facilities. Most analysts believe, however, that in 1965 and in 1987
OCR for page 112
112 INDICATORS OF SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS EDUCATION
as well, there were and are significant differences in the quality of the
equipment, materials, and laboratory facilities present in different
schools. It is very difficult to capture these differences in quality
with closed-ended survey instruments. In addition, as school district
officials pointed out (see Appendix C), a secondary school may have
adequate laboratory facilities, but only students taking advanced
science courses may have access to them. An elementary school may
have a few classrooms with provisions for hands-on work, but these
may not be available to all grade levels or all classes at a single grade
level. It is difficult to learn from closed-ended surveys the extent to
which all students taking science and mathematics have access to a
school's equipment, materials, and laboratory facilities.
Similarly, materials and equipment may be present in a school,
but the procedures for making use of them may be so bureaucratic
that teachers forego the opportunity to use the potentially available
equipment and supplies in their teaching. This suggests the impor-
tance of learning about teachers' control of equipment and supplies,
and whether teachers actually employ the equipment, supplies, and
laboratory facilities in their teaching.
For these reasons, we suggest that pilot studies be conducted
to explore whether a macro-level indicator can be developed using
information on the conditions under which teachers of science and
mathematics work. The information should be collected through
the use of open-ended interviews. All teachers and administrators
who are interviewed would be asked the same questions, with spe-
cial attention to probing teachers' open-ended answers. While it
will be more difficult to organize these open-ended responses than it
would be to tabulate teachers' responses to closed-ended question-
naire items, we consider the open-ended questionnaires to be a much
more effective strategy for gathering reliable information about the
conditions under which science and mathematics teachers work, the
number of students taught under inadequate conditions, and changes
over time in teachers' access to the resources needed to do their job
well. If pilot studies indicate the feasibility of developing an indica-
tor on resource use and working conditions, the information should
be collected every four years. Such an indicator, as other indica-
tors described in this chapter and elsewhere, should be expressed in
terms of percentages of students of different backgrounds and char-
acteristics who are being served. Careful attention will have to be
given to sample design to achieve comparability over time as well as
generalizability.
OCR for page 113
INDICATORS OF TEACHING QUALITY
113
Salaries as Incentives
Teacher salaries tend to rank relatively low among professional
salaries. This may discourage individuals from entering or staying
in teaching, particularly those with training in mathematics and
the physical sciences who may have attractive. alternative career
opportunities.
Even if potential teachers' career decisions were not sensitive to
the financial rewards in teaching relative to those in other professions,
it would still be somewhat anomalous to pay poorly the members of
a profession who potentially can have such marked effects on chil-
dren's futures. Nevertheless, one might argue to retain the low pay
for financial reasons if it did not affect the decisions that teachers
and potential teachers make. There is strong evidence, however, that
teachers' decisions are influenced by salaries. For example, Freeman
(1976) and Zarkin (1985) have shown that the number of college
students who study to become teachers is very sensitive to relative
salaries. In addition, Manski (1985) found that the number of aca-
demically talented college students who enter teaching is affected by
salaries. Subsequent career decisions are also influenced by salaries,
for example, teachers' decisions to move from one school district
to another and their decisions on whether to leave teaching entirely
(Eberts and Stone, 1984~. Thus, salaries appear to provide incentives
that have measurable impacts on the career decisions of teachers and
prospective teachers and consequently influence the ability of the
nation's school districts to staff schools with competent teachers.
Since salaries in business and industry vary by subject-matter
field, comparative salary data need to be collected by field of spe-
ciaTization. This is illustrated by Figure 6-1, which displays data on
average starting salaries in business and industry, expressed in 1967
constant dollars, for college graduates with bachelor's degrees in par-
ticular subjects. These data are derived from surveys administered
by the College Placement Council. For the purpose of comparison,
Figure 3 also displays data on average starting salaries for elementary
and secondary school teachers expressed in 1967 dollars. In inter-
preting the teachers' starting salary data, which stem from surveys
administered by the National Education Association (NEA), it is
important to keep in mind that more than 99 percent of U.S. public
school teachers work in school districts using uniform salary scales,
under which field of specialization has no effect on salary. As a result,
in any given district, the starting salary of a physics teacher is the
same as the starting salary of a history teacher.
OCR for page 114
114
'~ a: t
t ~7 t
/~* I\ t
x- ~ ~ ~ t
Ti 1 ~ t
i! If. f
t \ T t
L ~ | t
5, ~ ~ ~ 11
Aft 1 it
if ~
At ~t
. , , ,
1
*,
~ /
it,
t
- t
\
i,' \ !
I'm
x 71 1
- L
o o o o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o o
~no ~Lo
0
o
·
0 .C~
.
to
· ~
0 ; - ~
00
a, ~
Vim U)
+
~I
_ (O T
Cal
_
_
_
_
- ~
-m
- ~
c~
- ~
- ~
~o
*
t
q
~q
0
·H
:~=
~ >6
6o
- o
-
~ o
· -
a) ~
{) ·-
~ o
2
· - u)
x ~
.= o
o ~
-
o
o
cs ~
~ z
u)
·
-
·
-
·
o
v
- a.~
bO ~
·- c-)
~ -
v: ~
b4
~ -
~ - v
~ ·
~ c)
~ o
OCR for page 115
INDICATORS OF TEACHING QUALITY
115
Figure ~1 illustrates two points. First, how much more a college
graduate earned by taking a job in business or industry than by tak-
ing a teaching position depends on the graduate's subject speciality.
For example, in 1974, college graduates specializing in mathematics,
chemistry, or physics who entered business or industry were paid 36
to 39 percent more on average than college graduates who became
teachers, while college graduates trained in the humanities who en-
tered business or industry were paid only 7 percent more on average
than college graduates who became teachers; for graduates trained
in biology, the differential was 12 percent.
Second, the salary differentials between business and industry
and teaching have changed over time, and the pattern varies among
subject specialties. In general, the differential between teaching and
other occupational alternatives has increased more for graduates
trained in mathematics or the physical sciences than for graduates
trained in the humanities or biology. For example, in 1985, the start-
ing salary advantage that business and industry offered over teaching
had risen to 59 percent for graduates trained in mathematics, but it
had risen to only 13 percent for graduates trained in one of the hu-
manities, and had actually fallen by one percentage point for biology
graduates. These data indicate the importance of considering each
field separately.
Comparative salary data need to be collected every two or three
years because salaries in different occupations can change signifi-
cantly from year to year, and changes over tune in the salaries offered
in different occupations are more informative than salary compar-
isons at one point in time. In fact, it is not possible to judge from
comparisons of starting salaries at one point in time whether the
schools are able to attract talented college graduates into teaching.
One reason is that working conditions may differ between jobs in
teaching and jobs in business or industry. A second reason is that
the comparative salary figures are very sensitive to the method of
calculation. For example, when daily salaries are compared by divid-
ing annual salaries by number of required work days (180 to 200 for
teachers; 240 for college graduates working in business or industry),
teachers' salaries appear more attractive than when annual salaries
are compared. There is no one right way to do the calculation: teach-
ers' work days during the school year may be very long days (the
proposed time-budget study would address this issue), and many
teachers do not have work opportunities during the summer at the
same rate of pay. In contrast to the difficulty of making inferences
OCR for page 116
116 INDICATORS OF SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS EDUCATION
from comparative salaries at one point in time, trends in comparative
salaries do provide important information about changes in the abil-
ity of the schools to attract talented college graduates with particular
types of training.
The following salary data should be collected at least every three
years (preferably every two years) for each field of study (for exam-
ple, mathematics, biology, physics, chemistry): (a) information on
starting salaries in teaching and in business and industry and (b)
information on salaries after 15 years of experience. The latter infor-
mation is important because, in choosing fields of specialization and
occupation, college students do compare not only starting salaries,
but also streams of earnings (Zabalza et al., 1979~. Moreover, differ-
ences in starting salaries between occupations do not always reflect
differences in salary streams. For example, the average salary ad-
vantage of industry over secondary school teaching was 49 percent
($32,100 compared with $21,600) for individuals with 0 to 4 years
of work experience after earning a master's degree in physics; the
differential was 70 percent ($50,300 compared with $29,500) for in-
dividuals with 15 to 19 years of work experience after earning a
master's degree (American Institute of Physics, 1983~. The informa-
tion on starting salaries and on salaries after 15 years of experience
should include median salaries and the interquartile range of salaries.
Median salaries provide a measure of central tendency-an indicator
of what the average person in a particular occupation with a particu-
lar amount of experience earns, while the interquartile range reflects
the amount of variation, for example, in the earnings of a particular
group. A large interquartile range may make a particular occupation
less attractive, in that college students cannot count on receiving a
particular level of compensation if they choose that occupation.
There are important differences between the comm~ttee's pro-
posals for salary comparisons and comparisons of average salaries
in different occupations. The latter comparisons, which are often
cited in the media, can be deceiving because they are sensitive to the
distribution of experience in each occupation. For example, average
salaries in teaching grew more rapidly during the 197()s than start-
ing salaries did because the teaching force became older during the
decade, since relatively few new teachers were hired. Thus, average
salaries do not necessarily reflect the attractiveness of teaching to
college graduates who are making occupational choices.
The salary comparisons proposed by the committee will throw
OCR for page 117
INDICATORS OF TEACHING QUALITY
117
the most light on the competitiveness of secondary school teaching
salaries, at least for the present, since it is mainly secondary school
teachers who have college majors in the subjects that they teach.
This may be changing, however, as some states and institutions of
higher education follow current proposals to eliminate undergraduate
degree programs in elementary school education.
Developing the suggested indicator of salary differentials can
take advantage of a number of already existing salary surveys. For
example, the College Placement Council collects data annually on the
salary offers made to a sample of college graduates with particular
subject-matter specialties. For many years, the Northwestern Endi-
cott Report (1985) has provided annual information on the salaries
that a sample of large business and industrial concerns pay to college
graduates with particular subject-matter specialties. The U.S. De-
partment of Labor also makes available biennial reports of starting
salaries in private industry for college graduates with certain spe-
cialties. Several professional associations, including the American
Chemical Society, the American Institute of Physics, and the Amer-
ican Mathematical Society, publish annual reports of the average or
median starting salaries earned by their members, broken down by
highest degree earned (e.g., American Institute of Physics, 1983~.
Much of the salary information collected in individual surveys is pre-
sented in a biennial publication of the Commission on Professionals
in Science and Technology (formerly, the Scientific Manpower Com-
mission) entitled Salaries of Scientists, Engineers, and Technicians.
The NEA, which is the primary source of data on starting salaries in
teaching, does not routinely report average salaries for teachers with
a bachelor's degree and 15 years of experience. However, the salary
schedules that are used for the calculation of starting salaries would
support generation of this information.
It would be preferable to have the data on comparative salaries
generated by a single organization using one method. It is difficult to
determine, for example, the extent to which differences in the median
starting salaries of chemists and biologists reported by the respective
professional societies stem from differences in survey method. One
strategy that should be explored is the use of data from the U.S.
Census Bureau's Current Population Survey to generate comparative
salary data. Until a uniform method is developed, however, salary
data can be reported using information generated by the sources
cited above.
OCR for page 118
118 INDICATORS OF SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS ED UCATION
Recommer~dations
Supplementary Indicator: The committee recommends
that data be collected on a four-year cycle through open-
ended surveys on the materials, facilities, and supplies avail-
able and used by teachers in mathematics and science in-
struction.
An indicator can be constructed from this information by report-
ing on the levels of resources being used in the classroom by student
subgroups of different backgrounds and competencies.
Key Indicator: The committee recommends collection at
least every three years (preferably every two years) of de-
tailed information on the salaries paid to college graduates
with particular subject-matter specialties who choose to en
ter various occupations.
The information should include data on starting salaries and on
salaries after 15 years of experience. These data should be reported
in a manner that facilitates comparisons of salaries in teaching with
salaries in other occupations for college graduates trained in partic-
ular sciences and mathematics.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
mathematics teachers
