A r c h i v e d  I n f o r m a t i o n

Commissioner's Statement (Part 5 of 6)

What do we know about the quality of schools?

The information presented so far has been about students and what they are or are not achieving. Because of the impact of family income and support on student performance, academic achievement is only a partial indicator of the quality of the schools that U.S. students attend. But what can be said directly about the quality of schools? Are schools providing a safe and supportive environment so that student energies can be devoted to learning? Are schools attracting people with enthusiasm, creativity, and commitment to teaching and supporting them with competitive salaries and sustained professional development? These are also important aspects of school quality. [15] Without question, much work remains to be done to produce reliable statistical measures of school quality.

Expenditures per student are often used as a proxy measure of the quality of education. But, this can only be considered a crude measure, because the results of hundreds of studies that examine the relationship between spending and outcomes such as achievement test scores, dropout rates, and so forth are mixed. [16] Neither a strong nor consistent relationship is found. However, no one can deny the importance of money to build schools, hire teachers, buy textbooks, and otherwise acquire the resources needed to create a safe, supportive learning environment. Among these resources are the intangible qualities of dedicated teachers, principals, and parents who create the learning environment.

At the elementary and secondary levels, revenues per student have increased substantially since the early 1980s, a sign that even with the strains of slower economic growth, our nation is willing to continue supporting its schools (Indicator 52 ). Yet, revenues per student vary widely across states: state governments, not the federal government, have responsibility for funding education, and they vary in their capacity and willingness to do so. In addition, there is considerable variation within states because states delegate authority for operating and funding schools to local school districts. For instance, one estimate is that the wealthiest districts have about 16 percent more cost-of-living adjusted revenue per student than the poorest districts. However, other factors such as the educational needs of the students require consideration before disparities in the allocation of education resources can be adequately measured. Districts with a large percentage of school age children in poverty, however, do receive a much larger share of their revenue from federal and state sources than from local governments (Indicator 53).

An advantage of state and local funding of schools is that parents and citizens have more say in deciding how much education their children get and with what emphasis. A disadvantage is that wealth varies across school districts, leading to imbalances in the resources available to schools even when citizens are equally willing to fund them. This has resulted in complicated state formulas to assist poor school districts and many court challenges to state education financing systems as insufficiently compensatory. The supreme courts of several states have declared the state education financing system unconstitutional because of funding inequities, and more than half the states have cases pending. For example, as a result of a court challenge to its funding arrangements, Kentucky has completely overhauled its educational system from teacher certification requirements to governance structures. And Michigan recently decided to stop using the property tax to finance its schools, and instead to use a combination of income and sales taxes. Since poor school districts receive most of their revenue from the state, another disadvantage of state and local funding is that economic conditions may cause the state to change its support level at the very moment poor school districts need the funds the most.

Although the level and distribution of education resources is very important, it is equally important that the resources be used effectively. Teacher salaries are a major portion of the elementary and secondary budget, and good teachers are central to a high quality education system. Most of what we consider formal childhood education takes place in classrooms through interactions between teachers and students. Teachers are one conduit through which education and societal values are passed.

The pupil-teacher ratio has declined steadily since the mid 1950s. [17] Average teacher salaries in public schools were also higher in 1994 than in 1960 although most of the gain since 1981 only recouped losses incurred during the 1970s (Indicator 57). As most elementary and secondary teachers are women and the labor market opportunities of women have improved over the last two decades, larger increases in salaries may have been necessary for teachers, relative to those in other occupations, to keep teachers in teaching and to induce college students to choose teaching as a career. Nevertheless, using a variety of measures it appears that teacher earnings are relatively low compared to those of many other professions that college students could pursue. [18] Policymakers have expressed some concern over whether this discourages the best and the brightest students from choosing teaching as a profession. Evidence of this is mixed. Some research indicates that those accepting teaching positions were more likely to have lower scores on the SAT and NTE (National Teacher Examination) than non-teaching college graduates and that those leaving teaching were more likely to have higher SAT and NTE scores than those remaining. [19] Evidence from the 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey (NALS) points in the opposite direction, however. In NALS, the prose literacy scores of teachers are similar to the scores of many of their colleagues in other professions, including private sector executives and managers, engineers, physicians, writers and artists, social workers, sales representatives, education administrators, and registered nurses. With respect to at least prose literacy, there is little evidence that low salaries are attracting only the least able college graduates into teaching (Indicator 59).

Although many of the characteristics that determine the quality of a teacher are not easily measured, some teacher qualifications can be measured. Many analysts argue that one of the most important characteristics is training and preparation in the subject or field in which the teacher is teaching. Research has shown moderate but consistent support for the reasonable proposition that subject knowledge (knowing what you teach) and teaching skills (knowing how to teach) are important predictors of both teaching quality and student learning. [20] Knowledge of subject matter and of pedagogical methods does not, of course, guarantee quality teaching, but it is a necessary prerequisite.

Almost all teachers are certified to teach in their primary assignment field, and a large majority have majored or minored in this field. In fact, most teachers have a graduate degree. About one-quarter of teachers has a secondary assignment field and lower proportions are certified or have majored or minored in this field (Indicator 58). There is considerable variation in teacher qualifications across states, however. For example, the percentage of high school mathematics teachers who majored in mathematics or mathematics education ranged from 44 percent in California to about 90 percent in Alabama and Minnesota. [21] Although teacher qualifications and credentials may be an indication of minimal competency, these may be poor measures of subject matter and instructional competence.

Considerable policy discussion has addressed the ability of schools to keep qualified teachers, both in general and in specific subject areas such as mathematics and science. Overall, teacher attrition in public elementary and secondary schools seems to be low. Only 1 in 20 full-time public school teachers left the teaching profession in a recent year. Furthermore, keeping mathematics and science teachers in the profession does not seem to be as big a problem as was once suggested. The percentage of full-time teachers in public secondary schools in 1990-91 who left teaching in the next year was no higher in mathematics and science than in other teaching fields (Indicator 60).

A high level of education and associated professional commitment among teachers benefits both students and the education system. These benefits come at a cost, however, because teachers must be paid enough to justify the investment they have made in their education. Nevertheless, education policymakers must address the more difficult issue of how to make best use of available resources under changing conditions.

-###-

[Are more young people going to college?]

[How have conditions facing the schools changed?]