Advertisement

Measuring Out-of-Field Teaching

  • Richard M. IngersollEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter is concerned with the empirical measurement of the phenomenon of out-of-field teaching—teachers assigned to teach subjects for which they have inadequate training and qualifications. In the 1990s, this problem began to receive much attention and it became common for major education reports and studies to include indicators of out-of-field teaching in their assessments of educational systems. However, there are a large number of different ways of defining and assessing the extent to which teachers are assigned to teach in fields for which they are inadequately qualified and, there has been little understanding of the variety of measures available, nor their differences and limitations. This chapter seeks to address this issue by describing, comparing and evaluating a wide range of different measures of out-of-field teaching that have been developed. My central point is that how one chooses to define and measure out-of-field teaching makes a difference for the amount of out-of-field teaching one finds. My objective is to clarify the strengths and limits of different types of measures in order to aid researchers in their decisions as to which is best to use in their analyses, and to help users interpret what any given measure actually indicates about the extent to which underqualified teaching exists in classrooms.

Keywords

Teaching out-of-field Measurement Evaluation Strengths and limitations of types of measurement 

References

  1. Ball, D. L., & Forzani, F. M. (2010). What does it take to make a teacher? Phi Delta Kappan, 92(2), 8–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bobbitt, S., & McMillen, M. (1995). Qualifications of the public school teacher workforce: 1988–1991. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.Google Scholar
  3. Chaney, B. (1994). The accuracy of teachers’ self reports on their postsecondary education. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.Google Scholar
  4. Clotfelter, C. T., Ladd, H. F., & Vigdor, J. L. (2010). Teacher credentials and student achievement in high school: A cross-subject analysis with student fixed effects. Human Resources, 45(3), 655–681.Google Scholar
  5. Cochran-Smith, M., & Villegas, A. (2014). Framing teacher preparation research: An overview of the field, Part One. Journal of Teacher Education, 66(1), 7–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Conant, J. (1963). The education of American teachers. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  7. Cox, S., Parmer, R., Strizek, G., & Thomas, T. (2016). Documentation for the 2011–12 Schools and Staffing Survey (NCES 2016-817). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.Google Scholar
  8. Education Trust, & Ingersoll, R. (2008). Core problems: Out-of-field teaching persists in key academic courses and high-poverty schools. Washington DC: The Education Trust.Google Scholar
  9. Friedman, S. (2000). How much of a problem? A reply to ingersoll’s ‘The problem of underqualified teachers in american secondary schools’. Educational Researcher, 29(5), 18–20.Google Scholar
  10. Glazer, N. (1987). Equity and excellence in our nation’s schools. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 196–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Greenwald, R., Hedges, L., & Laine, R. (1996). The effect of school resources on student achievement. Review of Educational Research, 66, 361–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Haggstrom, G. W., Darling-Hammond, L., & Grissmer, D. (1988). Assessing teacher supply and demand. Santa Monica CA: Rand Corporation.Google Scholar
  13. Henke, R., Choy, S., Chen, X., Geis, S., & Alt, M. (1997). America’s teachers: Profile of a profession, 1993-94. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.Google Scholar
  14. Hill, J.G. (2011). Education and certification qualifications of departmentalized public high school-level teachers of core subjects: Evidence from the 2007–08 schools and staffing survey (NCES 2011-317). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch.
  15. Hill, J., & Stearns, C. (2015). Education and certification qualifications of departmentalized public high school-level teachers of selected subjects: Evidence from the 2011–12 schools and staffing survey (NCES 2015-814). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  16. Hirsch, E., Koppich, J., & Knapp, M. (2001). Revisiting what states are doing to improve the quality of teaching: An update on patterns and trends. Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington.Google Scholar
  17. Horizon Research. (2013). 2012 National survey of science and mathematics education: Highlights report. Chapel Hill, NC: Author.Google Scholar
  18. Ingersoll, R. (1995a). Teacher supply, teacher quality and teacher turnover. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.Google Scholar
  19. Ingersoll, R. (1995b). An agenda for research on teachers and schools: Revisiting NCES’ schools and staffing survey. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.Google Scholar
  20. Ingersoll, R. (1996). Out-of-field teaching and educational equality. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.Google Scholar
  21. Ingersoll, R. (1999). The problem of underqualified teachers in american secondary schools. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 26–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ingersoll, R. (2001). Misunderstanding the problem of out-of-field teaching. Educational Researcher, 30(1), 21–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ingersoll, R. (2002). Teacher assessment and evaluation: A sociological perspective. In D. Levinson, P. Cookson, & A. Sadovnik (Eds.), Education and sociology: An encyclopedia (pp. 651–657). New York: RoutledgeFalmer.Google Scholar
  24. Ingersoll, R. (2003). Out-of-field teaching and the limits of teacher policy. Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania and the Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington.Google Scholar
  25. Ingersoll, R. (2004). Why some schools have more underqualified teachers than others. In D. Ravitch (Ed.), Brookings Papers on Education Policy (pp. 45–71). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ingersoll, R. (2005). The problem of underqualified teachers: A sociological perspective. Sociology of Education, 78(2), 175-178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ingersoll, R. (2008a). Teacher quality, educational inequality and the organization of schools. In A. R. Sadovnik, J. O’ Day, G. Bohrnstedt, & K. Borman (Eds.), No child left behind and the reduction of the achievement gap: Sociological perspectives on federal educational policy (pp. 153–175). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Ingersoll, R. (2008b). Researcher meets the policy realm: A personal account. In F. Hess (Ed.), When research matters: The politics of knowledge (pp. 113–134). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  29. Ingersoll, R. (2017). Misdiagnosing America’s teacher quality problem. In G. Le Tendre & M. Akiba (Eds.), International handbook of teacher quality and policy (pp. 79–96). NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Ingersoll, R., Perda, D., & May, H. (forthcoming). The Relationship Between Teacher Qualifications and Student Performance.Google Scholar
  31. Jerald, C., & Ingersoll, R. (2002). All talk, no action: Putting an end to out-of-field teaching. Washington. DC: The Education Trust.Google Scholar
  32. Kennedy, M. (1992). The problem of improving teacher quality while balancing supply and demand. In E. Boe & D. Gilford (Eds.), Teacher supply, demand and quality (pp. 63–126). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  33. Liu, E., Rosenstein, J., Swann, A., & Khalil, D. (2008). When districts encounter teacher shortages? The challenges of recruiting and retaining mathematicsteachers in urban districts. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 7(3), 296–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Morton, B. A., Hurwitz, M. D., Strizek, G. A., Peltola, P., & Orlofsky, G. F. (2008). Education and certification qualifications of departmentalized public high school-level teachers of core subjects: Evidence from the 2003–04 schools and staffing survey (NCES 2008-338). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  35. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M., Gonzales, E. J., & Gregory, K. D. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Mathematics Report: Findings from IEA’s Repeat of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.Google Scholar
  36. National Association of State Directors of Teacher Education and Certification. (NASDTEC) (2018). Certification Data Maps. Retrieved from https://www.nasdtec.net/page/Cert_maps.
  37. National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, D.C.: GPO.Google Scholar
  38. Oakes, J. (1990). Multiplying inequalities: The effects of race, social class, and tracking on opportunities to learn mathematics and science. Santa Monica, CA: The RAND Corporation.Google Scholar
  39. Raudenbush, S., Fotiu, R., & Cheong, Y. (1999). Synthesizing results from the trial state assessment. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 24(4), 413–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ravitch, D. (1999). Education: See all the Spin. Washington Post, March 23, 1999 (p. A-17).Google Scholar
  41. Rice, J., Roellke, C., Sparks, D., & Kolbe, T. (2009). Piecing together the teacher policy landscape: A policy-problem typology. Teachers College Record, 111(2), 511–546.Google Scholar
  42. Riordan, J. (2009). Do teacher qualifications matter? A longitudinal study investigating the cumulative effect of NCLB teacher qualifications on the achievement of elementary school children, Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  43. Rivkin, S. (2007). Teacher characteristics, market forces, and distribution of teacher quality among schools and districts [Commissioned paper]. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics.Google Scholar
  44. Robinson, V. (1985). Making do in the classroom: A report on the misassignment of teachers. Washington, D.C.: Council for Basic Education and American Federation of Teachers.Google Scholar
  45. Seastrom, M., Gruber, K., Henke, R., McGrath, D., & Cohen, B. (2004). Qualifications of the public school teacher workforce: Prevalence of out-of-field teaching, 1987–88 to 1999–2000, NCES 2002-603. Washington, DC : U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.Google Scholar
  46. Shanker, A. (1985, October 27). “Education’s dirty little secret.” New York Times, Section 4 (p. E9).Google Scholar
  47. Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sizer, T. (1985). Horace’s Compromise. Houghton-Mifflin.Google Scholar
  49. Smerdon, B. (1999). Teacher quality: A report on the preparation and qualifications of public school teachers. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.Google Scholar
  50. Weiss, I. (1994). A Profile of Science and Mathematics Education in the U.S.: 1993. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research.Google Scholar
  51. Weiss, I., Banilower, E., McMahon, K., & Smith, S. (2001). A Report of the 2000 national survey of science and mathematics education survey. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations