Because there is no overall teacher shortage, but rather specific subject area shortages and an adverse selection and allocation problem, the No Child Left Behind Act's requirement that all teachers be "highly qualified " is important and attainable. To improve teacher quality, principals should be given more flexibility and control over teacher hiring and compensation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Blair, J. (2002). Teacher-trainers fear a backfire from new ESEA. Education Week, 21(25), 1-1, 38-39.
2.
Diamond, L. (2002, March, 28). Teachers at struggling schools, earn perks. The Florida Times-Union. Retrieved from wwwjacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/032802/metL8996162.html
3.
Ehrenberg, R. G., & Brewer, D. J. (1994). Do school and teacher characteristics matter? Evidence from high school and beyond. Economic of Education Review, 13(1), 1-17.
4.
Feguson, R. F., & Ladd, H. F. (1996). How and why money matters: An analysis of Alabama schools. In H. F. Ladd (Ed.), Holding schools accountable. Performance-based reform in education (pp. 265-298). Washington, DC: The Brookings Institute.
5.
Goldhaber, D. D., & Brewer, D.J. (1999). Teacher licensing and student achievement. In M. Kanstoroom & C. E. Finn (Eds.), Better teachers, better schools (pp. 683-702). Washington, DC: The Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.
6.
Hassel, B. C. (2002). Better pay for better teaching. Washington, DC: Progressive Policy Institute.
7.
Haycock, K. (2000). No more settling for less. Thinking K-16, 4(1) 3-5, 6-8,10-12.
8.
Hanushek, E. A., Kain, J. F., & Rivkin, S. G. (in press). Why public schools lose teachers. Journal of Human Resources. Retrieved from http://edpro.stanford.edu/eah/eah.htm
9.
Henke, R., Geis, S., Giambattista,J., & Knepper, P. (1996). Out of the lecture hall and into the classroom: 1992-93 College graduates and elementary/secondary school teaching. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
10.
Hess, F. M. (2001). Tear down this wall: The case for a radical overhaul of teacher certification. Washington, DC: Progressive Policy Institute.
11.
Hill, P. (2001, February 12). A conspiracy of silence. Hoover Institution Weekly Essays. Retrieved from www-hoover.stanford.edu/pubaffairs/we/current/hill_0201.html
12.
Ingersoll, R. M. (1999). The problem of underqualified teachers in American secondary schools. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 26-37.
13.
Ingersoll, R. M. (2002). The teacher shortage: A case of the wrong diagnosis and wrong prescription. NASSP Bulletin, 86(631), 16-31.
14.
Jerald, C., & Ingersoll, R. M. (2002). All talk, no action: Putting an end to out-offield teaching. Washington, DC: The Education Trust. Retrieved from www.edtrust.org/main/documents/AllTalk.pdf
15.
Kaplan, L., & Owings, W. A. (2002). The politics of teacher quality: Implications for principals. NASSP Bulletin86(633), 22-41.
16.
Laczko-Kerr, I., & Berliner, D. C. (2002, September 6). The effectiveness of "Teach for America" and other under-certified teachers on student academic achievement: A case of harmful public policy. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(37). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/vlOn37/
17.
Mathews, J. (2002, July 9). Teacher training: Too much or not enough?Washington Post, p. A10-A10.
18.
National Commission on Teaching and America's Future. (2003). No dream denied. Washington, DC: Author.
19.
National Education Association Research. (2002). Ranking and estimates: Rankings of the states 2001 and estimates of school districts 2002. Washington, DC: National Education Association. Retrieved from www.nea.org/edstats/images/02rankings.pdf
20.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (H.R.1), 107 Cong., 110 (2002) (enacted).
21.
Office of Special Education Programs. (2002, May 7). Recruiting and retaining high quality teachers. Washington, DC: U.S. Office of Special Education Programs. Retrieved from www.spense.org/policymakers.pdf
22.
Public Agenda Foundation. (2000). A sense of calling: Who teaches and why. New York: Author.
23.
Progressive Policy Institute. (2002). New teacher quality studies: Putting lipstick on a pig. 21st Century Schools Project Bulletin, 2(18). Retrieved from www.ppionline.org/ppi-ci.cfm?cp=l&knlgArealD=110&subsecid=900001&contentid=250847
24.
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.
25.
Schacter, J., Schiff, T., Thum, Y M., Fagnano, C., Bendotti, M., Solmon, L., Firetga, K., & Milken, L. (2002). The impact of the teacher advancement program on student achievement, teacher attitudes, and job satisfaction. Santa Monica, CA: Milken Family Foundation.
26.
Thomas, S. C., (2002, March 1). Report focuses on providing better teachers for classrooms. St. Louis Post-Dispatch, p. B1-B1.
27.
U.S. Department of Education. (2002). Meeting the highly-qualified teachers challenge: The secretary's annual report on teacher quality. Washington, DC: Office of Postsecondary Education, Office of Policy Planning and Innovation.
28.
Walsh, K. (2001). Teacher certification reconsidered: Stumbling towards quality. Baltimore, MD: Abell Foundation. Retrieved from www.abell.org/publications/detail.asp?ID=61
29.
Weglinsky, H. (2000). How teaching matters. Bringing the classroom back into discussions of teacher quality. A policy information center report. Princeton, NJ: The Milken Family Foundation and Educational Testing Service.
