The relatively low status of teaching as a profession is often given as a factor contributing to the difficulty of recruiting teachers, the middling performance of American students on international assessments, and the well-documented decline in the relative academic ability of teachers through the 1990s. Since the turn of the 21st century, however, a number of federal, state, and local teacher accountability policies have been implemented toward improving teacher quality over the objections of some who argue the policies will decrease quality. In this article, we analyze 25 years of data on the academic ability of teachers in New York State and document that since 1999 the academic ability of both individuals certified and those entering teaching has steadily increased. These gains are widespread and have resulted in a substantial narrowing of the differences in teacher academic ability between high- and low-poverty schools and between White and minority teachers. We interpret these gains as evidence that the status of teaching is improving.
AllenI. M. (1926). Improving the professional status of teachers. The Elementary School Journal, 26, 430–440.
2.
American Federation of Teachers (2000). Building a profession: Strengthening teacher preparation and induction. Washington, DC: American Federation of Teachers.
3.
AngristJ. D.GuryanJ. (2008). Does teacher testing raise teacher quality? Evidence from state certification requirements. Economics of Education Review, 27, 483–403.
4.
BacolodM. P. (2007). Do alternative opportunities matter? The role of female labor markets in the decline of teacher quality. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 89, 737–751.
5.
BallouD.PodgurskyM. (1998). The case against teacher certification. National Affairs, 132, 17–29.
6.
BarberM.MourshedM. (2007). How the world’s best-performing school systems come out on top. New York: McKinsey & Company.
7.
BoydD.LankfordH.LoebS.RockoffJ.WyckoffJ. (2008). The narrowing gap in New York City teacher qualifications and its implications for student achievement in high-poverty schools. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 27, 793–818.
8.
BushawW. J.LopezS. J. (2011). Betting on teachers: The 43rd annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup poll of the public’s attitudes toward the public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 93(1), 8–26.
9.
ClotfleterC. T.LaddH. F.VigdorJ. (2007). Teacher credentials and student achievement: Longitudinal analysis with student fixed effects. Economics of Education Review, 26, 673–682.
10.
CorcoranS. P.EvansW. N.SchwabR. M. (2004). Women, the labor market, and the declining relative quality of teachers. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 23, 449–470.
11.
Darling-HammondL.WiseA. E.KleinS. P. (1999). A license to teach: Raising standards for teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
12.
EhrenbergR. G.BrewerD. J. (1995). Did teachers’ verbal ability and race matter in the 1960s? Coleman revisited. Economics of Education Review, 14, 1–21.
13.
FiglioD.LoebS. (2011). School accountability. In HanushekE. A.MachinS.WoessmannL. (Eds.), Handbooks in economics: Economics of education (pp. 383–421). The Netherlands: North-Holland.
14.
FirestoneW. A.BaderB. D. (1992). Redesigning teaching: Professionalism or bureaucracy?Albany: State University of New York Press.
15.
GoldhaberD.LiuA. (2003). Occupational choices and the academic proficiency of the teacher workforce. In FowlerW. J. (Ed.), Developments in school finance 2001–02 (pp. 53–75). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
16.
GoldhaberD.WalchJ. (2013). Rhetoric versus reality: Is the academic caliber of the teacher workforce changing? (CEDR Working Paper 2013-4). Seattle: University of Washington.
17.
GreenwaldR.HedgesL. V.LaineR. D. (1996). The effect of school resources on student achievement. Review of Educational Research, 66, 361–396.
18.
HanushekE. A. (1986). The economics of schooling: Production and efficiency in public schools. Journal of Economic Literature, 24, 1141–1177.
19.
HanushekE. A.PaceR. R. (1995). Who chooses to teach (and why)?Economics of Education Review, 14, 101–117.
20.
HargreavesL. (2009). The status and prestige of teachers and teaching. In. SahaL. J.DworkinA. G. (Eds.), International handbook of research on teachers and teaching (pp. 217–229). New York: Springer.
21.
HoyleE. (2001). Teaching: Prestige, status and esteem. Educational Management, Administration, and Leadership, 29, 139–152.
22.
IngersollR. M. (2003). Who controls teachers’ work? Power and authority in America’s schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
23.
IngersollR. M.MitchellE. (2011). The status of teaching as a profession. In BallantineJ.SpadeJ. (Eds.), Schools and society: A sociological approach to education (4th ed., pp. 185–189). Los Angeles: Pine Forge Press/Sage Publications.
24.
LoebS.MillerL. C. (2009). A federal foray into teacher certification: Assessing the “highly qualified teacher” provision of NCLB. In RebellM.WolffJ. (Eds.), NCLB at the crossroads: Reexamining the federal effort to close the achievement gap (pp. 199–229). New York: Teachers College Press.
25.
ManskiC. F. (1985). Academic ability, earnings, and the decision to become a teacher: Evidence from the National Longitudinal Study of the High School Class of 1972 (NBER working paper no. 1539). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
26.
McGivernD. O. (2004, February3). Update: Regents 1998 teaching policy [Letter to the Honorable Members of the Board of Regents]. Albany: New York State Education Department.
27.
MurnaneR. J.SingerJ. D.WillettJ. B.KempleJ. J.OlsenR. J. (1991). Who will teach? Policies that matter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
28.
The National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future. (1996). What matters most: Teaching for America’s future. New York: Author.
29.
The New York State Board of Regents and The New York State Education Department. (1998). New York’s commitment: Teaching to higher standards. Albany: New York State Education Department.
30.
OddenA.KelleyC. (2001). Paying teachers for what they know and do: New and smarter compensation strategies to improve schools (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
31.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2014). PISA 2012 results: What students know and can do – student performance in mathematics, reading and science (Volume I, Revised edition, February2014). Paris: PISA, OECD Publishing
32.
PaineS. L.SchleicherA. (2011). What the U.S. can learn from the world’s most successful education reform efforts. New York: McGraw-Hill Research Foundation.
33.
PodgurskyM.MonroeR.WatsonD. (2004). The academic quality of public school teachers: An analysis of entry and exit behavior. Economics of Education Review, 23, 507–518.
34.
RipleyA. (2013). The smartest kids in the world: And how they got that way. New York: Simon & Schuster.
35.
SchleicherA. (Ed.). (2012). Preparing teachers and developing school leaders for the 21st century: Lessons from around the world. Paris: OECD Publishing.
36.
ShawB. (1903). Man and superman. Cambridge, MA: The University Press.
37.
SteeleC. M.AronsonJ. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 797–811.
38.
U.S. Department of Education. (2005). Consolidated state performance report: Part I for state formula grant programs under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, for reporting on school year 2004-05, New York. Washington, DC: Author.
39.
U.S. Department of Education. (2010). Consolidated state performance report: Part I for state formula grant programs under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, for reporting on school year 2009-10, New York. Washington, DC: Author.
40.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (n.d.). Common Core of Data (CCD), “Identification of Locales.” Available at http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/rural_locales.asp
41.
VegasE.MurnaneR. J.WillettJ. B. (2001). From high school to teaching: Many steps, who makes it?Teachers College Record, 103, 427–449.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
