Middle School Teacher Certification
1
Running head: DISSERTATION PROPOSAL—MIDDLE SCHOOL TEACHER
CERTIFICATION
AN EXAMINATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TYPE OF TEACHER
CERTIFICATION OF MIDDLE SCHOOL TEACHERS AND STUDENT READING,
WRITING, AND MATH ACHIEVEMENT
A PROPOSAL
In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education
Middle School Teacher Certification
2
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this research is to examine the relationship between middle school
certification requirements and student achievement of eighth graders on the Alaska State
Benchmark Exams in reading, writing, and math. The impact of the No Child Left Behind
Act of 2001 (NCLB) requirement to have a highly qualified teacher in every classroom, by
the 2005-06 school year, is significant to the research project. Also pertinent to this
research are the areas of teacher quality and teacher certification and the relationship to
middle school student achievement. Results are interpreted relative to student’s social
economic status, teacher experience, teacher preparation and the opportunity for student
learning.
INTRODUCTION
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) amends the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) by making significant changes in federal
programs that support schools (USDOE, 2002b). A major objective of NCLB is to ensure
high quality teachers for all students, regardless of race, ethnicity or income. The premise
of identifying highly qualified teachers is based on research that demonstrates the
connection between student academic achievement and teacher quality (DarlingHammond & Sykes, 2003; Whitehurst, 2002a). Other studies indicate that many
classrooms, particularly those with disadvantaged students have a disproportionate
number of teachers who are not considered highly qualified (Darling-Hammond, Berry &
Thoreson, 2001; Ingersoll, 1999).
Middle School Teacher Certification
3
NCLB requires that teachers meet three requirements: (a) hold a bachelor’s degree;
(b) obtain a full state certification (alternative certification included) and (c) demonstrate
subject matter competency in core subjects the teacher teaches (USDOE, 2002b). Full
state certification is determined in accordance with state policy. States may include
alternative routes to certification via programs that allow candidates to teach while they
are meeting the state certification requirements or create their own alternative route such
as an assessment of competence. The law also emphasizes core subjects which include
English, reading or language arts, mathematics, science, foreign language, civics and
government, economics, arts, history and geography. Beginning with the 2002-03 school
year, teachers in core academic subjects in Title I programs must meet all requirements.
By the end of the 2005-06 school year, all teachers of core academic subjects must meet
all the requirements in any state receiving federal funds.
States are working intensely to put into place support systems to help teachers
demonstrate they are highly qualified. The demonstration is clear and straightforward, for
those teachers holding a certification in a core content area with a corresponding college
major. For other teachers, the need to demonstrate core content knowledge comes through
a test or Highly Objective Uniform State System of Evaluation (HOUSSE) process to be
developed by states (USDOE, 2002b).
One area of considerable consternation in school districts is the middle school
teacher. Generally, a middle school teacher can hold a K-8 elementary (generalist) or a 712 core area certification. This certification flexibility reflects the middle school teacher
preparation debate. The National Middle School Association, (NMSA)(1995) argues that
middle school is transitional and the students need a holistic, caring approach versus the
Middle School Teacher Certification
4
approach that educators must prepare the students academically for high school and
beyond, the core content approach (Goldharber & Brewer, 1998). NCLB legislation
promotes the latter certification as the most beneficial to students. The study examines the
relationship between teacher certification and student achievement at the middle school
level. The research question is: Does the type of teacher certification held by middle
school teachers’ influence middle school student performance on 8th grade state
benchmark tests in reading, writing, and math?
LITERATURE REVIEW
The review of the literature provides the context and rationale for the study.
First, the literature review establishes the connection of teacher quality to student
achievement. Secondly, the review discusses teacher certification as the regulatory
standard for determining qualified teachers. And finally, the discussion covers middle
school teacher qualifications and student achievement. All of these topics are influenced
by the NCLB mandates for highly qualified teachers in the classrooms and, as a result,
NCLB information is integrated throughout the literature review.
Teacher Quality
A strong connection between teacher quality and students’ achievement is
emerging as a key linkage in defining quality teaching (Darling-Hammond & Sykes,
2003). It is a reflection of how critical a teacher is to student learning. In fact, DarlingHammond and Sykes (2003) indicate that the majority of parents and the public believe
that having well qualified teachers in the classroom is the best way to improve schools. In
Middle School Teacher Certification
5
a like manner, professional educational organizations are addressing teacher quality and
student achievement in public discussion. The National Board for Professional Teacher
Standards (NBPTS), the Interstate New Teachers Assessment Support Consortium,
(INTASC), and the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) all
reflect in their standards teacher quality in light of student achievement (Mitchell,
Robinson, Plake & Knowles, 2001).
In 1987, the NBPTS was established as a method to challenge and reward quality
teachers (NBTS, 2003). Teachers submit performance-based assessments, student worksamples, videotapes, and complete an analysis of classroom teaching and student learning.
Teachers’ submissions are peer reviewed against established criteria. The goal is to
establish the characteristics and reinforce those teaching practices of quality teachers. In
the first effort to evaluate the program, Goldhaber (2003) completed a study of 200,000
North Carolina teachers from 1997-2000. He analyzed data on race, gender, age,
standardized test scores and job placement. Of those teachers, 4,000 had applied for
NBPTS certification. He found that African-American teachers were more likely than
their white counterparts to apply for National Board certification and less likely to receive
the credential. Black teachers made up 13 percent of the applicant pool but only had a four
percent success rate. Educators that did receive approval had higher standardized test
scores and worked in higher performing schools located in more affluent communities. On
the positive side, the study shows that the NBPTS system can identify and reward teachers
who perform well on such tests as Praxis II and SAT and Graduate Record Exams, all
predictors of teacher knowledge. In an effort to raise teacher quality, the NBPTS study
confirms the need for additional research. As the demographics of our schools shift, the
Middle School Teacher Certification
6
importance of ethnically diverse teachers is essential. It is important to have a certification
system that is equitable for all.
While the connection between teacher quality and student achievement is
relatively new, the federal government, as well as, the public has quickly embraced the
concept (Darling-Hammond & Sykes, 2003; Education Week, 2003). Because teacher
certification has been established as the methodology to ensure teacher quality over the
years, researchers and practitioners are rethinking what role teacher certification plays in
the effort to have a highly qualified teacher in every classroom. In response to various
proposals and opinions on the necessity and effectiveness of teacher certification, Hirsch
(2003) states, “it is not that licensing and qualifications do not matter; it is that they must
be meaningfully tied to knowledge, skills and actual classroom performance if they are to
have demonstrable connection to student results (p. 4).”
Teacher Certification
Teacher certification is a regulatory practice employed by the states to ensure that
schools have a quality professional in every classroom. Teacher Certification is defined as
the formal approval to teach in a public school. Approval is based on candidates meeting
specific requirements established by state regulation and reviewed by the state agency to
verify that teacher preparation requirements have been fulfilled. All 50 states have a
certification process in place for certifying teachers (Education Week, 2003). In general,
certification requires the completion of coursework (usually an undergraduate degree) in
education and the subject matter they intend to teach (Wang, Coleman, Coley & Phelps,
2003; Lackzo-Kerr & Berliner, 2002; Walsh, 2001). Twenty-three states require at least
30 credits in a subject area or subject major in addition to completion of other specified
Middle School Teacher Certification
7
course work. In addition, 37 states require teachers pass a basic skills test in reading,
writing, and mathematics to obtain certification and 29 states require a subject specific
pedagogy exam (Wang, Coleman, Coley & Phelps, 2003).
The certification process itself is over 150 years old. During that time the debate
over “who” certifies teachers and “how” certification is done has been and continues to be
hotly debated (Lackzo-Kerr & Berliner, 2002). As an example, Education Secretary Rod
Paige recently stirred the pot when he suggested a revamping of the certification system
for licensing teachers (O’Neill, 2003). He dismissed the value of “education” coursework
and called for new ways for college graduates to enter the teaching profession. In the
United States Department of Education (USDOE) report on Title II, Meeting the Highly
Qualified Teachers Challenge, the secretary makes four claims (2002a). First, rigorous
research indicates that verbal ability and content knowledge are the most important
attributes of highly qualified teachers. Secondly, there is little evidence that education
school course work leads to improved student achievement. Thirdly, today’s certification
system discourages some of the most talented candidates from entering the profession
while allowing too many poorly qualified individuals to teach. Finally, alternative routes
to certification demonstrate that streamlined systems can boost the quantity of teachers
while maintaining or even improving their quality (USDOE, 2002). The research in the
report has been criticized regarding the lack of peer review and the quality and rigor of the
research (Darling-Hammond & Youngs, 2002; Heap, 2002). The assertions have added
fuel to a heated debate among leading researchers in the field of teacher preparation
(Darling-Hammond & Youngs, 2002; Walsh, 2001; Ballou & Podgursky, 2000; Darling
Hammond, 2000; Ballou & Podgursky, 1999). Laczko-Kerr & Berliner (2002) report in a
Middle School Teacher Certification
8
literature review that (a) subject matter is an important, but not sufficient factor in certified
teacher’s success with mathematics and science students in upper grades, (b) teachers who
have training in pedagogy out perform teachers without such training and (c) traditionally
certified teachers teaching in their area of certification out perform both certified teachers
teaching out of field and alternatively certified teachers. They also indicate that to each of
these conclusions there are prominent dissenters (Walsh, 2001; Ballou & Podgursky,
1999; Miller, McKenna, & McKenna, 1998). It is apparent that the research is not
conclusive and that agreement does not exist about what constitutes a highly qualified
teacher or what constitutes an effective certification system. As a result, additional field
studies are needed to confirm or disconfirm the importance of teacher certification on
student achievement.
In a review of research on teacher certification and student achievement, three areas of
research emerge. First, research relative to a teacher’s subject matter knowledge,
particularly in math and science, has been investigated as a foundation for teacher quality
(Fetler, 1999; TIMSS, 1999; Goldharber & Brewer, 1996). Second, research on teacher
certification and pedagogy has focused on the skills teachers need to teach (Wilson,
Floden, Ferrini-Mundy, 2002; Darling Hammond, 2000). Third, research on traditional
certification and alternatives to it has become a key factor in the teacher preparation
debate (Wang. Coleman, Coley & Phelps, 2003; Darling-Hammond, Berry & Thorenson,
2001). All three areas have importance in the debate but none have a clear direction
defined by research.
Teachers’ subject matter knowledge
Middle School Teacher Certification
9
As indicated earlier, NCLB favors those that assert that subject matter knowledge
is a foundation for teacher quality and discounts the need to balance teacher preparation
with “education” classes. The demonstration of “highly” qualified is manifested in the
requirement that teachers have a major in a core content subject. The National
Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (NCTAF, 2002) published criteria to help
states define “highly qualified teacher”. First on their list of criteria is that teachers
“possess a deep knowledge of the subjects they teach” (p. 1). In a study by Ferguson
(1991), a positive relationship was found between teacher expertise and student’s reading
and mathematic achievement gains. Monk (1994) also reported a positive relationship
between gains in student performance and teachers course work in their subject matter.
In addition, the 1999 Trends in International Math and Science Study (TIMSS)
report analyzed the majors of 8th grade mathematics teachers to determine what type of
teacher preparation they had in an effort to determine why students in the United States
are low performing in comparison to other countries. The report found that 8th grade
students in the United States were less likely than those in other countries surveyed to
have teachers with mathematics or mathematics education as a major of study. In fact,
only 61% of students in the United States were taught by teachers with mathematic majors
(TIMSS, 1999). The research in this area is more consistent and generally indicates that
high school math and science teachers with a major have higher achieving students than
teachers who are teaching out of field (Whitehurst, 2002; Golhaber & Brewer, 1998;
Monk, 1994; Monk & King, 1994). However, that position is not without contradiction.
The 2000 NAEP found no relationship between math scores at 4th grade and teachers’
major (NCES, 2001). Rowan (2002) also found no relationship between a math or
Middle School Teacher Certification
10
English major and student achievement scores in math and reading at the elementary level.
The implication is that teacher subject matter knowledge may not be directly linked to
achievement in elementary classrooms.
One of the criticisms of teacher certification is that graduates of traditional teacher
preparation programs are weak in subject matter. In a landmark study conducted by
Educational Testing Service on scores on its Praxis II exam (used by 23 states to measure
content knowledge of teachers), 91percent of graduates from colleges accredited by the
National Council of Accreditation of Teachers Education (NCATE) passed the content
exam, compared with 73 percent who did not study teacher preparation (Gitomer &
Latham, 1999). The study contradicts those critical of teacher preparation programs by
asserting that the programs are not adequately preparing teachers in science and math
(Walsh, 2001;Ballou & Podgursky, 2000).
Other researchers discount the value of subject matter alone as the critical
ingredient to quality teaching (Hirsch, 2003; Darling-Hammond, 2000). Hirsch, in a
critical reflection, states, “qualifications, in terms of licensing, have been used by states to
set one basic, minimal level of competence—largely in the area of content knowledge as it
is the easiest and most cost efficient to assess—and not much more (p.4).” Proponents,
such as Hirsch, advocate for the importance of teacher pedagogy as a mandatory part of
teacher preparation.
Teacher certification and pedagogy
Pedagogy is defined as the art or practice of teaching, especially systemized
learning or instruction concerning the principals and methods of teaching (Webster, 2002).
Teachers must have the knowledge and skills they need to teach so that all children can
Middle School Teacher Certification
11
learn (NCTAF, 2000). Pedagogical knowledge incorporates knowledge of the students’
understanding and misconceptions about the subject, pedagogical strategies pertinent to
the subject, curricular materials and what it means to teach (Ringstasff & Sandholtz,
2002). Teachers acquire pedagogical expertise through teacher education programs,
experience and professional development activities. As a result, increased attention is
focused on how teachers are prepared.
NCTAF (2000) recommends that teacher preparation should include both content
and pedagogy. Stronge (2003), in a meta-analysis reports that teachers with traditional
education preparation are better able to recognize individual student differences; those
without educational coursework frequently have difficulties with classroom management,
student motivation, and using specific teaching strategies. Similarly, Monk (1994)
concluded that coursework in subject matter pedagogy appears to contribute more to
student performance than the academic courses in the subject taught. The value of
pedagogical preparation and the link to student performance plays an important role in the
discussion to follow on teacher certification and alternate routes of teacher preparation.
Teacher certification and alternatives
An ongoing debate revolves around the issue of teacher certification, itself. There
are commonly three types of teacher certificates, traditional, alternative, and emergency
(provisional) (Qu & Becker, 2003; Lackzo-Kerr & Berliner, 2002). Traditional
certificates require a bachelor’s degree in education, successful completion of student
teaching under supervision of a mentor teacher and in most states a basic skills exam.
Alternate certificates, often, require a bachelor’s degree, but the degree does not have to
be in education. It allows individuals to teach while meeting supervised teaching practice
Middle School Teacher Certification
12
requirements through on the job experiences or similar opportunities (Darling-Hammond,
Berry & Thoreson, 2001). Forty-five states and the District of Columbia offer alternative
teacher certification programs. The programs are increasing in popularity, particularly, to
help resolve the shortage of under-represented cultural groups, help staff urban and high
poverty schools, and aid mid-career professionals transition to a teaching career (Wang,
Coleman, Coley & Phelps, 2003). An emergency certificate has minimal requirements and
is used primarily to cover hard to fill classrooms when a shortage of candidates emerges
(Wang, Coleman, Coley and Phelps, 2003). Forty-six states grant emergency licenses to
untrained applicants (Darling-Hammond and Cobb, 1996). In some instances, a
provisional certificate may be issued under similar or modified conditions in lieu of an
emergency certificate (Qu & Becker, 2003). The purpose of certification is to validate the
quality of teachers (Lackzo-Kerr & Berliner, 2002). However, inconsistencies make it
difficult to determine the relationship of teacher certification to other factors such as
student achievement.
Researchers have not consistently found a relationship between teacher
certification and student achievement (Qu & Becker, 2003). As stated previously, states
require some sort of certification in order for teachers to work in public schools. Many
states have a provisional certificate awarded to entry level teachers that may still need to
meet some state requirement for full certification (Qu & Becker, 2003; Education Week,
2004) In this case, a provisional certificate is a temporary pass and teachers holding the
certificate are non-certified until the requirements are filled. As a result, teachers without
full certification are often the least experienced teachers. This leads to difficulty in
comparing student achievement of certified and non-certified teachers because of age and
Middle School Teacher Certification
13
experience bias (Whitehurst, 2002b). However, in a widely cited study, DarlingHammond (1999) completed research using the National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP) at the state level and compared it to the percentage of fully certified
teachers. She reported that teacher qualifications accounted for a 40 to 60 percent
variance across states in average achievement levels on the NAEP 4th and 8th grade
reading and mathematics assessment.
Supporters of teacher certification claim that certification is necessary to maintain
quality of the profession. Stronge (2003) in a recent meta-analysis of research states that
the proportion of well-qualified and certified teachers within a state is one of the most
consistent predictors of student test scores in reading and math.
In another major study, Lackzo-Kerr and Berliner (2002) focused on 293 teachers
in grades 3-8 in five Arizona school Districts. The schools were urban and enrolled a high
percentage of poor students. The teachers were divided into certified and under-certified
groups (emergency or provisional licenses or participating in an alternative certification
route, Teach For America). The researchers matched the unlicensed teachers with
licensed teachers at the same grade level, same school and with similar years of
experience. The standardized tests of the students were compared. Students with certified
teachers performed 20 percent better on the tests than the students with non-certified
teachers. The findings of a comparison of alternative route teachers with certified teachers
found similar results.
A second issue is alternative certification. As a result of a shortage of qualified
teacher applicants in some core content areas, alternative routes to certification have
emerged (Wang, Coleman, Coley & Phelps, 2003). Prominent alternative route programs
Middle School Teacher Certification
14
such as “Teach America” (Walsh, 2001) and “Troops to Teachers” (Whitehurst, 2002) are
examples of alternative routes to certification. Qu & Becker (2003), in a meta-analysis,
found that “traditional teacher training is at least as effective as alternate-route training
and more effective than minimal (emergency) certification” (p. 40). They report that an
important predictor of differences in teacher preparation effectiveness was the location
where teachers studied.
Researchers also are interested in comparing student achievement of certified
teachers versus alternative certified teachers or provisionally certified teachers and
alternative certified teachers. Goldhaber and Brewer (1998) analyzed data from students
that participated in the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988. They found that
teacher certification for 10th grade students and student test scores were not significantly
related. Likewise, Miller, McKenna and McKenna (1998) matched 41 alternative teachers
with 41 traditionally trained teachers within the same school. The results reported found
no significant differences in student achievement.
A third area of concern is out-of-field teaching. Out-of-field teaching is defined
as a certified teacher in one core content area that is actually teaching in another area (Qu
& Becker, 2003). For example, an individual with a degree and certification in
mathematics is teaching English. It is important to consider the impact of out-of-field
teaching on student achievement as part of the certification discussion.
The impact of out-of-field teachers seems to vary depending on school and class
organization at the elementary, middle and high school levels. The National Center for
Educational Statistics (NCES, 2002) reports that the impact at the elementary level is
minimal as a result of limited class rotations or instruction by department. In contrast, the
Middle School Teacher Certification
15
middle schools have a higher rate than either high school or elementary students of out-offield teachers. Even though the rate of out-of-field teachers is lower at the high school, the
potential for out-of-field teaching is high. The instructional content is more demanding
and a wider variety of content is offered. For the school year 1999-2000, NCES reports
between 11 and 22 percent of the students enrolled in English, mathematics, science,
foreign language, social science and history were taught by teachers without a major,
minor or certification in the subject taught. At the same time, 29 to 40 percent of middle
school students enrolled in the sciences and ESL/bilingual classes had teachers who did
not have a major, minor or certification in the subject taught. In a further analysis of the
middle grades, 73 percent of the students in mathematics, 58 percent in English, 61
percent in foreign language and 57 percent in science had teachers without a major or
certification in the subject taught (when the minor qualification is removed). Similarly,
Ingersoll (1999) found a high incidence rate of teachers teaching subject matter outside
their areas of preparation, particularly in classrooms of low-income students. Finally, Qu
& Becker (2003) compared fully qualified teachers and provisionally qualified teachers to
out of field teachers. The main finding between the two comparisons is that experienced
teachers with full certification have more impact on student achievement than teachers
with less experience. When a teacher is assigned to teach out of field, the lack of
experience in the new area seems to make a difference.
The last issue related to teacher certification is the variation of state licensure
requirements. This makes the comparison of aggregate data across states is very difficult.
The use of aggregate data is one of the strong criticisms of the previously mentioned 1999
Darling-Hammond study (Walsh, 2001; Whitehurst, 2002b). The criticism is related to
Middle School Teacher Certification
16
aggregation bias. Students do not experience an average level of certification, they
experience a teacher who is or is not certified.
The review of the literature is based on an assumption that meeting licensing or
certification requirements results in a quality teacher that reflects the standards sought
through NCLB legislation. Because teacher certification has been established as the
methodology to ensure teacher quality over the years, researchers and practitioners are
rethinking what role teacher certification plays in the effort to have a highly qualified
teacher in every classroom. The emphasis on teacher quality has been driven by the
recognition of researchers, parents and the public that teachers are critical to a student’s
learning (Darling-Hammond & Sykes, 2003). As the above discussion indicates,
researchers are in conflict about teacher certification. Indeed, three major areas of
certification research (subject matter, pedagogy and alternative certification) are hotly
debated. However, a few observations can be made. First, in the areas of math and
science, subject matter preparation seems to make a difference in student achievement.
Second, it does appear that the least qualified teachers teach low-income, disabled and
bilingual students. Third, the experience level of out-of-field teachers influences the
performance of their students. Fourth, it appears that middle school students are at highest
risk for out-of-field teachers, The next part of the literature review will address, in
particular, the relationship between teacher certification and student achievement in
middle school.
Middle School
Under NCLB, middle schools are treated differently depending on whether they
are designated as an elementary or high school (USDOE, 2002). Middle Schools share the
Middle School Teacher Certification
17
same testing or adequate yearly progress requirements as elementary schools. The NCLB
standards for teacher quality may differ, however, if a middle school is in a K-12
institution, but considered a separate “school with in a school”. Teacher quality
designated for high schools demand that teachers hold a major in each subject taught. This
standard applies to middle schools with a secondary designation (Alliance for Educational
Excellence, 2003). “Middle schools will likely be hit the hardest as they struggle with
teachers particularly in sixth grade, on elementary licenses who will now have to become
highly qualified using the secondary definition.” (Hirsch, 2003). In a study of 60 new
middle school teachers in Philadelphia, Useem, (2000) found that:
•
Sixty-five percent of new teachers held an elementary certificate (K-6)
•
Eight percent had a secondary certificate (7-12)
•
Twenty-seven percent were apprentice teachers with an emergency credential, two
thirds of whom were studying for an elementary certificate. Only 14 percent of the
new teachers had done their student teaching in the seventh or eighth grade;
•
Seventy-four percent student taught in grades K-5.
•
Six of the 60 teachers said they preferred to teach middle grades more than any
other school level.
•
Only 10-17 percent (depending on the field) were well qualified to teach in the
subject areas to which they had been assigned, meaning a college major or minor
or at least four academic courses in that area.
•
More than a third appeared to be poorly prepared (as high as 42 percent in
Reading/Language Arts) for teaching in their subject area.
Middle School Teacher Certification
18
It is evident the Philadelphia school system has hired a majority of non-qualified
teachers for middle schools. One of the mantras often heard is that teacher quality is the
most important factor explaining growth in student achievement (Darling-Hammond &
Sykes, 2003; Goldhaber, 2002). An assumption that could be made is that school districts
with an under-qualified work force similar to Philadelphia’s would result in lower student
achievement.
For example, Cooney (2000) reported that only 20% of eighth graders in the
Southern Regional Education Board (SREB) states reached proficiency in mathematics
and fewer than one third reached proficiency in reading. SREB also surveyed nearly 1100
SREB middle grade teachers in 28 schools and 13 states and found 30 percent have
subject matter majors and 43 percent had elementary majors (Cooney, 2000). In a further
analysis of teacher certification and eighth grade achievement on the NAEP mathematics
exam, a difference in achievement was found in every mathematics course, especially the
most advanced courses (algebra and geometry). Perhaps, middle school achievement
results such as Cooney and SREB report are related to teacher quality as defined by
NCLB. Cooney prompts educators to ask: “Why aren’t students learning more in middle
grades? Are middle grade teachers prepared to teach the necessary content? Do we need
a special certification and preparation requirements specifically for middle school
teachers? (p.1)”
METHODOLOGY
Setting and Participants
The research project will use extant data available through a large northwest
school district. The participants will be the 8th grade math and language arts teachers at
Middle School Teacher Certification
19
the middle school level that currently hold a valid teacher certificate to teach at that level
and their students’ test scores from the 8th grade state benchmark tests in math, reading
and writing.
Procedures
The teachers will be divided into two groups, math and language arts (LA). Each
major group will be divided into two further subgroups: Language Arts Group A will be
those teachers that hold a K-8 or similar certificate that indicates a generalist background
and Language Arts Group B will be those that hold a 7-12 or similar language arts
certificate (see Table 1). Likewise, two math groups will be determined using the same
criteria.
Table 1
Types of certification assigned to K-8 and 7-12 groups
K-8 Elementary Certification
7-12 Subject Matter Certification
Elementary Education K-8
Math Secondary 7-12
Elementary Education 5-8
Math Middle School 6-9
Elementary Education Middle 5-9
English Secondary 7-12
Integrated Studies Middle 5-9
English Middle 6-9
Special Education w/o subject
Language Arts Secondary 7-12
ESL w/o subject
Language Arts Middle 6-9
Reading K-12
Special Education w/ subject
ESL w/ subject
Middle School Teacher Certification
20
Two years of academic data will be used because the state benchmark test in math
was revised prior to the 2002 school year so earlier data would not be consistent with
current test results. While the data is already available for the 2002-03 school year, the
2003-04 data will not be available until spring of 2004. Teacher certification by cell size is
noted in Table 2 for the 2002-03 school year. Data for 2003-04 is estimated to be similar
in size.
Table 2
Number of teachers by certification type during the 2002-2003 school year
Type of certification
Math
LA
K-8 Elementary Certification
13
14
7-12 Subject Matter Certification
10
14
Each participant will be analyzed through the use of district or state identification
numbers. Actual names will be omitted to provide confidentiality for students and
teachers. The student data available for 2002-03 school year will be based on class lists as
of June 6, 2003. The student data for 2003-04 will be based on class lists as of February
17, 2004, the actual date of the administration of the test. As a result, there may be some
discrepancies of class assignment between the testing dates in March of 2003 and the final
class list. Some students will have transferred teachers, as an example. The categorical
data available are reflected in Table 3.
Middle School Teacher Certification
21
Table 3
Data Category
Teacher Information
Student information
District ID Number
State/District ID
Gender
Gender
Assignment Code
Course Enrolled
School Location
School Location
Certification and Endorsements
Benchmark Test Scores, Math,
Class List
Reading and Writing
College Major
Grade Level
Years of Experience
SES (Free and Reduced lunch)
Ethnicity
Ethnicity
Measures (Alaska Benchmark Tests)
The Alaska Benchmark Test is a scaled test. Results are reported both in
numerical fashion and in one of four rating categories with cutoff scores: advanced (4),
proficient (3), below proficient (2) and not proficient (1). The State Department of
Education and Early Development (DEED) establishes the cutoff scores for each level.
Both types of student scores are available for the research project. The data for identifying
socio-economic status (SES) students has some limitations. Free and reduced lunch
qualifiers and high school waivers are the markers used by the district to identify SES.
District policy has very strict guidelines on the release of information regarding these
Middle School Teacher Certification
22
students’ identities. In this case, identification numbers are not available. However, the
district is willing to give the children’s scores and the teacher’s names for the student
registered for math or language arts classes. This will allow an indirect identification of a
group of students for further analysis.
In addition, information will be gathered from the State of Alaska, Department of
Education and Early Development about the standards for issuance of a teacher certificate,
particularly the standards required for teacher preparation. A review of the state university
systems in Alaska, Washington, and Oregon for teacher certification will also be
conducted. Specifically, the requirements for preparation in reading, writing and math
will be collected. The majority of teacher applicants are trained through Alaska,
Washington, and Oregon systems. Finally, information will be collected from the district
about curriculum requirements for middle school students.
RESULTS
As stated earlier, the research question for this dissertation is: Does the type of
teacher certification held by middle school teachers’ influence middle school student
performance on 8th grade state benchmark tests in language arts and mathematics? The
independent variable is the type of teacher certification, K-8 elementary or 7-12 math or
language arts certification. The dependent variables are the Alaska Benchmark Scores in
reading, writing and math of students in the respective classrooms. Potential confounding
variables are (a) social economic status of the students, (b) the number of years of
teaching experience, (c) teacher preparation requirements and (d) the opportunity students
had to learn. Information regarding SES and teacher experience will be included in the
demographic information obtained from the district. An analysis of the preparation
Middle School Teacher Certification
23
teachers received, particularly reading and writing as a component of language arts
preparation, will be conducted via a review of teacher certification standards, transcript
analysis and university requirements for teacher education programs. A post hoc analysis
of the students’ opportunity to learn (OTL) will be done by analyzing transcripts and other
student data. The process will include an analysis of how the district places students into
classrooms (placement tests, previous test data, grades, teacher interviews, and an analysis
of the courses appearing in their transcripts). The analysis will focus on those students
who failed the test, particularly in classrooms of the subject matter certificated teachers.
Confirmatory analyses also are planned for those students who passed the test to ensure
the only variable that differs is teacher certification (and not any of the possible
confounding variables).
Means, standard deviations and t-tests for each group will be calculated to examine
the relationships that may exist between teacher certification and student achievement. An
analysis of the relationship between the four teacher groups and their students’
achievement scores will be analyzed, controlling for the effects of SES, years of teaching
experience, teacher preparation and the opportunity to learn. An analysis of variance or
ANOVA will be the statistical method applied.
Middle School Teacher Certification
24
References
Alliance for Excellent Education (2003). NCLB and Middle Schools: Confronting the
Challenges. Retrieved Feb 6, 2003 from www.All4Ed.org
Ballou, D. & Podgursky, M. (1999). Reforming teacher preparation and licensing: What
is the evidence? Retrieved January 9, 2004 from
www.tcrecord.org/PrintContent.asp?ContentID=10434
Ballou, D. & Podgursky, M. (2000). Reforming teacher preparation and licensing:
Continuing the debate. Retrieved January 29, 2004 from
www.tcrecord.org/PrintContent.asp?ContentID= 10524
Cooney, S. (2000). A middle grades message: A well qualified teacher in every
classroom matters. Southern Regional Education Board: Atlanta Georgia
Darling-Hammond, L. (1999). Teaching and Knowledge: policy issues posed by alternate
certification issues for teachers. Seattle, Washington: Center for Study of
Teaching and Policy, University of Washington.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Reforming teacher preparation and licensing: Debating
the evidence. Retrieved January 29, 2004 from
www.tcrecord.org/PrintContent.asp?ContentID=10419
Darling-Hammond, L., Berry, B. & Thoreson, A (2001). Does teacher certification
matter? Evaluating the evidence. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
23(1), 57-77
Darling-Hammond, L., & Cobb, V.L. (1996). The changing context of teacher
education, In F.B. Murray (ED), The Teacher Educators’ Handbook: Building A
Knowledge Base For The Preparation Of Teachers (PP. 14-62). San Francisco;
Middle School Teacher Certification
25
Jossey-Bass.
Darling-Hammond, L. & Sykes, G. (2003). Wanted: A national teacher supply policy for
education: The right way to meet the “highly qualified” teacher challenge.
Education Policy Analysis Archives 11(33). Retrieved January 29, 2004 from
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n33
Darling-Hammond, L. & Youngs, P. (2002). Defining “highly qualified teachers”:
What does “scientifically based research” actually tell us? Education Researcher.
December, 2002
Education Week (2003). “Quality Counts: 2003: The teacher gap” Retrieved February
6, 2004 from www.edweek.org/reports/qc03/reports/17quality-t1b.cfm
Education Week, “Quality Counts: 2004: Count me in: Special education in an era of
standards.” Retrieved February 6, 2004 from
http:// www.edweek.org/sreports/qc04/reports/quality-t1.cfm
Ferguson, R. (1991). Paying for public education: New evidence on how and why money
matters. Harvard Journal on Legislation 28: 465-498
Fetler, M. (1999). High school staff characteristics and mathematics test results.
Education Policy Analysis Archives, 7(9). Retrieved January 29, 2004 from
http://epa.asu.edu/epaa/v7n9.html.
Gitomer, D.H. & Latham, A. S. (1999). The academic quality of prospective teachers:
The impact of admissions and licensure testing. Retrieved February 3, 2004 from
http://www.ets.org/research/reseacher/rr0335.htm
Goldhaber, D. (2002). The mystery of good teaching: Surveying the evidence on student
achievement and teacher characteristics. Education Next, 2(1), 50-55.
Middle School Teacher Certification
Goldhaber, D. (2003). NBPTS Certification: Who applies and what factors are
associated with success? Retrieved February 10, 2004 from
www.evans.washington.edu/fac/golhaber/index.html.
Golhaber, D.D. & Brewer, D. (1996). Evaluating the effect of teacher degree level.
Rockville, MD: Westat, Inc.
Goldhaber, D., & Brewer, D. (1998). Evaluating the effect of teacher degree level
educational performance. In W. Fowler (ed.) Developments in school finance,
Washington D. C.: US Dept. of Ed., National Center for Educational Statistics,
199-210
Heap, J. (2002). An educator’s perspective on: Meeting the highly qualified teachers
challenge. National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education: Ohio
Hirsch, E. (2003). Can highly qualified teachers be high quality too? Retrieved Jan 28,
2004 from http://www.headfirstcolorado.org/adm/view_article.php?story_id37
Ingersoll, R. (1999). The problem of under-qualified teachers in American secondary
schools. Educational Researcher, 28(2: 26-37
Laczko-Kerr, I & Berliner, D.C. (2002). The effectiveness of “Teach for America” and
other under-certified teachers on student academic achievement: A case of
harmful policy. Education Policy Analysis Archives: 10 (37) 1-56
McLaughlin, M.W. (1994). Somebody knows my name. Issues in restructuring schools
(“Report No. 7). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Center on
Organization and Restructuring of Schools
Miller, J., McKenna, M., & McKenna, B. (1998). A comparison of alternatively and
Traditionally prepared teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 49, 165-176
26
Middle School Teacher Certification
27
Miriam-Webster (2000). Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, Springfield, MA: G. & C.
Merriam Co
Mitchell, K.J., Robinson, D. Z., Plake, B.S. & Knowles K.T. (Eds.) (2001).
Testing teacher candidates: The role of licensure tests in improving teacher
quality. National Research council, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Monk, D.H. (1994). Subject area preparation of secondary mathematics and science
teachers and student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 13(2): 125-145
Monk, D., & King, J. (1994). Multilevel teacher resource effects on pupil performance in
secondary mathematics and science. In Ronald G. Ehrenberg (ed.), Choices and
Consequences. Ithaca NY: ILR Press.
National Middle School Association (1995). This we believe: Developmentally responsive
middle level schools. Columbus, OH: Author.
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (2003). About NBTS. Retrieved from
http://www.nbpts.org/about/index.cfm
National Middle School Association (2003). Highly qualified and balanced approach.
Retrieved Jan. 26, 2003 from http://www.nmsa.org/research/rmle/article.html
National Center for Educational Statistics (2001). The condition of education, 2001.
Washington, D.C.: US Department of Education.
National Center for Educational Statistics (2002). Qualifications of the public school
teacher workforce: Prevalence of out-of-field teaching 1987-88 to 1999-2000.
Washington, D.C.: US Department of Education.
National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future, (2002). News Bulletin. Press
Release October 23, 2903, Washington D.C.
Middle School Teacher Certification
28
National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (2000). What matters
most?: Teachers for America’s future. Teachers College: Columbia University
Retrieved January 29, 2004 from
http://www.tcrecord.org/PrintContent.asp?ContentID+10420.
O’Neil, J. (2003). Credentials count. NEA Today, 21(4): p. 21
Qu, Y & Becker, B.J. (2003). Does traditional teacher certification imply quality? A
meta-analysis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL, April 21-25, 2003
Ringstaff, C & Sandholtz, J.H. (2002). Out-of-field assignments: Case studies of two
beginning teachers.. Teachers College Record, 104(4): pp. 812-841
Rowan, B. (2002). What large scale, survey research tells us about effects on student
achievement: Insights from prospects study of elementary schools. Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan
Stronge, J. H. (2003). Qualities of effective teachers. Retrieved from
http://www.ascd.orrg/frameworks.html
Stronge, J.H. & Hindman, J. L. (2003). Hiring the Best Teachers, Retrieved 2/6/04 from
http://0web22.epnet.com.janus.uoregon.edu/citation.asp?tb=1&_ug+dbs+aph+sid
Trends in International Math and Science Study (1999). TIMSS 1999 international
mathematics report. International Study Center: Boston College: Boston, MA.
United States Department of Education (USDOE) (2002). Meeting the highly qualified
teachers challenge: The Secretary’s annual report on teacher quality.
Washington D.C.: US Department of Education Office of Policy, Planning and
Innovation.
Middle School Teacher Certification
29
United States Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education
(2002). No child left behind: A desktop Reference. Washington D.C.
Useem, S. (2000). New teacher staffing and comprehensive middle school reform:
Philadelphia’s experience. Paper presented at the American Educational Research
Association Annual meeting. April 2000. Retrieved January 28, 2004 from
http://www.philaedfund.org
Wang, A.H., Coleman, A.B., Coley, R.J., Phelps, R.P., ETS (2003). Preparing
teachers around the world. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Retrieved
on February 6, 2004 from http://www.ets.org/research/picprepteach.pdf
Walsh, K. (2001). Teacher certification reconsidered: Stumbling for quality. Baltimore,
MD: Abell Foundation.
Whitehurst, G.J. (2002a). Improving teacher quality. Spectrum Journal of State
Government: 75(3) p12
Whitehurst, G. J. (2002b). Research on Teacher Preparation and Professional
Development. Presented at the White House Conference on Preparing Tomorrow’s
Teachers. Retrieved 2/3/04 from http:// www.nctq.org/press/whitehurst.html
Wilson, S.M., Floden, R.E., & Ferrini-Mundy, J. (2002). Teacher preparation research:
An insider’s view from the outside. Journal Of Teacher Education, 53(3), 190204.
Middle School Teacher Certification
30