a comparative study of teacher preparation and ... · a comparative study of teacher preparation...

A Comparative Study of Teacher Preparationand Qualificationsin Six Nations

Edited by Richard M. Ingersoll

ABOUT CPREThe Consortium for Policy Researchin Education (CPRE) unites seven ofthe nation’s top research institutionsin an exciting venture to improvestudent learning through research onpolicy, finance, school reform, andschool governance. The members ofCPRE are the University ofPennsylvania, Teachers CollegeColumbia University, HarvardUniversity, Stanford University, theUniversity of Michigan, the Universityof Wisconsin-Madison, andNorthwestern University.

CPRE is currently examining howalternative approaches to reform—such as new accountability policies,teacher compensation, whole-schoolreform approaches, and efforts tocontract out instructional services—address issues of coherence, incen-tives, and capacity.

To learn more about CPRE, visit ourweb site at www.cpre.org or call(215) 573-0700, and then press 0 forassistance.

CPRE Research Report SeriesResearch Reports are issued byCPRE to facilitate the exchange ofideas among policymakers, practi-tioners, and researchers who sharean interest in education policy. Theviews expressed in the reports arethose of individual authors, and notnecessarily shared by CPRE or itsinstitutional partners.

A Comparative Study of Teacher Preparation and Qualifications in Six Nations

By

Richard M. Ingersoll, United States

With

Ding Gang and Sun Meilu, People’s Republic of China (PRC)Kwok Chan Lai, Hong Kong

Hidenori Fujita, JapanEe-gyeong Kim, Republic of Korea

Steven K. S. Tan and Angela F. L. Wong, SingaporePruet Siribanpitak and Siriporn Boonyananta, Thailand

CPREConsortium for Policy Research in Education

University of Pennsylvania / Teachers College - Columbia UniversityHarvard University / Stanford University

University of Michigan / University of Wisconsin-MadisonNorthwestern University

Table of Contents ..............................................................................................................................................................iList of Tables ......................................................................................................................................................................ivList of Figures ....................................................................................................................................................................vAbout the Authors..............................................................................................................................................................viAcknowledgments ..............................................................................................................................................................vii

Chapter 1. A Comparative Study of Teacher Preparation and Qualifications in Six Nations ......................................1Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................................1The Research Project ..........................................................................................................................................................41.) What are the Preparation Requirements and Standards to Become a Teacher? ............................................................52.) What are the Levels of Qualifications of the Current Teaching Force? ..........................................................................63.) What Proportions of Teachers are Not Qualified in the Subjects They Teach? ............................................................6Data and Methods..............................................................................................................................................................6Teacher Preparation Requirements and Standards ..............................................................................................................7

Governance ................................................................................................................................................................7Education Requirements ............................................................................................................................................8Professional Training Requirements ............................................................................................................................9Selectivity of Programs, Caliber of Candidates and Attractiveness of Careers ..............................................................9

The Qualifications of the Teaching Force ..........................................................................................................................11Teaching Assignments and Out-of-Field Teaching..............................................................................................................12

Overview ....................................................................................................................................................................12Reasons for Out-of-Field Teaching ..............................................................................................................................13

Implications ......................................................................................................................................................................14References ..........................................................................................................................................................................17

Chapter 2. The Qualifications of the Teaching Force in China..................................................................................19Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................................19Teacher Preparation Requirements and Standards ............................................................................................................21Data and Measures ............................................................................................................................................................22The Qualifications of the Teaching Force ..........................................................................................................................22Out-of-Field Teaching ........................................................................................................................................................25Implications and Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................25References ..........................................................................................................................................................................27

Chapter 3. The Qualifications of the Teaching Force in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China ....................................................................................................................................29Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................................29

The Education System ................................................................................................................................................29The Teacher Education System....................................................................................................................................30The Changing Policy Context ....................................................................................................................................30

Teacher Preparation Requirements and Standards ..............................................................................................................31Professional Training Requirements ............................................................................................................................31Academic Qualifications Requirements ......................................................................................................................32

Data and Measures ............................................................................................................................................................33The Qualifications of the Teaching Force ..........................................................................................................................34Out-of-Field Teaching ........................................................................................................................................................35Retreat on Professional Training ........................................................................................................................................37One Quest for High Quality ..............................................................................................................................................38References ..........................................................................................................................................................................40

Table of Contents

Chapter 4. The Qualifications of the Teaching Force in Japan ....................................................................................................41Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................................41Teacher Preparation Requirements and Standards ..............................................................................................................42Data and Measures ............................................................................................................................................................46The Qualifications of the Teaching Force ..........................................................................................................................46Out-of-Field Teaching ........................................................................................................................................................47The Teaching Profession in Japan ......................................................................................................................................47

Job Conditions and Retention Rate ............................................................................................................................47Teachers’ Perceptions of Their Profession in Japan in Comparison with China and the United Kingdom ..................................................................................................................................................48Impacts of Recent Education Reform on Teachers’ Perceptions ..........................................................................................49Teachers’ Perceptions of Their Work Lives in Japan in Comparison With China and the United Kingdom ......................50Implications and Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................52References ........................................................................................................................................................................54

Chapter 5. The Quality and Qualifications of the Teaching Force in the Republic of Korea ....................................55Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................................55Teacher Preparation............................................................................................................................................................57

Teacher Preparation System ........................................................................................................................................57Teacher Preparation Curriculum ................................................................................................................................59

Teacher Certification System..............................................................................................................................................62Overview ....................................................................................................................................................................62

Data on Teachers’ Qualifications ......................................................................................................................................64Out-of-Field Teaching ........................................................................................................................................................64Conclusions........................................................................................................................................................................69References ..........................................................................................................................................................................70

Chapter 6. The Qualifications of the Teaching Force: Data from Singapore..............................................................71Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................................71Overview of the Singapore Education System ....................................................................................................................72

Primary Education ......................................................................................................................................................72Secondary Education ..................................................................................................................................................72

Teacher Preparation, Requirements and Standards ............................................................................................................72Role of the Ministry of Education ..............................................................................................................................74Academic Qualifications Required for Teaching ..........................................................................................................74

Role of the National Institute of Education in Teacher Training ........................................................................................75Programs Offered by NIE to Train Teachers ......................................................................................................................75Data and Measures ............................................................................................................................................................76The Qualifications of the Teaching Force ..........................................................................................................................76

Levels of Qualifications of the Current Teaching Force in Singapore ..........................................................................77Secondary-Grade-Level Teachers’ Subject Qualifications and Subjects Taught in School ............................................78

Issues of Out-of-Field Teaching and Underqualified Teachers ............................................................................................80Conclusions and Implications ............................................................................................................................................81References ..........................................................................................................................................................................83

Chapter 7. The Qualifications of the Teaching Force in Thailand ............................................................................85Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................................85

Formal Education........................................................................................................................................................85Nonformal Education ................................................................................................................................................85Informal Education ....................................................................................................................................................85

Educational Administration and Management ..................................................................................................................86Administration and Management of Education by the State ......................................................................................86Administration and Management of Education by Local Administration Organizations ............................................87Administration and Management of Education by the Private Sector..........................................................................87

Teachers’ Salary Structure ..................................................................................................................................................87

Teacher Preparation Requirements and Standards ..............................................................................................................88Data and Measures ............................................................................................................................................................89The Qualifications of the Teaching Force ..........................................................................................................................90Out-of-Field Teaching ......................................................................................................................................................91Implications and Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................91References ........................................................................................................................................................................93

Chapter 8. The Preparation and Qualifications of the Teaching Force in the United States ......................................95Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................................95Teacher Preparation Requirements and Standards ..............................................................................................................97Data and Measures ............................................................................................................................................................98The Qualifications of the Teaching Force ..........................................................................................................................100Out-of-Field Teaching ........................................................................................................................................................101Implications ......................................................................................................................................................................104References ..........................................................................................................................................................................106

List of Tables (by chapter)

Chapter 1Table 1 Average Mathematics and Science Achievement of Eighth-Grade Students for Nations Participating in theThird International Math and Science Study, 1999 ..........4Table 2 Teacher Preparation Requirements and Standards, by System ..........................................................8Table 3 Percent School Teachers, by Highest Degree Earned, and by Teaching Certificate, by System.................11Table 4 Percent Secondary School Teachers in Four Academic Fields Without a Major in the Field Taught, by System............................................................................12Table 5 Percent Secondary School Teachers in Four Academic Fields Without a Teaching Certificate or License in the Field Taught, by System ..............................13

Chapter 2Table 1 Numbers of Schools, Students, Teachers in China by Educational Level (2004)................................20Table 2 Numbers of Students, Graduates in China by Educational Level for Teacher Preparation, 2004 ..........20Table 3 Qualified Rate of Record of Formal Schooling of Elementary, Junior Secondary, Senior Secondary Teachers in China by Type of Subject Taught, Type of School, in percentages, 2004 ................................22Table 4 Percentage of Record of Formal Schooling ofELEMENTARY School Teachers in China, by Type of School , by Type of Subject Taught, 2004......................23Table 5 Percentage of Record of Formal Schooling ofJUNIOR Secondary School Teachers in China, by Type of School, by Type of subject Taught, 2004........................23Table 6 Percentage of Record of Formal Schooling of Senior SECONDARY School Teachers in China, by Type of School, by Type of subject Taught, 2004..........24Table 7 Percentage of Different Types of Teachers inELEMENTARY Schools in China, byType of School, 2004..........................................................24Table 8 Percentage of Different Types of Teachers inSECONDARY Schoolsin China, by Type of School, 2004 ....................................25

Chapter 3Table 1 Number of Teachers in Hong Kong by AcademicQualifications/Training, 2005 ............................................34Table 2 Number of Teachers by Academic and TeacherTraining Qualifications, 2005 ............................................34Table 3 Distribution of Teachers by Subject Taught byWhether Teaching Out-of-field, 2005................................36

Chapter 4Table 1 Types of Teacher’s Certificates in Japan..................43Table 2 Types of Teacher Training Programs in Japan ........44Table 3 Highest Degrees Held by All Fulltime Teachers at Different Levels of Education in Japan (%), 2004 ........46Table 4 Percentage of Secondary School Classes Taught by a teacher without a Certificate in the Field, by subject, 2004 ................................................................47Table 5 Percentage of Secondary School Teachers Who Teach Classes Without a Certificate in the Field, by Subject, 2004 ................................................................47Table 6 Percentage of Retired Teachers in Japan, by Reason of Retirement, 2004 ..........................................48Table 7 Percentage of School Teachers in Japan, by Monthly Salary (Unit: 10T=100,000), 2004 ................48Table 8 Teachers’ Perceptions of the Teaching Profession –Percentage of those who answered “accurate” or “accurate to some degree”. ..................................................49Table 9 Teachers’ perceptions of their work lives – percentage of those who answered “Yes” or “Sometimes” ....49Table 10 Determinants of the feeling of “authority of teachers is declining” ......................................................51Table 11 Determinants of the feeling of “happy to havebecome a teacher” ..............................................................51Table 12 Determinants of the feeling of “want to quitteaching” ............................................................................51

Chapter 5Table 1 Secondary Teacher Training Institutions withFreshmen Quota, 2005 ......................................................57Table 2 Number of Vacancies and Employment Rate(Elementary), 1999-2005 ..................................................58Table 3 Ratio Between Preparation and Employment,Secondary School Teacher, 1999-2005. ..............................59Table 4 Credit Hours Assigned to Curricular Domains in the Universities of Education ........................................60Table 5 Types and Required Credit Hours of PracticeTeaching, University of Education......................................62Table 6 The Summary of Teacher Certification System......63Table 7 Teachers’ Academic Qualification, by Location,School Level, and School Type, 2005 ................................64Table 8 Teaching Certificate Holders, 2005 ......................65Table 9 Percentage of Secondary Teachers in Korea in the Core Academic Fields Without a Teaching Certificate (Major) in the Field by Type of School, 2005. ........................................................66

List of Figures (by chapter)

Table 10 Percentage of Secondary Teachers in Korea in theCore Academic Fields Without a Teaching Certificate (Major or Minor) in the Field by Type of School, 2005.....67Table 11 Percentage of Secondary Teachers in Korea in theCore Academic Fields Without a Teaching Certificate (Major, Minor or Minor Acquired through In-serviceTraining) in the Field by Type of School, 2005..................67Table 12 Percentage of Secondary Teachers in Korea in the Core Academic Fields Without an Undergraduate orGraduate Major in the Field by Type of School, 2005 ......68Table 13 Percentage of Secondary Teachers in Korea in the Core Academic Fields Without an Undergraduate or Graduate Major or a Minor in the Field by Type of School, 2005 ..................................................................69

Chapter 6Table 1 Summary Statistics of Teachers in Schools, 2006....76Table 2 Percentage of Teachers in Singapore by Academic Qualification by Level of Schools, 2006 ............77Table 3 Percentage of Vice-Principals and Principals in Singapore by Academic Qualification by Level of Schools, 2006 ................................................................78Table 4 Matching Teaching Subjects (Fields) with Subjects (Majors) offered by Universities and Curriculum Studies Assigned in NIE ................................79Table 5 Summary Statistics on Teaching Subjects of Secondary School Teachers, 2005 ..................................80

Chapter 7Table 1 New Teacher Classification Framework, 2004 ......88Table 2 Previous Teacher Classification Framework............88

Table 3 Percentage and Number of Elementary and Secondary School Teachers in Thailand by Highest DegreeEarned, and Types of School, ( Academic Year) 2004 ........89Table 4 Percentage of Secondary Grade Level Teachers inThailand in the Core Academic Fields Without anUndergraduate or Graduate Major or Minor in the Field, by Types of School, (Academic Year) 2004 ..............90Table 5 Percentage of Secondary Grade Level Teachers in Thailand in the Core Academic Fields Without anUndergraduate or Graduate Major in the Field, by Types of School, (Academic Year) 2004.........................90

Chapter 8Table 1 Percentage of Elementary and Secondary SchoolTeachers in the United States, by Highest Degree Earned, and by Highest Type of Teaching Certification or License, by Type of School, 2003-2004..............................101Table 2 Percentage of Secondary Grade Level Teachers in the United States in the Core Academic Fields Without an Undergraduate or Graduate Major or a Minor in the Field, by Type of School, 1999-2000 ..........................102Table 3 Percentage of Secondary Grade Level Teachers in the United States in the Core Academic Fields Without an Undergraduate or Graduate Major in the Field, by Type of School, 1999-2000 ......................103Table 4 Percentage of Secondary Grade Level Teachers in the United States in the Core Academic Fields Without a Teaching Certificate or License in the Field, by Type ofSchool, 1999-2000 ............................................................104

Chapter 2Figure 1 China’s Formal Educational System and Institutions................................................................................................19

Chapter 5Figure 1 Elementary Teacher Training Institutions with Freshmen Quota, 2005 ..................................................................57

Chapter 6 Figure 1 Structure of Schooling in Singapore by Education Level, Typical Age and Years of Schooling, 2006 ....................73

Chapter 7Figure 1 The Thai Education System, 2006 ............................................................................................................................86Figure 2 Educational Administration and Management Structure, 2006 ..............................................................................87

Chapter 8Chart 1 Matching Teaching Fields With Preparation Fields ..................................................................................................100

Richard M. Ingersoll is a Professor ofEducation and Sociology at theUniversity of Pennsylvania in theUnited States. His research is concernedwith the management and organizationof elementary and secondary schoolsand the character and problems of theteaching occupation. He has publishedwidely on the problems of teachershortages and underqualified teachers.

Ding Gang is a Professor and Dean ofSchool of Education Science, EastChina Normal University of the PeoplesRepublic of China. His research isconcerned with the culture and socialdevelopment of education and thechange of teacher education andTeacher Professional Development. Hehas published numerous books andpapers in the research areas.

Sun Meilu is a lecturer in the School ofEducation Science, East China NormalUniversity of the Peoples Republic ofChina. Her research is concerned withvocational and adult education andhuman resources development. She haspublished numerous papers in theresearch areas.

Kwok Chan Lai is the Head ofStrategic and Academic Planning at theHong Kong Institute of Education andresponsible for the Institute’s academicplanning, strategic planning andacademic manpower planning. He hadbeen the Head of Department of SocialStudies of the Institute. His researchinterests include teacher education,teacher demand and supply, teacherprofessionalisation, environmentaleducation and geographical education.

Hidenori Fujita, Ph.D., Professor,International Christian University(ICU)He received his Ph.D. from StanfordUniversity in 1978. Before moving toICU in 2003, he had taught sociologyof education as a professor at theUniversity of Tokyo for 17 years andserved as a dean of Graduate School ofEducation there from 2000 to 2003.He is Professor Emeritus of theUniversity of Tokyo, member of ScienceCouncil of Japan and Chief Researcherof Japan Society for the Promotion ofScience. He was the President ofJapanese Association of EducationalSociology (2000-03) and served on theNational Commission on EducationReform (2000) and Central Council forEducation (2005).

Ee-gyeong Kim serves as the Directorof Teacher Policy Research at theKorean Educational DevelopmentInstitute. She has directed severalresearch projects on teacher issues thathave greatly influenced the formulationand implementation of teacher policiesof the Republic of Korea. She haswritten books and articles oneducational decentralization and on thequantity and quality of teachers. Herrecent research interests include theevaluation and professionaldevelopment of teachers and schooladministrators.

Steven K. S. Tan is associate professorand associate dean (professionaldevelopment) of the National Instituteof Education, Nanyang TechnologicalUniversity in Singapore. He has beeninvolved in the teaching, developmentand review of both pre-service andprofessional development curriculumsince 1995. His research interests are ineducational reform and initiatives, andthe induction and socialization ofbeginning teachers.

Angela F. L. Wong is an associateprofessor with the Learning Sciencesand Technologies Academic Group,National Institute of Education (NIE),Nanyang Technological University. Shealso is the Associate Dean for Practicumand School Matters in the FoundationProgrammes Office. She lectures ininstructional technology and classroommanagement modules. Her researchinterests are in learning environments,instructional technology andpracticum-related issues in teachereducation.

S. Gopinathan is Professor ofEducation at the National Institute ofEducation, Nanyang TechnologicalUniversity. His research interests are inteacher and higher education, and ineducation-society relationships. He isco-editor of the Asia Pacific Journal ofEducation and a founder member ofthe Educational Research Association ofSingapore.

About the Authors

Kim Chuan Goh is associate dean andhas been involved in teacher educationcurriculum review and management,and student development and liaisonsince 2000. He has written on teacherand teacher education issues. Currentlyhe is leading a team to conduct "alongitudinal study of teacherpreparation and professionaldevelopment in Singapore", funded bythe Ministry of Education.

Isabella Y. F. Wong is an AssistantProfessor at the National Institute ofEducation, Nanyang TechnologicalUniversity. Her research interests are inteacher professional development andshe has a long-standing interest in thepreparation and induction of newteachers.

Kong Hong Ong is a Vice Principal ina secondary school in Singapore. Hisprior experience includes research andcorporate planning at the Ministry ofInformation, Communication and theArts, as well as education policy andhuman resource development at theMinistry of Education. During his stintin Personnel Division in the Ministry ofEducation, he worked closely with theNational Institute of Education to lookat the recruitment and training ofteachers to meet the needs of Singaporeschools.

Pruet Siribanpitak is an AssociateProfessor and Dean of the Faculty ofEducation at Chulalongkorn Universityin Thailand. He is also served as thePresident of the Thailand EducationDeans Council. His research isconcerned with the policy anddevelopment strategy of teachereducation. He has published widely onthe development strategy of teachereducation and education for sustainabledevelopment.

Siriporn Boonyananta is the DeputySecretary-General of the EducationCouncil, Ministry of Education andHonorary Advisor to the NationalParliament’s Committee on Youths, theDisadvantaged, and Women’s Affairs.Her vast experience comprises 20 yearsas curriculum development specialist atthe Ministry of Education and part-time lecturer in graduate schools ofmany leading universities in Thailand.

This report is based on research by theauthors with the support of theConsortium for Policy Research inEducation (CPRE) and funded by theInstitute of Education Sciences, U.S.Department of Education, underGrant No. R308A960003. Opinionsexpressed in this publication are thoseof the authors and do not necessarilyreflect the views of the Institute ofEducation Sciences, the U.S.Department of Education, CPRE, orits institutional partners.

Acknowledgements

Introduction

Across the educational systems of theworld, few issues have received moreattention in recent years than theproblem of ensuring that elementary-and secondary-school classrooms areall staffed with adequately qualifiedteachers (Mullis, et al., 2000;OECD, 1994, 2005; Wang, et al.,2003). Even in nations wherestudents routinely score high oninternational exams, the issue ofteacher quality is the subject of muchconcern. This is not surprising.Elementary and secondary schoolingis mandatory in almost all nationsand children are legally placed in thecare of teachers for a significantportion of their lives. It is widelybelieved that the quality of teachersand teaching are among the mostimportant factors shaping thelearning and growth of students.Moreover, this impact goes beyondstudent academic achievement.Across the world, observers routinelytie the performance of teachers tonumerous, larger societal goals andproblems—economiccompetitiveness and productivity,juvenile delinquency, moral and civicculture, and so on. In addition, thelargest single component of the costof education in any country typicallyis teacher compensation. Along with

a general consensus among manynations that the quality of teachersand teaching is a vital resource, thereis accordingly much concernsurrounding how equitably thisresource is distributed withineducational systems. Indeed, somenations suffer from an apparentparadox—that despite an overalloverproduction and oversupply ofnew teachers, there neverthelessappear to be substantial numbers ofstudents without access to qualifiedteachers.

Such concern has resulted in asteady stream of commissions,reports, and studies all targetingteacher quality as one of the centralproblems facing school systems. Inmany nations this concern hasresulted in new legislation and policy.Foremost among these have beenwidespread efforts to increase theentry standards and preparationrequirements for teachers. HongKong, for instance, initiated in 1997an “all graduate, all trained” policyrequiring new primary- andsecondary-school teachers to havebachelor’s degrees and to beprofessionally trained. In Japan therehas been an active reform movementto increase teacher preparationrequirements and increase evaluationand accountability of teachers. In theUnited States this concern surfaced

within a massive new piece oflegislation in 2002, the federal lawknown as the No Child Left BehindAct, which in addition to newstandards for student achievement,set a new and unprecedented goal—to ensure that elementary andsecondary students in the UnitedStates are all taught by highlyqualified teachers. In addition to, orperhaps because of, recognition of itsimportance, the issue of teacherquality also is a source of debate anddisagreement in many nations.

Perhaps nowhere is this debatemore pronounced and more divisivethan in the United States. In recentyears, the quality of elementary andsecondary teachers and teaching hasbeen widely criticized in the UnitedStates, both by those inside andoutside the educational sector (e.g.,Levine, 2006). However, while thereis widespread agreement that teacherquality is a problem in the UnitedStates, there is little consensus andmuch disagreement, oftenacrimonious, in regard to the sourcesand reasons behind the purportedlylow quality of teaching in Americanschools and, hence, the best strategiesto improve teacher quality.

One of the most prominentviewpoints in this debate holds thatthe problem of low-quality teachingcan be traced to inadequate and

CHAPTER 1A Comparative Study of TeacherPreparation and Qualifications in Six Nations Richard M. IngersollUniversity of Pennsylvania

insufficient pre-employment trainingand licensing or certification ofprospective teachers. In this view, thepreparation of teachers in college oruniversity teacher educationprograms, and governmentcertification standards, all too oftenlack adequate rigor, breadth anddepth, resulting in high levels ofunderqualified teachers and lowstudent performance. Accordingly,the solution, from this viewpoint, liesin making the entry and trainingrequirements for teaching morerestrictive, deeper and more rigorous.The examples this view looks toemulate are the traditional higherprestige professions, such asmedicine, academia and law. To thisgroup, the surest way to upgrade thequality of teaching is to upgrade thequalifications standards required ofnew teachers (see, e.g., NationalCommission on Teaching andAmerica’s Future 1996, 1997). Low-level standards and requirements forentry into teaching have long beenconsidered a factor maintainingteaching as a low-status occupationand having a low level ofprofessionalization.

On the other side of this debateare those who argue for deregulatingentry into teaching. This viewpointalso holds that the quality of teachereducation and certification is poor.But, rather than increasingrequirements, this opposing viewholds that entry into the teachingoccupation already is plagued byunusually restrictive andunnecessarily rigid bureaucratic entrybarriers (e.g., Finn, et al., 1999;Hanushek & Rivkin, 2004; Ballou,1996). From this viewpoint,traditional teacher preparation andstate certification requirements, inparticular, are akin to monopolisticpractices. These critics argue thatthere is no solid empirical researchdocumenting the value of such entry

requirements. These regulations, theycharge, are motivated less by aninterest in protecting the public andmore by a desire to protect theinterests of those in the occupation.As a result, this view holds, largenumbers of high-quality candidatesare discouraged from getting into theoccupation. By doing away withthese regulatory impediments, thisargument concludes, schools couldfinally recruit the kinds and numbersof candidates they deem best and thiswould solve the quality problemsthat plague teaching.

There are different variants ofthis deregulation perspective. One ofthe more popular variants favors atraining model analogous to thatutilized for entrance to post-secondary academic careers. The pre-employment preparation ofprofessors in the United Statesusually includes little formal trainingin pedagogical and instructionalmethods. Similarly, from thisviewpoint, having an academic orsubject-matter degree in a subject issufficient to be a qualified schoolteacher in that subject. Content orsubject knowledge—knowing whatto teach—is considered of primaryimportance for a qualified teacher.Formal professional training inpedagogical and methodologicalknowledge and skills—knowing howto teach—is considered less necessaryor even irrelevant (e.g., Finn, et al.,1999).

Another variant of thederegulation perspective is motivatedby concern for the demographicdiversity of the elementary andsecondary teaching force. From thisviewpoint, teaching’s entryrequirements have resulted inreduced numbers of candidates fromminority racial or ethnic groupsentering the occupation, eitherbecause the requirements arethemselves racially or ethnically

biased, or because they screen outotherwise worthwhile candidates whoare unable to pass over particularhurdles because of an underprivilegedbackground (e.g., Villegas & Lucas,2004).

Proponents of variants of the de-regulation perspective have pushed arange of initiatives, most of whichinvolve a loosening of the traditionaloccupational entry gates. Among themost widespread of these reforms arealternative certification programs,whereby college graduates canpostpone formal education training,obtain an emergency teachingcertificate, and begin teachingimmediately. It is important to notethat proponents of these deregulationreforms claim the same rationale asproponents of upgrading existingentry standards and programs—theenhanced recruitment of high-qualitycandidates into teaching.

Because this debate is highlypoliticized and often acrimonious inthe United States, advocates of oneside or another are prone toexaggerated claims and counter-claims–making it difficult for neutralobservers and policymakers toseparate rhetoric from reality. Oneway to shed light is to place suchdebates and claims in context, andone useful context is cross-occupational. How does teaching, itsentry requirements, and their valuecompare to those in other lines ofwork?

In the United States, teaching asan occupation has an unusuallyambivalent character. Compared withother occupations and professions,teaching is relatively complex work,with relatively low pre-employmententry requirements, but neverthelesswith relatively high scrutiny andskepticism of the requirements thatdo exist.

Among those who study work,organizations and occupations in

general, teaching has traditionallybeen classified as a relatively complexform of work, characterized byuncertainty, intangibility andambiguity and requiring a high adegree of initiative, thought,judgment and skill to do well (e.g.,Bidwell, 1965; Lortie, 1975; Cohen,Raudenbush, & Ball 2003). Forexample, in a classic comparativestudy of a number of occupations,Kohn and Schooler (p. 68, 1983)concluded that secondary teachinginvolved greater substantivecomplexity than the work ofaccountants, salespersons, machinists,managers and officials in serviceindustries and in the retail trade.

Despite its complexity, from across-occupational perspective,teaching has long been characterizedas an easy-entry occupation.Compared with other occupationsand with the traditional professionsin particular, teaching has a relativelylow entry bar, and a relatively wideentry gate (Etzioni, 1969; Lortie,1975; Ingersoll, 2001). Indeed,teaching is unusual in the UnitedStates in that most of those whodesire to enter the occupation are freeto do so–individuals choose theoccupation, not vice versa. Incontrast, the opposite prevails inmany occupations and mosttraditional professions, such as law,medicine, engineering, architecture,dentistry, and academia. Especially inthe latter career fields, entry is highlyselective, occupational gatekeepershave a large say in choosing newmembers and not all who desire toenter succeed in doing so. Hence,placed in this context, entry toteaching does not appear especiallyrestrictive or burdensome.

Finally, although teaching’s entrytraining and licensing requirementsare lower than those for many otherlines of work in the United States,they are subject to far more

skepticism and evaluation than forother lines of work. For mostoccupations and professions there hasbeen little, if any, empirical researchdone assessing the value-added ofpractitioners having a particularcredential, license or certification(Kane, 1994; American EducationalResearch Association/AmericanPsychological Association/NationalCouncil on Measurement inEducation, 1999). Such research canbe difficult to undertake; if licensureis mandatory in an occupation, it isimpossible to compare theperformance of those licensed withthose who are unlicensed.Nevertheless, occupational entryrequirements, whether enforced byprecedent or by law, are common.Indeed, it is illegal to do many linesof work, from plumbing andhairstyling to law and medicine,without a license. For example,almost all universities and colleges inthe United States require a doctoratedegree for full-time professorialpositions. There is, of course, agrowing secondary labor market inacademia in which those withoutdoctoral degrees are hired for variousinstructional or research positions,usually as nonpermanentemployment. However, there are veryfew examples of a “professor effects”literature examining whetherprofessors’ qualifications have apositive effect on outcomes, such asstudent achievement, or on researchquality (e.g., Pascarella & Terenzini,1991). In other words, in mostoccupations and professions in theUnited States, it typically is taken asa given that particular credentials arenecessary to practice particular kindsof work.

In contrast, there is an extensivebody of empirical research, goingback decades, devoted to evaluatingthe effects of elementary andsecondary teacher qualifications on

teacher performance. Typically suchstudies try to assess the relationshipbetween various measures of teacherpreparation and various measures ofstudent performance (for an earlierreview see, e.g., Murnane & Raizen,1988). And, contrary to the skeptics,a number of studies have indeedfound teacher education andpreparation, of one sort or another,to be significantly related to increasesin student achievement. This is atelling finding given the widespreadcriticism from both insiders andoutsiders that teacher education is oflow quality in the United States. Forexample, in a review of 60 empiricalstudies on the effects of teachereducation, Greenwald, Hedges, andLaine (1996) concluded thatteachers’ degree levels consistentlyshowed “very strong relations withstudent achievement ...” in “a widevariety of studies over a three decadeperiod” (pp. 284-285). Some studieshave looked closely at the amountand effects of subject-specific teachereducation. For example, in amultilevel analysis of data from the1992 National Assessment ofEducational Performance (NAEP),Raudenbush, Fotiu, and Cheong(1999) found teacher education inmathematics (as measured by a majorin math or in math education) to be“consistently positively and highlysignificantly related to mathproficiency” in eighth-grade students.Similarly, a recent analysis of 2000NAEP data found that eighth-gradestudents whose math teachers had aregular teaching certificate in math,or had a major or minor in math ormath education scored significantlyhigher on the eighth-grade math test(Greenberg, Rhodes, Ye, &Stancavage, 2004).

Accurately isolating andcapturing the effects of teacher’squalifications on their students’achievement is difficult, however, and

not surprisingly, the results of suchresearch are, at times, mixed andcontradictory. Moreover, there alsoare large gaps in this research (for arecent review, see Allen, 2003),further fueling the ongoing debateand fostering a large interest infurther pursuit of this line ofresearch. But, placed in a cross-occupational context, the mixed andlimited quality of researchdocumenting the value of entryrequirements for teaching is notunusual; what is unusual is theexistence of any such empiricalresearch at all.

While perhaps more extreme andvisible in the United States thanother nations, similar concerns anddebates have been occurring acrossthe world. Hence, besides adopting across-occupational perspective,another way to shed light and placesuch debates and issues in context isthrough cross-national comparisons.Policy research can provide a usefulfunction by comparing teaching’sentry and training requirementsamong different countries. How dothe qualifications of teachers differbetween nations? This is the subjectof this study.

The Research Project

The objective of this report is topresent the results from acollaborative, comparative study thatsought to address some of the aboveissues by examining the preparationand qualifications of elementary andsecondary teachers in six nations andone autonomous region: China,Hong Kong , Japan, South Korea,Singapore, Thailand, and the UnitedStates. This project was begun in2003 under the auspices of the largerEight Nations Educational ResearchProgram, a consortium devoted tocomparative education research based

at the University of Pennsylvaniasince 1993 and directed by SusanFuhrman.

The selection of the sevensystems in this study was not a resultof any particular analytic strategy;their participation was simply afunction of their membership in theexisting Eight Nations consortium.However, the seven educationalsystems in our study do represent a

wide range, providing usefulcontrasts. On one end of the rangelies Singapore, a small city-state withabout 500,000 students enrolled in360 elementary and secondaryschools. On the other end lies China,with over 212 million studentsenrolled in 485,000 elementary andsecondary schools. Our seven systemsalso represent a wide range in termsof international student performance

Table 1Average Mathematics and Science Achievement of Eighth-Grade Students forNations Participating in the Third International Math and Science Study, 19991

Mathematics Science

Nation Score Nation ScoreSingapore 604 Chinese Taipei 569 Korea, Republic of 587 Singapore 568 Chinese Taipei 585 Hungary 552 Hong Kong SAR 582 Japan 550 Japan 579 Korea, Republic of 549 Belgium-Flemish 558 Netherlands 545 Netherlands 540 Australia 540 Slovak Republic 534 Czech Republic 539 Hungary 532 England 538 Canada 531 Finland 535 Slovenia 530 Slovak Republic 535 Russian Federation 526 Belgium-Flemish 535 Australia 525 Slovenia 533 Finland 520 Canada 533 Czech Republic 520 Hong Kong SAR 530 Malaysia 519 Russian Federation 529 Bulgaria 511 Bulgaria 518 Latvia 505 United States 515 United States 502 New Zealand 510 England 496 Latvia 503 New Zealand 491 Italy 493Lithuania 482 Malaysia 492Italy 479 Lithuania 488 Cyprus 476 Thailand 482 Romania .472 Romania 472 Thailand 467 Israel 468 Israel 466 Cyprus 460 Tunisia 448 Jordan 450 Turkey 429 Iran, Islamic Republic of 448 Jordan 428 Indonesia 435 Iran, Islamic Republic of 422 Turkey 433 Indonesia 403 Tunisia 430 Chile 392 Chile 420 Philippines 345 Philippines 3.45 Morocco 337 Morocco 323 South Africa 275 South Africa 243 Average of 38 nations 487 Average of 38 nations 488

1 Mullis et al., 2000.

assessments. Students from a numberof the Asian systems in our study,such as Singapore, Japan, Korea, andHong Kong, typically perform wellabove average on most internationalassessments in math, science andreading literacy. In contrast, studentsfrom Thailand often perform belowaverage on international assessmentsin math and science. For instance, asshown in Table 1, data from theThird International Math ScienceStudy (TIMSS) on eighth-gradescience and math studentperformance indicate four of oursystems (Japan, Singapore, HongKong, and Korea) are well aboveaverage, while Thailand is belowaverage. U.S. students typicallyperform slightly above average. But,there are exceptions to the latter. Forinstance, in the Progress inInternational Reading Literacy Study,fourth-grade American studentsperform better than students inalmost all of the other 34 nationstested, including Hong Kong andSingapore (Mullis, et al., 2003).

Our study was undertaken by ateam of scholars and senior educationofficials. Members of the projectteam were Richard Ingersoll andRebecca Maynard of the Universityof Pennsylvania in the United States;Ding Gang of East China NormalUniversity in Shanghai, China; KwokChan Lai of the Hong Kong Instituteof Education; Hidenori Fujita of theInternational Christian University inTokyo, Japan; Ee-gyeong Kim of theKorean Educational DevelopmentInstitute, Seoul, Korea; Steven Tanand Angela F. L. Wong of theNational Institute of Education,Nanyang Technological University,Singapore, Ong Kong Hong, of theMinistry of Education in Singapore;Pruet Siribanpitak of ChulalongkornUniversity in Bangkok, Thailand andSiriporn Boonyananta of the Officeof The Education Council in

Thailand.Team members met four times in

the course of this project. A firstmeeting was held in Philadelphia,sponsored by the University ofPennsylvania, in November, 2003. Asecond meeting was held inShanghai, sponsored by the EastChina Normal University, in June,2004. A third meeting was held inTokyo, sponsored by theInternational Christian University, inMarch, 2005. A fourth meeting washeld in Bangkok, sponsored by theThai Ministry of Education, inNovember, 2005. Meetings focusedon determining the projectobjectives, defining commonmeasures and methods, and workingout the all important issues of dataand indicator comparability. Datacollection, analysis and writing foreach system proceeded throughoutthe entire project.

Unlike other recent cross-nationalteacher studies, this project adopted arelatively specific focus on one keyissue linked to the performance andquality of teachers—thequalifications and preparation ofteachers. Our objective was not toassess or to evaluate the linksbetween teacher qualifications,teaching quality, and studentachievement. We did not seek toprove that the qualifications requiredof teachers in any system are, or arenot, beneficial or do, or do not, addvalue. Our study began with thepremise, widely shared among thenations involved, that teacherqualifications are important. But, wedid not presume a particulardefinition of a qualified teacher. Ourobjective was to compare how eachsystem itself defines teacherqualifications and standards and thento address the question: how well arethe different educational systemssucceeding in ensuring all studentsare taught by qualified teachers? The

study addressed this overarching issueby examining comparative data fromeach of the seven educational systemson three specific sets of researchquestions:

1.) What are the PreparationRequirements and Standards toBecome a Teacher? In each system, what are therequirements to become a teacherand do they differ according to gradelevel? Do candidates need tocomplete both educational andprofessional preparationrequirements? The former refers tothe general level of post-secondaryeducation—the courses anddegrees—required of teachingcandidates. The latter refers tooccupation-specific or professionalpreparation and trainingrequirements–the subjectcoursework, pedagogical coursework,practice teaching, and tests–for thoseentering teaching. Are teachersnormally required to have completeda baccalaureate degree? Are teachersnormally required to obtain somekind of government-issued teachingcertificate or license? What are thecriteria and requirements to obtain acertificate or license? Is some kind oftesting of prospective teachersinvolved? What level of governmentdecides on the pre-employmenteducation and training requirementsfor elementary-level and secondary-level teachers? Is decision-making foreach educational system, in general,and for teacher policy, in particular,centralized or decentralized? Howmany teacher preparation institutionsare there in each system?

Regardless of such formalrequirements, how selective andcompetitive is entry into the teachingoccupation in each system? Howdoes the caliber and ability of thoseentering teaching compare to thosepreparing for, or entering, other

fields? How attractive is the job andcareer of teaching compared to othercareers in each nation?

2.) What are the Levels ofQualifications of the CurrentTeaching Force?What proportion of the existingteaching force is qualified, that is,what portion meets the abovedescribed requirements andstandards? Is there a gap between therule and the reality? What proportionof the teaching force holds abaccalaureate degree? Whatproportion holds a graduate-leveldegree, such as a master’s degree orhigher? What proportion holds ateaching certificate or license or theequivalent?

In addition, we were interested inunderstanding differences, inequitiesand gaps in teacher qualificationswithin and across the educationalsystems. Specifically, we sought toanswer these questions: Are theredifferences in the proportions ofteachers holding the abovequalifications across different kindsof schools in each system? Is there amaldistribution of qualified teachers?Do teachers in schools servinghigher-poverty or low incomecommunities have fewerqualifications than teachers in schoolsin lower-poverty or higher-incomeareas? Do teachers in elementaryschools have fewer qualifications thanteachers in secondary schools? Doteachers in urban or rural schoolshave fewer qualifications thanteachers in suburban schools?

3.) What Proportions of Teachers areNot Qualified in the Subjects TheyTeach? Do schools in each system havedifficulties ensuring that allclassrooms are staffed with teachersqualified in the actual subject taught?Along with inadequate preparation,

one possible source of underqualifiedteachers is the practice of out-of-fieldteaching or misassignment—teachersassigned to teach subjects that do notmatch their fields of preparation(Ingersoll, 1999). This is a crucialfactor because highly qualifiedteachers may actually become highlyunqualified if, once on the job, theyare assigned to teach subjects forwhich they have little background.Teachers prepared, for example, insocial studies may be unlikely to havea solid understanding of math orhow to teach it.

Our study tried to obtain data onlevels of out-of-field teaching in eachsystem and the extent to which theselevels vary among different kinds ofschools. In which educationalsystems does this problem exist? Arethere differences, inequities and gapsin out-of-field teaching within andacross the educational systems? Arethere cross-school differences in theproportions of classes taught byteachers not holding qualifications inthe field taught? Are classes inhigher-poverty schools more likely tobe taught by underqualified teachersthan classes in lower-poverty schools?Are there differences according towhether the school is urban, rural orsuburban? Finally, what are thereasons for out-of-field teaching inthese systems? Why do some teachersend up teaching subjects for whichthey have little backgroundpreparation?

Our objective was to compareeach educational system using thesethree sets of data indicators tounderstand each system’s standardsfor teacher preparation and how welleach system is succeeding inachieving a qualified teaching forceand in ensuring all students aretaught by qualified teachers.

Data and Methods

Our study addressed the above sets ofresearch questions by collectingcomparative data from each of theseven educational systems. Wefocused on elementary and secondarylevel teachers from both public andprivate schools. Briefly, the datasources for each system were:

China: China Education Yearbook2005 and Educational StatisticsYearbook of China 2004.

The former is annually editedand issued by the Ministry ofEducation, and the latter is issued bythe Department of Development andPlanning of the Ministry ofEducation. The data on teachers’qualifications were drawn fromschool administrative records of allteachers in the nation.

Hong Kong: Statistics on Primaryand Secondary School Teachers,2004/05 published by the Educationand Manpower Bureau of HongKong. Teacher statistics are collectedyearly by the government through aWeb-based e-services system throughschools to all 50,000 primary andsecondary teachers.

Japan: The data on teachers’qualifications were drawn fromschool administrative recordscompiled in 2004 by the Ministry ofEducation. The data on out-of-fieldteaching are drawn from theadministrative records compiled forNigata Prefecture by its Board ofEducation. (Japan has 47 prefectures,which are the equivalent of states.)

Korea: The data on teachers’qualifications were drawn from the2005 Annual Report on EducationalStatistics. This annual compilation ofschool administrative records isissued by the Korean EducationalDevelopment Institute and based ondata collected by the Ministry ofEducation and Human ResourcesDevelopment. The data on out-of-

field teaching were obtained by a2005 survey questionnaire sent to anationally representative stratifiedsample of 2,000 secondary schoolteachers. The response rate was71.2%.

Singapore: Data on teachers arederived from the Education StatisticsDigest 2006. These data are compiledby the Management Information andResearch Branch, Planning Division,Ministry of Education and publishedin July each year. The data onteachers’ qualifications were drawnfrom school administrative records.

Thailand: The data on teachers’qualifications were drawn fromschool administrative recordscompiled by the Office of BasicEducation Commission of theMinistry of Education in academicyear 2004. The data on out-of-fieldteaching were from a 2004 survey ofofficials in the 175 local educationservice agencies in Thailandconducted by the Office of theEducation Council of the Ministry ofEducation. The latter data for publicschools were collected from 64% ofthe local service agencies; the data forprivate schools were collected from37% of the local service agencies.

United States: The data comefrom the nationally representativeSchools and Staffing Survey (SASS)conducted by the National Centerfor Education Statistics, the statisticalarm of the U.S. Department ofEducation. This is the largest andmost comprehensive source ofinformation and data on teachers inthe United States. The SASS data arecollected from random samplesstratified by state, sector, and schoollevel. SASS is a large survey; in eachcycle the sample sizes are about 5,000school districts, 11,000 schools and52,000 teachers. Data on teachers’qualifications were collected in 2003-04; data on out-of-field teachingwere collected in 1999-2000.

For our set of questions on out-of-field teaching, our project teamencountered serious difficulties inobtaining measures that were definedin a sufficiently similar manner tomake reasonable comparisons acrosssystems. Hence, the data presentedhere on out-of-field teaching must beinterpreted with caution. Previousstudies have used a number ofdifferent measures of out-of-fieldteaching, representing a range ofdefinitions and standards (Ingersoll,1999). Some measures focus onwhether teachers have a teachingcertificate in the fields they teach;others focus on whether teachershave an undergraduate or graduatedegree. Measures of out-of-fieldteaching also vary according towhether they choose to focus on thenumbers of teachers out of field orthe numbers of students exposed,according to which fields andsubjects are examined, how thosefields are defined and also accordingto which grade levels are investigated.

Our measures focus on teachersat the secondary level (grades 7-12grades) who were departmentalized,that is, they teach the same subjectsto different classes of students, ratherthan multiple subjects to the samestudents throughout the day.Moreover, we focus only on thoseteaching the four core academicsubjects—first language,mathematics, science, and socialstudies/social science.

We used two measures:

• Percentage of secondary-level(grades 7-12) teachers in four corefields without an undergraduate orgraduate major in the field.

• Percentage of secondary-level(grades 7-12) teachers in four corefields without a full teachingcertificate or license in the field.

Below, this chapter summarizesthe results from the study as a whole.Following this overview chapter,there are separate chapters for each ofthe seven educational systems. Thelatter chapters provide more detailedpresentations on teacher preparationand qualifications in each system andmore detailed information on thedata sources and methods.

Teacher PreparationRequirements and Standards

GovernanceIn our study we found that decision-making and governance for oureducational systems, in general, andfor teacher policy, in particular, arehighly centralized. In all but one ofthe seven systems in this study, thecentral or national government sets,oversees and implementsqualifications and preparationstandards for the teaching occupation(also see OECD, 1995, 1998).

The exception to thiscentralization of teacher policy andgovernance is the United States,though there has been a steadyincrease of federal involvement ineducation over the past half century.This culminated in the 2002 NoChild Left Behind Act–the largestand most comprehensive federaleducational reform effort todate.This trend toward centralizationand consistency clashes with ahistoric tradition of decentralizationand local control of education and asa result, the education system in theUnited States is in a state of flux.Nevertheless, and despite thesechanges, the U.S. educational systemremains in many ways relativelydecentralized compared with othernations. It is, for example, theresponsibility of each of the 50individual states to regulate entry

into the teaching occupation in theirrespective state school systems, andthe states have retained wide latitudein how they interpret and implementthe teacher quality regulations of thecentral government. As a result, thescope and content of therequirements to become a teachervary widely among the states.

Like the United States, most ofthe Asian nations have three or fourtiers of educational governance—national, regional, local and schoollevels—but in those countries, unlikethe United States, the nationalgovernment dominates teacher-policydecision-making. As a result, thescope and content of officialgovernmental requirements tobecoming a teacher are highlyconsistent across regions andlocalities within each system. At oneend lies Singapore with a centralMinistry of Education that sets all

teacher policy and has one teachertraining institution that producesvirtually all of Singapore’s teachers.Although vastly larger, China also hasa highly centralized system thatdominates teacher-policy decision-making across the nation, with theexception of Hong Kong. As notedabove, Hong Kong is considered aspecial semi-autonomous region inChina and has its own internallycentralized educational system.

The number of teacher-trainingschools, colleges or institutions ineach system is telling: Singapore hasone; Hong Kong has four; Thailandhas 56, Korea has 381, China has618, Japan has 850. The UnitedStates stands out with the highest—1,206—almost double that of China,despite having about one quarter thestudents.

Education Requirements

All of the educational systems,regardless of their degree ofcentralization, require prospectiveteachers to complete botheducational and professionalpreparation requirements.

On the issue of educationrequirements, a four-year bachelor’sor undergraduate degree is typicallythe standard for all of the systems.But, the different systems vary bothwithin and across as to the level andyears of education required, as shownin the column in Table 2 on minimalyears of post-secondary education. InHong Kong, teachers can gain entrywith the equivalent of a two-yearsub- or associate degree. In twosystems–China and Singapore—theeducation required of elementaryteachers is lower than that forsecondary teachers–although in both

Table 2Teacher Preparation Requirements and Standards, by System.*

Educational Qualifications Professional Qualifications

High Associate or Bachelor’s Minimum Subject-Area Certification Test TrainingSchool Sub-Degree Degree Years Post- and and/or or Exam During

Diploma Secondary Pedagogy License or AfterEducation Degree

China Elementary X 0 X X X BothL. Secondary X 2 X X X BothU. Secondary X 4 X X X Both

Hong KongElementary X 2-4 X BothSecondary X 2-3 X Both

JapanElementary X 4 X X X* BothSecondary X 4 X X X* Both

Korea Elementary X 4 X X X* DuringSecondary X 4 X X X* Both

SingaporeElementary X 2 X X BothSecondary X 4+1 X X Both

Thailand Elementary X 4+1, 5 X X X* BothSecondary X 4+1, 5 X X X* Both

United StatesElementary X 4 X X X BothSecondary X 4 X X X Both

* Test or exam not required for license,but upon employment

of these systems there is movementto bring elementary teachers up topar with secondary teachers. Forinstance, in China a high schooldiploma is the minimum levelnecessary to enter elementaryteaching, while upper secondaryteachers must have a four-year collegedegree. In Singapore an elementary-level teacher can gain entry with theequivalent of a two-year sub- orassociate degree, while at thesecondary-level, Singapore requiresteachers to complete a five-yearprogram that includes a bachelor’sdegree plus a year of furthercoursework. In contrast, the othersystems have similar degree standardsfor elementary and secondary. Forinstance, a five-year program is thestandard in Thailand for bothelementary and secondary teachers.In the United States, teachers at bothlevels are required to hold abachelor’s degree.

Professional TrainingRequirements

Beyond basic levels of educationrequired, all of the systems haveprofessional, or occupation-specific,requirements to enter teaching. Eacheducational system has differentvariations in the sequencing andorganization of its professionalpreparation. One variation mergesprofessional preparation and licensingwithin a bachelor degree program;hence, educational and professionalpreparation are completedconcurrently. Another variationseparates the two; the degree iscompleted first, with the professionalpreparation and certificationsubsequent. In the United States, thelatter is referred to as a “fifth-yearprogram”—a post-baccalaureate one-year teacher-preparation programleading to a teaching certificate. But

only two systems—the United Statesand Hong Kong—have what isreferred to as alternative certificationroutes into teaching, wherecandidates are not required to havecompleted professional preparationprior to employment, and where, forinstance, the uncertified can beginteaching before or during theirpreparation and training.

All of the systems, with theexception of Hong Kong, requirecandidates to obtain a government-issued certificate or license signifyingthat a candidate has completedrequired professional preparation andtraining. Interestingly, in all systemsthe professional preparationrequirements include both subject-matter and pedagogicalpreparation—expertise in both the“what” and the “how” of teaching—is required. In all of the systems,professional preparation includes aperiod in the field of supervisedpractice or student teaching prior toemployment. As a result, in none ofthese systems do the rules stipulatethat those with only a subject-matterdegree (e.g., a degree in mathematics)are qualified to teach. Also, all of thesystems with the exception of HongKong and Singapore require somekind of exam or test for prospectiveteachers. In some systems, these testsare administered as part of a teacher-preparation program; in others, theyare administered by the school uponemployment.

Again, because of its unusuallydecentralized character, there is somecross-state variation in these patternsin the United States. The No ChildLeft Behind Act requires that allteachers be “highly qualified.” Thelatter is defined as someone who hasa bachelor’s degree, who holds aregular or full state-approvedteaching certificate or license andwho is competent in each of theacademic subjects they teach. But,

the 50 individual states have leewayin the means by which teachers canestablish “competency” in a subject.For example, some states require testsof prospective teachers while othersdo not, and the contents of tests vary,as do the minimum scores necessaryto pass. Moreover, the federalrequirements do not apply toteachers employed in private schoolsand some states themselves do notrequire teachers in the private sectorto hold a state license or certificate.However, as will be shown later inthe chapter on the United States, themajority of teachers in privateschools do in fact hold a regularteaching certificate. This is aninstance, as in Hong Kong, wherethe reality exceeds the rule; that is,the level of preparation of theteaching force is above the officialminimum required (more on thispoint in a later section).

Selectivity of Programs,Caliber of Candidates andAttractiveness of Careers

Listing the educational andprofessional requirements to becomea teacher does not tell us a great dealof the rigor of these requirements,nor of the quality of thesequalifications. Hence, our teamexamined data, where available, onthe selectivity and competitiveness ofentry, on the relative caliber andability of those who enter teaching,and on the attractiveness, status andprestige accorded to teachingcompared to other occupations. Insome cases our data sources were nothighly comparable in the measuresand metrics used and, hence, ourconclusions are limited. But ingeneral we found that the differenteducational systems varieddramatically in these areas.

In the United States the

requirements to become anelementary or secondary-level teacherhave never been considered especiallyrigorous, and teaching has long beencharacterized as a relatively non-competitive, easy-in occupation.Compared with other occupations inthe United States and, in particularwith high-status professions, teachinghas a relatively low entry “bar” and arelatively wide entry “gate” (Lortie,1975). As measured by college-entrance examination scores, thoseentering teaching in the UnitedStates tend to be in the average tolow range compared with othercollege graduates (Henke, Chen, &Geis, 2000). To facilitate entry, thestates early in the last century createdlarge numbers of low-cost, dispersed,and nonrigorous teacher-traininginstitutions and colleges. Ease ofaccess remains the case; as the datareported earlier show, the UnitedStates has far more teacher traininginstitutions than any of the othernations in this study.

Moreover, compared with themore prestigious traditionalprofessions, teaching has beenconsidered a less attractive and lessdesirable line of work. This has beenespecially true for males; the majorityof teachers are female. Historicallyfemale-dominated occupations havetended to have less prestige, lowerpay and less authority (Hodson &Sullivan, 1995). Teachers rank in themiddle range in surveys ofoccupational prestige, well belowtraditional higher-statusprofessionals, such as physicians,scientists, engineers, architects,dentists and attorneys, and wellabove blue collar occupations suchas, police, barbers, bakers, plumbersand carpenters. There also is astriking status hierarchy within therealm of teaching itself, broadlydefined. At the low end are pre-school and kindergarten teachers,

then elementary teachers, followed bysecondary-level teachers, and finallyfar above are those who teach inpost-secondary institutions –professors (Ingersoll, 2001).

Many Asian nations have atradition of respect for teachers.However, like the United Statesmany Asian systems have a statushierarchy within teaching, withelementary teachers at the low end,followed by secondary-level teachers,and professors at the high end. InSingapore, teacher-educationstudents are among the top third inthe nation academically. Relativelyhigh salaries, comprehensive training,and full pay while undergoingtraining all make teaching anattractive career option in Singapore.In Hong Kong, teaching is rankedrelatively high in occupational statureby senior-secondary schoolstudents—above accountants,engineers, scientists, doctors andartists (Lai, et al., 2005). However,the quality of new entrants toteaching has been a matter ofconcern in the Hong Kong. Theoccupation does not attractcandidates with the highest academicachievement; the examination gradesof new students admitted to teachereducation programs in thecomprehensive universities generallyare lower than those admitted toother disciplines (University of HongKong, 2007).

In China, teachers also rankrelatively high in surveys ofoccupational prestige—above, forexample, fashion designers, corporatemanagers and mid-level militaryofficers (Li, et al., 2004). However,because teachers’ salaries are low inChina relative to other occupations,and especially low in rural areas, theoccupation is not as attractive assome others. In Thailand, teaching isnot considered to be an especially

attractive occupation. Although therehave been efforts to upgrade teachersalaries, they have been low whencompared with professions—about25% of physicians’ and engineers’salaries. It is common in Thailand forteachers to work extra part-time jobs,resulting in inadequate attention totheir teaching. As a result, amongmany of those enrolled in teachereducation institutions in Thailand,teaching is a second career choice.

In Korea, teaching is a relativelysought-after occupation because of itsjob security and its high social statusstanding. Relatively competitiveindividuals aspire to enter teachingand the rate of teacher turnover isvery low because most teachersremain in teaching until the point ofretirement. In Japan, teaching is anattractive option to college students,is relatively well paid, enjoys respect,job autonomy, and a collaborativecommunity with colleagues thataffords chances to grow and developas educators. Not surprisingly,turnover and quit rates havetraditionally been low.

But in Japan and Korea as in theUnited States, teachers have comeunder increasing criticism in recentyears (Fujita, 2000a; Ingersoll, 2003).A recent study of teachers’comparative status in Japan, Chinaand the United Kingdom revealedthat an overwhelming majority ofteachers perceived their authority tobe in decline. Moreover, less thanhalf of teachers in Japan reportedthey enjoyed “high social status.”This was far higher than in theUnited Kingdom where only 17%reported this, but far lower thanChina, where fully 70% of teachersreported high social status (Fujita,2006).

The Qualifications of theTeaching Force

Interestingly, the actual levels ofeducation and professional trainingof the teaching force in each systemare not necessarily predicted byofficial standards. (see Table 3) In anumber of systems, such as China,the official rules exceed the reality.Sometimes, this results becauseveteran teachers who were qualifiedat the time they first entered theclassroom, do not meet newlyupgraded standards.

On the other hand, in HongKong, reality exceeds the rule. WhileHong Kong does not require entrantsto hold a four-year baccalaureatedegree, nevertheless most employedteachers do so. Sixty-six percent ofelementary and 90% of secondaryteachers hold a bachelor’s degree or

higher. Moreover, in Hong Kong themajority of teachers hold a teachingcertificate, even though this is notrequired by law. There appear to beat least two incentives behind thesehigh levels–credential-based salaryincentives for teachers, and societalexpectations and pressures on schooladministrators to hire universitygraduates, even if they cost more.

In the United States, realityexceeds the rule in some cases.Moreover, in other cases, it exceedsthe rhetoric. As mentioned earlier,the majority of teachers in privateschools hold a teaching certificate,even though one is not necessarilyrequired. Moreover, over nine in 10public school teachers hold ateaching certificate, even though theconventional wisdom, trumpeted bythe media and school reformers, isthat there are significant numbers of

uncertified teachers, especially inschools serving low-income, high-poverty communities.

For most of the seven systems,there is an elementary-secondary gapin teachers’ qualifications, parallel tothe elementary-secondary gap instandards, as discussed in theprevious section. Elementary teachersoften are less likely to hold abaccalaureate degree or a master’sdegree than are secondary teachers.In contrast, at the secondary level inmost of the systems, at least 90% ofthe teachers hold a bachelor’s degree.For instance, in Singapore only 48 percent of elementary teachershave a bachelor’s degree, while about89% do in secondary schools. It isimportant to note that teachers inSingapore who do not havebachelor’s degrees nevertheless arerequired to undertake substantial

Table 3PERCENT School Teachers, by Highest Degree Earned, and by Teaching Certificate, by System.

Educational Qualifications Professional Qualifications Both Bachelor’sLess than Bachelor’s Master’s No Less-than Full Degree and FullBachelor’s Degree Degree or Cerifiication Full Certification Certification

Degree Higher Certification

China Elementary 95 5 0 0 2 98 5L. Secondary 71 29 .2 0 6 94 29U. Secondary 21 79 1 0 20 80 80

Hong KongElementary 27 73 7 5 0 95 70Secondary 8 92 25 5 0 95 88

JapanElementary 15 82 3 0 15 85 85Secondary 3 82 15 0 3 97 97

Korea Elementary 14 70 16 0 0 100 86Secondary .5 70 29 0 0 100 99

SingaporeElementary 52 46 2 0 0 100 48Secondary 11 82 7 0 0 100 89

Thailand Elementary 8 88 4 0 8 92 92Secondary 2 65 33 0 2 98 98

United States Elementary 1 54 44 4 6 89 89Secondary 3 49 49 5 8 87 85

pedagogical training and contentcoursework in their teaching subjects.In China, there are large proportionsof teachers, even at the lowersecondary level, who do not hold abaccalaureate degree.

On the issue of professionalrequirements, in all of the systemsthe vast majority of teachers holdregular teaching certificates orlicenses. But, again, there often is anelementary-secondary gap andcurrently in some nations, such asSingapore, there is a strong push toclose the elementary-secondaryqualifications gap. Interestingly, thegap does not always run the samedirection. In Japan, there is a 12percentage point elementary-secondary licensing gap, althoughthis has been decreasing over time. InChina, the elementary-secondarylicensing gap runs the oppositeway–elementary teachers are morelikely than secondary teachers to holda license.

Thailand and the United Statesrepresent exceptions—their dataindicate that at both the elementaryand secondary levels, most schoolteachers hold a baccalaureate degree,many hold a master’s degree orhigher, and most hold certificates.Indeed in each nation, elementaryteachers actually are slightly morelikely to hold certificates. Among theAsian nations, Thailand also standsout for its high level of degreeholders at the elementary level.

For two of the systems (China,United States) we were able to obtaindata on cross-school differences insome of the indicators in Table 3 todiscern if there is a poverty gap inteachers’ qualifications. The datafrom these two systems reveal distinctinequities in the qualifications ofteachers accordingly to the povertylevel of students. In each of thesesystems, students in poorer schoolsare less likely to be taught by teachers

who hold a certificate and a higherdegree. These data are displayed inthe relevant chapters.

While providing a useful portraitof the basic education and training ofthe teaching forces across systems, italso is important to acknowledge thatthe measures of degrees andcertificates illustrated in Table 3 tellus little of the quality of theserequirements. Moreover, we do nothave analogous national data onother indicators of quality andqualifications, such as teachers’ examor test scores. Hence, it is importantto recognize there may beinadequacies or inequities notrevealed by our data.

Teaching Assignments andOut-of-Field Teaching

OverviewOur study revealed dramaticdifferences across the educationalsystems in the extent to which thereis the practice of out-of-fieldteaching—where teachers educatedand trained in one field are assignedby school administrators to teachclasses in another field.

The data in Tables 4 and 5 reveallarge differences across the systems inthe percentages of teachers assignedto teach classes in fields that do notmatch their educational background.The problem is most severe in the

United States. For example, as shownin Table 4, over one third of all thosewho teach secondary-schoolmathematics in the United States donot have a major in mathematics,mathematics education, or in relateddisciplines like engineering, statisticsor physics. Likewise, over one thirdof all those teaching secondary-schoolEnglish classes do not have a majorin English or related subjects such asliterature, communications, speech,journalism, English education, orreading education. Twenty-ninepercent of all those teachingsecondary-school classes in anyscience do not have a college majorin any one of the sciences or inscience education. As shown bycomparing Tables 4 and 5, similarproportions are found in the UnitedStates when looking at those withouta teaching certificate in the field, asopposed to those without a degree.

Thailand and Hong Kong alsohave some problems with out-of-fieldteaching. In Thailand, abut onequarter of those teaching math, socialstudies and Thai language do nothold majors in those fields. In HongKong, levels of out-of-field approachthose in the United States. Almostone third of those teaching math andsocial science do not have a certificatein those fields.

In contrast, there appears to bealmost no out-of-field teaching at thesecondary level in Japan. Korea also

Table 4PERCENT Secondary School Teachers in Four Academic Fields Without a Majorin the Field Taught, by System3

Native Math Science Social Science/Language Studies

China NA NA NA NAHong Kong NA NA NA NAJapan NA NA NA NAKorea 3 2 26 3Singapore NA NA NA NAThailand 24 26 15 26United States 35 38 29 30

3 NA refers to data not available

has very low levels of out-of-fieldteaching, with one large exception–science. Over one fourth of thoseteaching science in Korea do nothold a degree in one of the sciences.

In the two systems (Korea,United States) where data comparingdifferent types of schools are availableon out-of-field teaching, clearinequities exist. Teachers in high-poverty schools are more likely to beout-of-field. Indeed, in the UnitedStates, the most glaring andprominent source of inadequateaccess to qualified teachers is not alack of basic education orprofessional training of teachers, butrather the widespread practice ofmisassignment.

Reasons for Out-of-FieldTeaching There appear to be a variety ofreasons for the levels of out-of-fieldteaching reported for these systems,some having to do with how thesemeasures are defined.

For instance, one factorcontributing to the high levels ofout-of-field teaching in science inHong Kong and Korea is themanner by which the field isdefined—a narrower and morestringent definition of a qualifiedteacher than used in other data, such

as those from the United States. Ateacher with a background inchemistry who is teaching biology orphysics is defined as out-of-field inHong Kong and Korea. In contrast,in the U.S. data, we defined aqualified science teacher morebroadly; in the U.S. data, anyoneteaching any science is counted asin-field if they had a degree or acertificate in any of the sciences. Ifwe redefine a “qualified” scienceteacher in the U.S. data as someonewith a degree in the specificscientific discipline they are teaching(e.g., a chemistry teacher must havea degree in chemistry), then ourestimates of out-of-field teachingwould sharply rise accordingly.

Another factor in Hong Kong isthe practice, especially prevalent atthe middle grade levels and in lower-secondary schools, of routinelyassigning teachers to teach multiplesubjects. For instance, Chinese-language teachers often also teachChinese history (in the field of socialstudies) and science teachers oftenteach mathematics—practices thatincrease the levels of out-of-fieldteaching in social studies andmathematics. These practices oftenare an administrative measure tobring about an equitable workloadamong teachers. This may alsoaccount for the high levels of out-of-

field teaching in science in Korea;30% of lower secondary scienceteachers have no certificate inscience, while this is true for only16% of science teachers at the uppersecondary level. In Korea, computer-science teachers often are assigned toteach science.

It also is true in the United Statesthat teachers in the middle gradelevels are routinely assigned to teachclasses in multiple fields. It iscommon, for instance, for states torequire teachers employed in middleschools (grades 5-8) to obtain ageneralist degree or certificate inelementary education thatemphasizes a broad background anddoes not require substantialspecialization in any one subject.But, once employed, many suchteachers are assigned to teach subject-matter courses to classes of differentstudents all of most of the day, as ifthey are departmentalized secondary-level teachers. As a result, rates ofout-of-field teaching are especiallyhigh at the middle-grade levels in theUnited States. However, in the U.S.data used in this analysis, we wereable to focus solely on teachersemployed in secondary schools andwere able to exclude seventh- andeighth-grade teachers employed inmiddle or elementary schools. Thisexclusion was not possible in theHong Kong data, hence, inflatingtheir figures.

In the United States, the dataindicate that out-of-field teaching toa large extent is a result of themanner in which schools areorganized and teachers are managed.School-staffing decisions usuallyfollow a top-down command model:these decisions are the prerogative ofschool administrators, and teacherstypically have little say over theirassignments. School administratorsface the difficult task of providing anincreasingly broad array of programs

Table 5PERCENT Secondary School Teachers in Four Academic Fields Without aTeaching Certificate or License in the Field Taught, by System.4

Native Math Science Social Science/ Language Studies

China NA NA NA NAHong Kong 15 29 17 28Japan .3 1 .2 .5Korea 2 10 23 2Singapore NA NA NA NAThailand NA NA NA NAUnited States 29 32 29 30

4 NA refers to data not available.

with limited resources, time, budgets,and teaching staff. But, within thoseconstraints, administrators have anunusual degree of discretion, andthere is little centralized regulationover how teachers are utilized oncethey are hired. In this context,administrators report that, from amanagerial perspective, they find thatassigning teachers to teach out oftheir fields often is more convenient,less expensive, and less time-consuming than the alternatives.

For example, rather than hire anew part-time science teacher for twosections of a newly state-mandatedscience curriculum, an administratormay find it simpler to assign twoEnglish or social-studies teachers tocover the science sections. Whenfaced with a tough choice betweenhiring an unqualified candidate for amathematics teacher position ordoubling the class size of one of thefully qualified mathematics teachers,a school administrator might opt forthe former. If a full-time musicteacher is under contract, but studentenrollment is sufficient to fill onlythree music classes, the principal mayfind it both necessary and costeffective in a given semester to assignthe music teacher to teach two classesin English, in addition to the threeclasses in music, in order to employthe teacher for a regular full-timecomplement of five classes persemester. If a school has three full-time social-studies teachers, butneeds to offer the equivalent of 3 1/2full-time positions, and also has morethan enough full-time Englishteachers, one solution would be toassign one of the English teachers toteach both English courses and somesocial-studies courses.

From a managerial perspective,these choices may save time andmoney for the school, and ultimatelyfor the taxpayer. From an educationalperspective they are not cost-free, as

they are among the largest sources ofunderqualified teachers in schools inthe United States.

Implications

This study reveals bothcommonalities and differences in thepreparation and qualifications ofteachers among the seven systems weexamined. A question, reasonable toask, but difficult to answer, is whichapproach is best? Our objective,however, was not to try to identifyany one approach as better thananother. Nor did we seek todocument the necessity or value ofteacher preparation andqualifications. Our objective was todescribe the pre-employmentpreparation and qualificationsstandards, as well as the educationaland professional training levels ofteachers in each system. Our largergoal was to address the question: howwell are these different educationalsystems succeeding in ensuring allstudents are taught by qualifiedteachers? How can this study helpunderstand where problems may liein meeting these needs?

Comparative educational researchcan provide a useful function byplacing educational systems incontext. There are a variety ofpossible reasons why elementary andsecondary classrooms sometimes maynot be staffed by qualified teachers. Ifeducational reform is to succeed insolving the problem ofunderqualified teachers, it mustaddress the major sources of theproblem. Misdiagnoses of the sourcesof the problem can result inmisguided or inadequate solutions tothe problem.

Our study suggests at least threepossible sources of the problem ofunderqualified teachers. One possiblecause lies in the pre-employment

requirements and standardsthemselves. The depth, breadth andrigor of college or university teachertraining and preparationrequirements and of governmentlicensing and certification standardsare possible sources of inadequacies.In these cases, remedies must look toreform of institutional preparationprograms or of government licensingrequirements.

A second possible source ofunderqualified teachers lies in thefailure of the teaching force to meetexisting requirements and standards.This could be for a variety ofreasons–including deficits incandidates’ ability, education,preparation or training. Falling intothis category are candidates who havenot completed a required degree, lackadequate professional training, havenot had adequate practice teaching,have not obtained a certificate orlicense, have not completed sufficientcoursework in their major area ofconcentration, or are unable to passrequired tests. Remedies must addressthe source of noncompliance withthe standards and the reasons forgaps between rule and reality. Dothose entering preparationinstitutions lack the ability to meetthe requirements? Is the problem dueto a qualification gap where an earliergeneration of veteran teachers do notmeet newly upgraded standards?Does the problem lie with theadequacy of preparation programsand institutions themselves? Do theyoffer inadequate curricula or supportfor their students? Does the source ofthe problem lie at the point of hiringand employment? Do schools hirecandidates who do not meet theexisting standards? If so, is thisbecause of an inadequate supply ofwilling and able applicants at theprevailing wage, or because ofinadequacies in the hiring processitself?

A third source of underqualifiedteaching arises in how teachers areutilized once on the job—theproblem of misassignment or out-of-field teaching. Again, remediesmust address the actual source ofnoncompliance with the standards. Is the problem an inadequate supplyof willing and able applicants, forcingthose doing the hiring to acceptunderqualified candidates? Or doesthe problem lie in the way teachers,once on the job, are utilized inschools? If, for example, regardless of supply, many schools persist in assigning teachers to teach subjects that do not match theirqualifications, then a closeexamination of the character ofhuman-resource management inschools is necessary.

This summary chapter closeswith a brief description of somepossible implications of what we havefound in this study relative to justone of the systems, that of theUnited States. Recent teacher policyand debate in the United Statesillustrates the importance ofadequately understanding the sourceof the problem.

What counts as the optimalcontent and rigor of entryrequirements for new teachers hasbeen a great source of contention inthe United States. On one side arethose who argue that entry intoteaching should be more highlyrestricted, as in the traditionalprofessions. On the other side arethose who argue that entry into theteaching occupation already isplagued by unusually restrictive andunnecessarily rigid bureaucratic entrybarriers.

Compared with some othernations, the data reveal that entryinto the teaching occupation in theUnited States does not appear to beespecially restrictive, burdensome,rigorous, or difficult. The United

States has more teacher traininginstitutions than the other systemsand overall entry is not especiallyselective. Moreover, unlike mostother systems, prospective candidatesin the United States can choose froma range of alternative certificationand entry routes. Requiringprospective teachers to have bothsubject-matter and pedagogicalexpertise, as is common in theUnited States, also is not unusual;indeed all of the systems we studiedrequired both. Notably, somesystems, such as Singapore, havelower degree requirements than theUnited States, especially at theelementary level. But, teaching is afar more attractive and well-paidoccupation in Singapore and, as aresult, entry is highly selective andpreparation highly rigorous, withoutsuch requirements. This is consistentwith another recent study thatcompared filters and requirementsembedded in the process ofbecoming a teacher in across anumber of countries, includingAustralia, England, Japan, Korea,Netherlands, Hong Kong, andSingapore and concluded that entryto teaching in the United States isrelatively easy (Wang, et al., 2003).

Regardless of the rigor andadequacy of entry requirements andstandards, a second source ofproblems is the failure of teachers tomeet the standards–the gap betweenrule and reality. Policy debates in theUnited States have underscored thetension between the need tomaintain adequate entryrequirements and the need to ensurean adequate incoming supply of newteaching candidates, especially giventhe high levels of teacher turnover. Attimes this dynamic results in anapparent paradox where statesdevelop more rigorous licensingcriteria, while simultaneously passinglegislation that waives the

requirements to meet such criteria. Inother words, policymakers at timeshave lowered the bar to increasesupply.

One lesson to be gleaned is thatattempts to upgrade entryrequirements cannot be implementedunilaterally. Without also upgradingrewards to a commensurate level,such initiatives most likely will falter.Some historians have held thatattempts to upgrade the caliber ofteachers through more rigoroustraining and licensing standards ormore selective entry gates oftenresulted in decreases in male entrantsto teaching, who were more attractedto occupations with better rewardsattached to rigorous standards(Strober & Tyack, 1980). A policysolution to the dilemma of trying toensure sufficient supply, withoutlowering the bar, would be tosimultaneously upgrade the qualityand attractiveness of the job.

Another factor behind difficultiesin ensuring that teachers meetstandards has do with the adequacyof the recruitment and hiring processin some U.S. schools. Several studieshave concluded that the staffingproblems plaguing some low-incomedistricts, in particular, are exacerbatedby inadequate human-resourcedepartments and flawed hiringpolicies (Odden, Milanowski, &Heneman, 2007). For instance, astudy of four low-income urbandistricts in 2003 found that in eachcase there were more than enoughqualified applicants to successfully fillexisting vacancies. But, acumbersome application process,layers of bureaucracy, inadequatecustomer service, poor data systems,late budget timetables, and seniority-based teacher transfer rules allundermined the ability of thedistricts to place qualified candidatesin classrooms (New Teacher Project,2004).

Finally, a related problem ofhuman-resource management is thepractice of misassignment. Incontrast to most of the other systemsin this study, the data indicate that amajor source of underqualifiedteaching in the United States is theadministrative practice of out-of-fieldteaching assignments. The data showthat compared with some of theother nations in this study, thispractice is especially widespread inthe United States and especially inthose schools serving disadvantagedcommunities.

Understanding the reasonsbehind underqualified teaching isimportant because of theimplications for solving the problem.Most contemporary teacher-reforminitiatives in the United States, infocusing on upgrading the trainingrequirements of teachers and teacherrecruitment, have overlooked theimpact of the organizational andoccupational contexts within whichteachers work. The data, however,indicate that solutions to theproblem of underqualified teachersalso must look to how schools aremanaged and how teachers areutilized once they are on the job. Inshort, recruiting thousands of newcandidates and providing them withrigorous preparation will not solvethe problem if large numbers ofteachers receive assignments forwhich they are not prepared.

Allen, M. (2003). Eight questions onteacher preparation: What does theresearch say? Denver, CO: Educationof the States. Retrieved February 20,2007, from www.ecs.org/tpreport.

American Educational ResearchAssociation, American PsychologicalAssociation, National Council onMeasurement in Education.(1999).Standards for educational andpsychological testing. Washington,DC: author.

Ballou, D. (1996). Do public schoolshire the best applicants? QuarterlyJournal of Economics, 111(1), 97-133.

Bidwell, C. (1965). The school as aformal organization. In J.G. March(Ed.), Handbook of organizations (pp.973 1002). Chicago: Rand McNally.

Cohen, D., Raudenbush, S., & Ball,D. (2003). Resources, instructionand research. Educational Evaluationand Policy Analysis, 25(2), 119-142.

Etzioni, A. (Ed.). (1969). The semiprofessions and their organizations:Teachers, nurses and social workers (pp.1-53). New York: Free Press.

Finn, C., Kanstoroom, M., &Petrilli, M. (1999). The quest forbetter teachers: Grading the states.Washington, DC: Thomas B.Fordham Foundation.

Fujita, H. (2000a). Education reformand education politics in Japan. TheAmerican Sociologist, 31(3), 42-57.

Fujita, H. (1999, January 18-21).Choice, quality and democracy ineducation: A comparison of currenteducational reforms in the United

States, the United Kingdom and Japan,Paper presented at the internationalsymposium on The Public and thePrivate in the United Statessponsored by the JapaneseAssociation for American Studies andthe Japan Center for Area Studies ofthe National Museum of Ethnology,held in Osaka, Japan. RetrievedFebruary 13, 2007 athttp://www.childresearch.net/RESOURCE/RESEARCH/2000/FUJITA/index.html

Fujita, H. (2006). Kyoiku-kaikakuno Yukue [Where is educationreform going?]. Iwanami Shoten.

Greenberg, E., Rhodes, D., Ye, X., &Stancavage, F. (2004). Prepared toteach: Teacher preparation and studentachievement in 8th grade mathematics.Paper presented at the AmericanEducational Research AssociationAnnual Meeting, San Diego.

Greenwald, R., Hedges, L., & Laine,R. (1996). The effect of schoolresources on student achievement.Review of Educational Research, 66,361-396.

Hanushek, E. & Rivkin, S. (2004).How to improve the supply of highquality teachers. In D. Ravitch (Ed.),Brookings papers on education policy( pp. 7-44). Washington, DC:Brookings Institution.

Henke, R., Chen, X., & Geis, S.(2000). Progress through the pipeline:1992-93 college graduates andelementary/secondary school teaching asof 1997. Washington, DC: NationalCenter for Education Statistics.

Hodson, R. & Sullivan , T. (1995).Professions and professionals. In Thesocial organization of work (pp. 287-314). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Ingersoll, R. (1999). The problem ofunderqualified teachers in Americansecondary schools. EducationalResearcher, 28(2): 26-37.

Ingersoll, R . (2001). The status ofteaching as a profession. In J.Ballantine & J. Spade (Eds.), Schoolsand society: a sociological approach toeducation ( pp. 115-129). Belmont,CA: Wadsworth Press.

Ingersoll, R. (2003). Who controlsteachers’ work?: Power andaccountability in America’s schools.Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress.

Kane, M. (1994). Validatinginterpretive arguments for licensureand certification examinations.Evaluation & The HealthProfessions, 17(2),133-159.

Kohn, M., & Schooler, C. (1983).Work and personality. Norwood, NJ:Ablex

Lai, K.C., Chan, K.W., Ko, K.W., &So, K.S. (2005). Teaching as a career:A perspective from Hong Kongsenior secondary students. Journal ofEducation for Teaching, 31(3): 153-168.

Levine, A. (2006). Educating schoolteachers. New York: The EducationSchools Project.

References

Li P., Li Q., & Sun, L. (2004). Socialstratification in China today. Beijing:Social Sciences DocumentationPublishing House.

Lortie, D. (1975). School teacher.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Mullis, I., Martin, M., Gonzalez, E.,Gregory, K., Garden, R., O’Connor,K. Chrostowski, S., & Smith, T.(2000). TIMSS 1999 internationalmathematics report. IEA.

Mullis, I., Martin, M., Gonzalez, E.,& Kennedy, A. (2003). PERLS 2001international report: IEA’s study ofreading literacy achievement inprimary schools in 35 countries. IEA.

Murnane, R., & Raizen, S. (1988).Indicators of teaching quality. In R.Murnane & S. Senta, (Eds.),Improving indicators of the quality ofscience and mathematics education ingrades K-12 (pp. 90-118).Washington, DC: National AcademyPress.

National Commission on Teachingand America’s Future. (1996). Whatmatters most: Teaching for America’sfuture. New York: NCTAF.

National Commission on Teachingand America’s Future. (1997). Doingwhat matters most: Investing in qualityteaching. New York: NCTAF.

New Teacher Project. (2004). MissedOpportunities. New York: author.

Odden, A, Milanowski, A., &Heneman, H. (in press). Policy andprofessionals: Commentary. In D.Cohen, S. Fuhrman, & F. Mosher,(Eds.), The state of education policyresearch. Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum Associates.

Organization for Economic Co-operation and CulturalDevelopment. (1994). Quality inteaching. Paris: OECD.

Organization for Economic Co-operation and CulturalDevelopment. (1995). Decision-making in 14 OECD educationsystems. Paris: OECD.

Organization for Economic Co-operation and CulturalDevelopment. (1998). Education at aglance: OECD indicators. Paris:OECD.

Organization for Economic Co-operation and CulturalDevelopment. (1998). Education at aglance: OECD indicators. Paris:OECD.

Organization for Economic Co-operation and CulturalDevelopment. (2000). Knowledgeand skills for life: First results fromOECD’s programme for internationalstudent assessment (PISA). Paris:OECD.

Organization for Economic Co-operation and CulturalDevelopment. (2005). Teachersmatter: Attracting, developing andretaining effective teachers. Paris:OECD.

Pascarella, E., & Terenzini, P. (1991).How college affects students: Findingsand insights form twenty years ofresearch. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Raudenbush, S., Fotiu, R., &Cheong, Y. (1999). Synthesizingresults from the trial state assessment.Journal of Educational and BehavioralStatistics, 24(4), 413-438.

Strober, M., & Tyack, D. (1980).Why do women teach and menmanage? Signs, 5, 499-500.

University of Hong Kong. (2006).JUPAS admission grades. RetrievedJanuary 6, 2007, fromhttp://www.hku.hk/admission/jupas-grades.htm

Villegas, A., & Lucas, T. (2004).Diversifying the teacher workforce.In M. Smylie & D. Miretzky, (Eds.),103rd yearbook of the national societyfor the study of education. Chicago:National Society for the Study ofEducation.

Wang, A., Coleman, A., Coley, R., &Phelps, R. (2003). Preparing teachersaround the world. Princeton, NJ:Educational Testing Service.

Introduction

Governance of education is highlycentralized in China. Traditionally,the provision of education—schooling—is seen as the function ofthe national government. From 1949forward, virtually all schools weredesignated as public. With thereforms of recent years, privateschools are permitted and theiropening has been encouraged.However, public schools still occupythe largest proportion of alleducational institutions. Moreover,with regard to teacher regulation,even private schools are under thestrict control of the central and localgovernments.

As Figure 1 shows, basiceducation in China is structured as a6-3-3 system, representing six yearsof primary education, three years ofjunior-secondary and three years ofsenior-secondary education. Primaryand junior-secondary education ismandatory. In the category of senior-secondary education, besides theregular schools, there also arevocational schools, technical schoolsand other specialized secondaryschools. Table 1 shows the number ofschools, students, teachers byeducational level in 2003.

In China, three types ofinstitutions educate students to beteachers. As Figure 1 shows, the firsttype is known as the secondaryteachers school, which is actually a

CHAPTER 2The Qualifications of the TeachingForce in ChinaDing Gang and Sun MeiluEast China Normal University

Kindergarten

ElementarySchool

Junior Sec.School

College

University

SecondaryTeachersSchool

NormalCollege(2-year)

NormalCollege(3-yearplus 2-year)

NormalUniversity

INSTITUTIONS INSTITUTIONS FORTEACHER

PREPARATION

3

6

12

15

18

22

20

SeniorSec.School

VocationalSchool

TechnicalSchool

SpecializedSchool

HigherEducation

SecondaryEducation

PrimaryEducationPreschoolEducation

SeniorJunior

Figure 1

China’s Formal Educational System and Institutions

specialized secondary school thatprepares students to be teachers inprimary and pre-school education.These schools issue a high schooldiploma. The second is the normalcollege, which recruits graduatesfrom senior-secondary schools fortwo-year higher-education programsand also recruits graduates fromjunior-secondary schools for three-year senior-secondary education plustwo-year higher-education programs.The normal college is a kind ofjunior college that issues a sub-degree, which documents that agraduate has successfully completedtwo years of higher education.Normal colleges prepare teachers forjunior-secondary schools. The thirdtype is the normal university, whichis a four-year undergraduateuniversity that issues bachelor’sdegrees and prepares teachers forsenior-secondary schools. All these

institutions are public schools.Students enrolled are called normaleducation students, and all of themget special scholarships. In 2003,there were 430 secondary teachersschools and 188 normal colleges anduniversities. Table 2 shows thenumber of students and graduates forteacher preparation by educationallevel in 2003.

Recently, some other educationinstitutions such as comprehensiveuniversities have been permitted toset up teacher-education courses, andindividuals also can apply for theTeacher Qualification Certificate,regardless of which type of teachingschool they attended, thus makingthe teacher-education system moreopen. But the three types of teacher-education institutions mentionedabove remain the main sources ofgraduates for primary and secondaryteaching ranks.

The central government of Chinacontrols and directs teachereducation through legislation andregulation, making basic policies,standards and plans, setting upspecial funds and projects, etc. Underthe central government’s direction,local governments have primaryresponsibility for running the teachereducation system.

In general, the teaching forceremains undersupplied and in a stateof shortage in China, especially inthe western, less-developed and ruralareas. Table 1 shows that student-teacher ratios in elementary, junior-secondary and senior-secondaryschools are comparatively high, being20.0:1, 18.6:1 and 18.6:1respectively. As articulated in thenational education-developmentplanning objective, gross enrollmentin senior-secondary education3 is toexpand from 42.1% in 2003 to 60%by 2010. If that goal is achieved,researchers estimate the gap betweendemand and supply of senior-secondary school teachers to grow to1.16 million (Project Team of China’sEducation and Human ResourceDevelopment, 2002). The currentshortage is severe, with principals andheadmasters employing many peoplewho are not very qualified to fulfillteaching tasks.

China maintains a tradition ofholding teachers in high regard.From long ago, teachers have enjoyedrelatively high occupational prestige.According to a survey conducted inBeijing in 1997-1998, primary andsecondary teachers rank 29th inprestige, above middle-level officers,fashion designers and corporationmanagers (Li Peilin, et al., 2004).However, teachers’ earnings are notrelatively high in China, and in somerural areas teachers (especially those

Table 1Numbers of Schools, Students, Teachers in China by Educational Level (2004)1

Schools Students Teachers Student-Teacher

Ratio

Total 484,953 212,474,942 10,929,021 19.4 : 1

Primary EducationElementary schools 394,183 112,462,256 5,628,860 20.0:1

Junior Secondary EducationJunior schools 63,060 64,750,006 3,476,784 18.6:1

Senior Secondary EducationSenior schools 15,998 22,203,701 1,190,681 18.6:1Specialized schools 3,047 5,544,733 197,084 28.1:1Vocational schools 5,781 5,169,246 270,612 19.1:1Technical schools 2,884 2,345,000 165,000 14.2 : 1

2 China education yearbook 2005.

Table 2 Numbers of Students, Graduates in China by Educational Level for TeacherPreparation, 20042

Students GraduatesSecondary Teachers School 750,362 262,085Sub-degree 720,296 190,721Undergraduate 11,875,114 194,019

1 China statistics yearbook 2004. a. Schools include all the public and non-state/private schools.

3 Gross enrollment of senior-secondary education is thenumber of students enrolled in senior-secondary edu-cation, as a percentage of the population in the agegroup from 15 to 18 for this educational level.

who are substitute teachers) withsome frequency fail to receive theirsalaries in due time. This influencesthe attractiveness of teaching as anoccupation and makes a lot ofteachers quit their jobs to seek bettercareers. In recent years, this situationhas improved somewhat.


Besides Hong Kong, there are 27provinces and four cities directlyunder the central government. Thepreparation requirements andstandards imposed on teachercandidates are established by thecentral government although it is leftto the 31 provinces and cities toregulate the entry criteria. Since1993, the central government haspromulgated Law of Teachers (1993),Regulations for Qualification ofTeachers (1995), andImplementation of Regulations forQualification of Teachers (2000)regulating the teacher educationprocess. A teacher candidate initiallyneeds to obtain the teachingcertificate, under the principlesarticulated below.

First, entrants should have therelevant degree or certificate:• To become a primary-school

teacher, a secondary-teachers schoolcertificate (high school diploma) orabove;

• To become a junior-school teacher,a normal college certificate (sub-degree) or above;

• To become a senior-school teacher,a four-year bachelor’s degree orabove.

Second, entrants should havepassed the Mandarin language test.According to the standardsestablished by the NationalMandarin Test Committee, anexaminee’s capabilities of speakingand hearing Mandarin—the official

language for teaching—can beranked. There are three levels, witheach level divided into two classes, sothere are six grades in all. The toplevel is Class One Level One,followed by Class Two Level One,Class One Level Two, and so on,with the lowest level of competencybeing Class Two Level Three. Topass, an entrant should attain ClassTwo Level Two or above, meaning anerror rate on the test of less than20%. In dialect-mixed areas, a test-taker should reach Class One LevelThree or above, which means therate of making errors on the testshould be less than 30%.

Third, entrants should haveobtained the professional knowledgeto pass four special tests on pedagogy,psychology, teaching methods, andteaching ability. The pedagogy,psychology, and teaching-methodstests are written exams, and theteaching candidate also mustdemonstrate multiple facets ofteaching ability: subject-matterinstruction, teaching process,classroom management, blackboardhandwriting, and classroomquestioning.

Having complied with theconditions previously described, anentrant can apply for a qualified-teacher certificate. There are seventypes of teaching certificates inChina: kindergarten teacher; primaryschool teacher; junior-secondaryteacher; senior-secondary teacher;secondary-vocational teacher;secondary-vocational schoolinternship adviser, and higher-education school teacher. Thecertification qualifies a teacher for ateaching post at the level attained, ora lesser level. There is an exception:Those certified as vocationalinternship advisers can only work asinternship advisers in specializedsecondary schools, technical schoolsand vocational schools. The subject

that can be taught is indicated clearlyon the certificate. And certificatescurrently have no tenure limits,though there is a proposal underdiscussion to issue certificates withthree different limits—temporary,time limited and lifelong.

Normal education students needonly to pass the Mandarin test notthe four-part professional-knowledgetest because they are assumed to haveobtained training as teachingprofessionals in their formalschooling. However, they arerequired to take part in a six- toeight-week teacher-preparationprogram.

Since 1999, regulations governingwho can apply for a teachingcertificate have been loosened as away of enlarging the teaching force.Now, an applicant need not havegraduated from a teacher-preparationinstitution, need not already havebeen a teacher, and need not havetaken part in a teacher-preparationprogram. If the entrant can pass thefour qualifying tests, he or she canobtain the teaching certificate. Afteracquiring a teaching certificate, theprospective teacher must find aschool to employ him or her. Thereis no unified employmentexamination. Schools recruit newteachers on their own.

However, these legalrequirements and standards are notstrictly enforced in every corner ofChina. Not all who enter theoccupation meet the legal educationrequirements; the scope and contentof requirements to become a teachervary widely among the differentprovinces. For example, in manyrural schools in the westernprovinces, the formal schooling levelsof many teachers lack four years ofcollege and are below the senior-secondary school level.

In his or her teaching career, ateacher also should take part in

continuing education and training.According to the Regulations forContinuing Education of Primaryand Secondary School Teachersissued by China’s Ministry ofEducation in 1999, training is in thefollowing areas: political educationand the ethics of teaching; specialty-knowledge updating and expansion;modern education theory andpractice; study of teaching skills; andmodern educational technologies.New teachers should take training ofnot less than 150 periods, and allteachers should take job training ofnot less than 240 periods every fiveyears. One period equals about 45minutes to one hour’s learning time.Generally speaking, 150 periods oftraining means about one month offull-time off-job training or otherequivalent endeavor. Teachers also areencouraged to pursue more schoolingto improve their educational levels.

Teacher’s schools and colleges,normal colleges and universities arethe main providers of continuingeducation and training for teachers.

Data and Measures

The data presented in this chapterare based on two sources: ChinaEducation Yearbook and EducationalStatistic Yearbook of China. Theformer is edited and issued byMinistry of Education, and the latteris by the ministry’s Department ofDevelopment and Planning. Both ofthese two authoritative literatures areissued every year.

A system called “Qualified Ratesof Record of Formal Schooling” iscommonly used to measure theeducation level of teachers. Asindicated above, a teacher qualifiedto teach in a primary school shouldhave obtained secondary-teachers

school education or above; aqualified junior-secondary teachershould have obtained a sub-degree orabove; a qualified senior-secondaryteacher should have obtained abachelor’s degree or above. Thesystem has been in place for less than10 years


Table 3 shows the “qualified” rates ofelementary, junior-secondary, senior-secondary teachers in China by typeof subject taught and by type ofschool. As a whole, the qualified rateat the elementary-school level is thehighest, 98.31%, while the senior-secondary school rate is the lowest,79.60%. At the elementary-schoollevel, science teachers have thehighest qualified rate from theperspective of the four major subjectstaught—native language; math;science including physics, chemistryand biology; and social scienceconsisting of politics, history andgeography. At the senior-secondarylevel, science teachers have thelowest. At the secondary levelincluding both junior and senior,Chinese-language teachers have thehighest rate. The qualified rateamong social-science teachers isrelatively lower at all school levels.From the perspective of povertyenrollment, the qualified rate inwestern China is the lowest whilethat of eastern regions is the highestat all school levels. The gap betweenthe west and the middle of China ismuch wider than between the middleand the east. From the perspective ofcommunity type, the qualified rate inrural areas is the lowest while thatrate in urban areas is the highest inall school levels. Meanwhile, the gapin the rates of qualified teachersbetween rural and urban at thesenior-secondary school level is

Table 3Qualified Rate of Record of Formal Schooling of Elementary, Junior Secondary,Senior Secondary Teachers in China by Type of Subject Taught, Type of School, inPERCENTAGES, 20044

Elementary School Junior SeniorSecondary School Secondary School

Total 98.31 93.79 79.60

Subject Taught TypeChinese 98.42 95.91 84.20Math 99.33 94.95 82.60Science 98.01 94.99 81.97Social Science 98.08 95.02 81.24

Poverty EnrollmentLow (East) 99.05 93.79 83.74Middle(Middle) 98.78 95.12 79.73High (West) 97.16 92.52 73.76

Community TypeRural 97.78 91.31 65.36Suburban 99.13 94.94 75.92Urban 99.45 97.72 88.88

4 Educational statistic yearbook of China 2004. a. School includes all the public and non-state/private schools.b. Low poverty refers to the East Region, which contains Beijing, Tianjin, Shanghai, Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Fujian,

Guangdong and Shandong Provinces.c. Middle poverty refers to the Middle Region, which contains Hebei, Shanxi, Liaoning, Jilin, Heilongjiang,

Anhui, Jiangxi, Henan, Hubei, Hunan, Hainan Provinces.d. High poverty refers to the West Region, which contains Guizhou, Guangxi, Inner Mongolia, Chongqing,

Sichuan, Yunnan, Shaanxi, Tibet, Gansu, Qinghai, Ningxia, Xinjiang Provinces.e. The three types of regions are determined by the central government of China.

somewhat surprising, at 27.23%.Tables 4, 5 and 6 show the

percentage of the record of formalschooling of teachers as a whole, bytype of school and by type of subjecttaught in elementary, junior-secondary and senior-secondaryschool levels respectively. Nearly halfof the elementary-school teachers aregraduated from secondary teachersschools or senior-secondary schools,occupying 49.55%. Secondary schoolteachers have higher records offormal schooling with 78.56% of

senior-secondary school teachersholding bachelor’s degrees and64.66% of junior-secondary schoolteachers holding sub-degrees. Thedata reveal that in elementaryschools, science teachers have thehighest record of formal schoolingwith 0.03% holding graduate degreesand 4.03% with bachelor’s. Insecondary schools (including bothjunior and senior), Chinese-languageteachers have the most schooling.Formal schooling for teachers is at amuch higher level in the east, in

urban areas, than in the west, in ruralareas. Tables 7 and 8 discuss thetypes of teachers in elementary andsecondary schools in China.

There are three types of teachers:full-time, part-time and substitute.Full-time teachers comprise theformal teaching force and most ofthem hold teachers’ qualificationcertificates. Part-time teachers andsubstitute teachers are not part of theformal teaching force. Not all part-time teachers and substitute teachershold teachers’ qualification

Table 4PERCENTAGE of Record of Formal Schooling of ELEMENTARY School Teachers in China, by Type of School, by Type ofSubject Taught, 20045

Graduate Undergraduate Sub Degree High School Diploma Below High School Diploma

Total 0.02 4.58 44.16 49.55 1.69

Poverty EnrollmentLow (East) 0.02 5.88 49.76 43.39 0.95Middle(Middle) 0.03 4.55 42.95 51.25 1.22High (West) 0.02 3.22 38.21 55.71 2.84

Community TypeRural 0.01 2.14 38.00 57.63 2.22Suburban 0.02 5.12 53.27 40.72 0.87Urban 0.08 13.43 57.83 28.11 0.55

Subject TaughtChinese 0.02 4.40 45.49 48.51 1.58Math 0.01 3.48 42.31 53.53 1.67Science 0.03 4.03 37.40 56.55 1.99Social Science 0.05 6.69 45.04 46.30 1.92

5 Educational statistic yearbook of China 2004.

Table 5PERCENTAGE of Record of Formal Schooling of JUNIOR Secondary School Teachers in China, by Type of School, by Type of subject Taught, 20046


Total 0.16 28.97 64.66 6.07 0.14

Poverty EnrollmentLow (East) 0.18 36.00 58.94 4.79 0.09Middle (Middle) 0.15 27.91 65.63 6.16 0.15High (West) 0.14 23.27 69.11 7.31 0.17




certificates. Most part-time teachersare either retired and holding theteachers’ qualification certificate, orprofessionals without teachers’qualification certificates. Professionalstypically are invited to teach a subjectin which they have training.Substitute teachers are found mainlyin places with shortages of full-timeteachers. They represent a temporaryteaching force with some problems:first, most of them lack a qualifiedrecord of formal schooling; secondly,they work in poor areas and inferiorteaching conditions; third, they earnlower wages.

Table 7 and 8 present thesituation about the types of teachersin various types of school, indifferent communities, and indifferent poverty enrollment regions.As a whole, the percentage ofsubstitute teachers in elementaryschools is too high—6.3%—and thatin secondary schools is much lower

but still at 2.5%. At bothelementary- and secondary-schoollevels, the percentage of full-timeteachers is much higher at publicschools than at private schools; theeastern region has more fulltimeteachers than does the westernregion. Moreover, in most aspects,data on the middle and the east, of

the suburban and the urban, are veryclose, but data on the west and of therural show large lags to that of themiddle and the east, and that of thesuburban and the urban. In ruralelementary schools, 8.05% aresubstitute teachers, while in westernelementary schools, 11.21% aresubstitute teachers.

Table 6PERCENTAGE of Record of Formal Schooling of Senior SECONDARY School Teachers in China, by Type of School, by Typeof subject Taught, 20047


Total 1.04 78.56 20.00 0.39 0.01

Poverty EnrollmentLow (East) 1.09 82.65 16.00 0.25 0.01Middle(Middle) 1.13 78.60 19.80 0.46 0.01High (West) 0.81 72.95 25.76 0.47 0.01



7 Educational statistic yearbook of China 2004. a. School includes all the public and non-state/private schools.b. Senior School Graduate includes Secondary Teachers School Graduate and Senior Secondary School Graduate.c. Below Senior School Graduate refers to Without Secondary Teachers School Certificate and Below Senior Secondary School Graduate.d. Low poverty refers to the East Region, which contains Beijing, Tianjin, Shanghai, Jiangsu, zhejiang, Fujian, Guangdong and Shandong Provinces.e. Middle poverty refers to the Middle Region, which contains Hebei, Shanxi, Liaoning, Jilin, Heilongjiang, Anhui, Jiangxi, Henan, Hubei, Hunan, Hainan Provinces.f. High poverty refers to the West Region, which contains Guizhou, Guangxi, Inner Mongolia, Chongqing, Sichuan, Yunnan, Shaanxi, Tibet, Gansu, Qinghai, Ningxia,

Xinjiang Provinces.g. The three types of regions are determined by the central government of China.


Table 7PERCENTAGE of Different Types of Teachers in ELEMENTARY Schoolsin China, by Type of School, 20048

Substitute Teacher Part-time Teacher Full-time Teacher

Total 6.28 0.30 93.42

Public School 6.29 0.25 93.46Private School 9.41 1.76 88.83Others 3.29 0.59 96.12


Poverty EnrollmentLow (East) 4.22 0.22 95.56 Middle (Middle) 3.91 0.32 95.77High (West) 11.21 0.33 88.46

Out-of-Field Teaching

In China, it is difficult to measurehow many teachers are not qualifiedin the subject they teach. In China,the qualifications required to be anelementary school teacher are not asstringent as they are for teaching highschool. In the secondary teachersschools preparing the teaching forcefor elementary schools, thecurriculum for a prospective teacherin math is almost the same as for onein Chinese language.

Typically, when a secondaryschool (junior or senior) seeks torecruit new teachers, the school willidentify which subjects havevacancies and how many positionsneed to be filled. For example, aschool will declare that it needs threeChinese-language teachers, twomathematics teachers, four scienceteachers and one social-scienceteacher. To a certain extent, thatprotocol weeds out teachers who are

not qualified to teach the relevantsubject. It means that a secondaryschool will not hire someonemajoring in mathematics as aChinese-language teacher. Teachers inthe social sciences are not so limited:Their major may have been history,politics, or geography; or sociology,philosophy, or some other arts major.

In poor rural areas, the situationis somewhat different. There arewidespread shortages of qualifiedteachers, so incoming teacherssomewhat frequently are assigned toteach subjects in which they havelittle background. In some poor,small schools, one teacher has toteach several subjects for one class, oreven several grades. Almost allsubstitute teachers, who are notconsidered part of the formalteaching force and who work in theworst of conditions, are doing out-of-field teaching. As mentioned above,this kind of problem is much moresevere in the private schools than in

the public ones, in the west than inthe middle and the east, and in therural than in the suburban and theurban.

Implications and Conclusions

The quality of teachers andteaching is undoubtedly a key factorin the education and schooling of achild. For many years, China’s centraland local governments have putmuch effort into teaching-forcedevelopment. Despite greatachievements, China still faces severalsevere problems needing remediesand reforms.

First, there is a large gap betweenthe demand for and supply ofelementary and secondary teachers.The shortage problem may arisefrom two sources: an insufficientsupply of new teachers, and toomany teachers quitting their jobs topursue more attractive careers. In theformer case, teacher-preparationeducation should be upgraded andexpanded to educate and train morenew teachers. Further, the teachingcertificate system should be modifiedso that people who are interested inteaching and who are qualified buthave not graduated from normaleducation institutions can enter theteaching field more easily. Inaddition, the treatment of teachers,including earnings, medical care andhousing conditions, should beimproved. Teaching conditions andwork pressures also need attention.Further, teachers need more supportsto help them see a promisingprospect, to make their careermeaningful, and to enjoy theirteaching.

Secondly, China needs to raise itsrelatively low entry bar to theteaching occupation, especially at theprimary and junior-secondary levels.At the same time, the rates of“qualified” teachers remain

Table 8PERCENTAGE of Different Types of Teachers in SECONDARY Schoolsin China, by Type of School, 20049

Substitute Teacher Part-time Teacher Full-time Teacher

Total 2.50 0.72 96.78

Public School 2.20 0.40 97.40Private School 6.69 5.53 87.78Others 3.06 1.01 95.93


Poverty EnrollmentLow (East) 2.05 0.66 97.29Middle (Middle) 2.44 0.42 97.14High (West) 3.09 1.26 95.65

9 Educational statistic yearbook of China 2004. a. Secondary schools include both senior and junior secondary schools.b. Low poverty refers to the East Region, which contains Beijing, Tianjin, Shanghai, Jiangsu, zhejiang, Fujian,

Guangdong and Shandong Provinces.c. Middle poverty refers to the Middle Region, which contains Hebei, Shanxi, Liaoning, Jilin, Heilongjiang,

Anhui, Jiangxi, Henan, Hubei, Hunan, Hainan Provinces.d. High poverty refers to the West Region, which contains Guizhou, Guangxi, Inner Mongolia, Chongqing,

Sichuan, Yunnan, Shaanxi, Tibet, Gansu, Qinghai, Ningxia, Xinjiang Provinces.e. The 3 types of regions are determined by the central government of China.f. Public School refers to those run by education department and communities.g. Private School refers to those non-state, not primarily funded by local and national government.h. Others refer to those run by non-education department.

unsatisfyingly low. The source of thisproblem may be mainly a widespreadshortage of teachers, mentionedabove, but it also may be related tothe insufficiency of continuingeducation and training for teachers.

Third, a very prominent featurerevealed in an examination of thequalifications of the teaching force inChina is the marked imbalanceamong various regions. There arelarge gaps between the rural and theurban, the west and the east. In allaspects, the situation of the rural andthe western areas lags significantly.For example, applicants to be ateacher in an elementary school inShanghai should hold at least a sub-degree, while in some poor ruralmountainous areas in the west,elementary schools have no choicebut to employ teachers whose recordsof formal schooling fall short of asenior-secondary diploma. Thissituation may be considered aconsequence of imbalancedeconomic development in China butsuch an excuse should not be used tojustify an evasion of responsibilities.Surely the west and the rural needmore financial support. Further, theeducation system itself needs reformsto adapt with due speed to specialcircumstances and to accelerate localdevelopment of teaching candidates.There have been some fruitfulattempts in recent years such as the“Teaching Practice as SubstituteTeacher” project in SouthwesternNormal University (Zhang Shiya, etal., 2004) where normal-collegeeducation majors practice-teach theirsenior year and at the same timeserve as substitute teachers in schoolsin poor areas. By adopting thatapproach, schools elsewhere in Chinacould acquire sufficient additions totheir qualified teaching forces tomeet their needs, while the studentsserving as substitute teachers couldgreatly benefit from the one year of

practice to enhance theirqualifications.

ReferencesChina education yearbook 2005.Beijing: People Education Press.

China statistics yearbook 2004.National Bureau of Statistics ofChina.

Department of Development andPlanning, Educational statisticyearbook of China 2004, Beijing:People Education Press.

Li Peilin & Li Qiang Sun Liping.(2004). Social stratification in China’stoday, Beijing: Social SciencesDocumentation Publishing House.

Project Team of China’s Educationand Human Resource Development(2002). Stride from a country oftremendous population to a country ofprofound human resources, Beijing:Higher Education Press.

Zhang Shiya & Wu Xiaorong.(2004). Teaching practice assubstitute teacher: Journals of ruraleducation, In Ding Gang (Ed.),China’s Education: Research & Review,7, Beijing: Educational SciencePublishing House.

IntroductionThe Education System

The academic structure in theHong Kong Special AdministrativeRegion encompasses six years ofprimary education (grades 1-6, ages6-11), three years of junior secondaryeducation (secondary grades 1-3, ages12-14), and two years of seniorsecondary education (secondarygrades 4-5, ages 15-16). Aftersecondary grade 5, students take apublic exam—the Hong KongCertificate of EducationExamination. Those who meet therequisite standards may pursue atwo-year sixth-form course(secondary grades 6-7, ages 17-18)leading to the Hong Kong AdvancedLevel Examination for admission toinstitutions of higher education.

The school system in Hong Kongis relatively uniform. Nearly allprimary schools offer classes in grades1-6, while nearly all secondaryschools run through grade 7. Ninetypercent of school facilities areoperated by the government. Therealso are schools called “aidedschools,” which are run by voluntarybodies but are fully funded by thegovernment. Both types of schoolsshare a common salary scale forteachers and follow a centrally

prescribed curriculum. In addition,there are a number of private schools,including “Direct Subsidy Scheme”schools, which receive financialassistance from the government buthave the freedom to set their ownschool fees, teacher salary scales,school curriculum and studentadmission policies.

In both government and aidedschools, the primary-schoolcurriculum typically consists ofChinese language, English language,mathematics, general studies (asubject integrating social studies andscience), visual arts, music, physicaleducation, and information andcommunication technology (ICT).At the junior-secondary level, theeducation consists of Chinese,English, mathematics, integratedscience, integrated humanities (orstudies of individual social subjectssuch as geography, history andChinese history), ICT, physicaleducation, visual arts, and music. Atthe senior-secondary level, nearly allstudents study the core curriculum ofChinese, English and mathematics.However, the other subjects taken bystudents usually depend on theirsubject streaming or concentration,that is, whether they choose thescience, arts, commerce or technicalstudies stream. For instance, science-

stream students usually study physics,chemistry, biology or additionalmathematics, while arts studentsstudy geography, history, economics,Chinese history or literature.

In the realm of higher education,the eight institutions funded by theHong Kong government’s UniversityGrants Committee offerpostgraduate, undergraduate and asmall number of associate-degreeprograms. Undergraduate programstypically are three years in duration.

In terms of governance, theEducation and Manpower Bureau ofthe government, headed by theSecretary for Education andManpower, is responsible forformulating and reviewing educationpolicies and overseeing theimplementation of educationprograms. Prior to the year 2003,policy implementation at the schoollevel had been under the remit of theEducation Department, headed bythe Director of Education. In 2003,to strengthen the links between theformulation and implementation ofpolicies, the Education Departmentwas dismantled and its work wassubsumed under the Education andManpower Bureau. The work of thebureau is supported by variousconsultative committees, includingthe Education Commission, the

CHAPTER 3Qualifications of the Teaching Force in The Hong Kong SpecialAdministrative Region, ChinaKwok Chan LaiThe Hong Kong Institute of Education

Advisory Committee on TeacherEducation and Qualifications, andthe Standing Committee onLanguage Education and Research.

The Teacher EducationSystem

Much like many other placesformerly under British rule, teacherpreparation in Hong Kong until themid-1990s was separated into“nongraduate” and “graduate” tracksusing one of two models: • Concurrent model: Government-

run Colleges of Education offeredtwo- and three-year full-timesubdegree-level programs (knownas Teachers’ Certificate orCertificate in Education programs)to prepare “nongraduate” teachersfor primary schools and the juniorlevels of secondary schools. Theprogram content in those programscovered both professional andsubject studies; and

• Consecutive model: Faculties ofeducation of two comprehensiveuniversities offered a one-year full-time PostgraduateCertificate/Diploma in Educationprogram to prepare senior-secondary teachers. This type ofprogram also is known as the “3+1”route because it focuses on one yearof professional training forgraduates who have completed athree-year bachelor’s degree with anacademic major. As such, thismodel is similar to a fifth year or apost-baccalaureate program in theUnited States.

This dual track of teachereducation has gradually disappearedsince the mid-1990s. First, with thecreation of positions for degreeholders in primary schools, primaryteaching no longer is regarded as acareer for nongraduates. Second, in1994 the Colleges of Education were

amalgamated to form the HongKong Institute of Education, whichbegan to replace subdegree-levelawards in both primary andsecondary education with bachelor’sdegrees and postgraduate diplomas.

At present, teacher education isoffered at three comprehensiveuniversities, the Institute ofEducation, and the Open Universityof Hong Kong. Both concurrent andconsecutive pathways of pre-serviceteacher education now serve toprepare primary and secondaryteachers, a system similar to that inthe United Kingdom. The majorchange has been in the concurrentpathway, where the formercertificate-level programs have beenupgraded to four-year undergraduateprograms in education leading toBachelor of Education (B.Ed.) or aB.A. or B.Sc. in education degrees,including a practice-teaching periodof 14 to 16 weeks.

The quality of new entrants tothe teaching profession has alwaysbeen a matter of concern. Thefindings of a study by Lai et al.(2005a) on senior-secondary schoolstudents’ perceptions of teachingrelative to other careers suggestedthat while teaching in the HongKong society remains a well respectedoccupation, the teaching professiondoes not attract young people withhigh academic marks. In addition,the examination grades of newstudents admitted to teachereducation programs in thecomprehensive universities weregenerally lower than those admittedto other disciplines (University ofHong Kong, 2007).

The Changing Policy Context

A focus on education policy in HongKong in the 1970s and early 1980sculminated in the introduction of

free and compulsory six-year primaryeducation in 1971 and the expansionof compulsory education tosecondary grade 3 (or age 15) in1978. These developments resultedin a tremendous demand for primaryand secondary school teachers, andmany of those recruited to beteachers in fact lacked training. For atime, the Hong Kong governmentfocused attention on the creation ofmore school facilities to openclassrooms for nine years ofcompulsory education. Beginning inthe late 1980s, the governmentshifted its attention to raising thequality of education.

In the early 1990s, thegovernment decided to massivelyexpand its higher education network.As a result, the number of studentsenrolled in degree programs rapidlyincreased, and the subdegree teachereducation programs offered by theformer Colleges of Education becameless attractive. Subsequently, thegovernment commissioned theEducation Commission to review theteacher education system, with aparticular focus on ways ofenhancing the attractiveness of theteaching career in primary schools.The recommendations of EducationCommission Report No. 5 (1992)were far-reaching, and included:• establishing positions for bachelor’s

degree holders in public-sectorprimary schools and upgrading35% of teaching posts to graduatestatus within 15 years;

• encouraging nondegree teachers toenroll in add-on degree programsto upgrade their qualifications todegree level; and

? amalgamating the Collegesof Education to form an autonomousinstitution, the Hong Kong Instituteof Education.

In the mid-1990s, in anotherdirective aimed at ensuring theprovision of good-quality schools, the

government asked the EducationCommission to begin another studyon measures to improve schoolmanagement and performance. ECReport No. 7 (1997) recommendedthat the professional education ofprincipals and teachers needed to bestrengthened to equip them withknowledge and skills to cope with thechanges:

To provide quality schooleducation, we need quality principalsand teachers with a strong sense ofmission, appropriate personalattributes, adequate academic andprofessional qualifications. Theyshould be prepared to initiate andparticipate in the development ofquality education. In return, theyshould be provided with suitablesupport and developmentopportunities. (p. 35)

After the establishment of theSpecial Administrative Region underChinese sovereignty in 1997, the newChief Executive and the regionalgovernment were zealous in theirefforts to reform Hong Kong’seducation system to meet challengesrelated to globalization and creationof a knowledge-based economyessential to Hong Kong’s social andeconomic development (Hong Kong,1997). These efforts includedmeasures to raise the preparationstandards of the teaching profession,which we will discuss in detail in thenext section. At the same time, theEducation Commission began acomprehensive review of theeducation system with a view todrawing up a blueprint for reform forthe 21st century (Hong Kong,1997). Based on itsrecommendations, wide-rangingeducation reforms in academicstructure, school curriculum andassessment have been launched in thepast six years (EducationCommission, 2000).

In the quest for quality

education, the governmentincreasingly has resorted to official,top-down reform measures heavilyinfluenced by notions ofmanagerialism, privatization andperformance standards in education(Choi, 2005; Lai, 2005). TheEducation and Manpower Bureau(EMB) and its consultingcommittees have been activelyinvolved in formulating policies anddetailed guidelines to raisecompetency standards for both newand serving teachers. Further, theEMB has become more active incontrolling teacher-educationinstitutions through the UniversityGrants Committee—for instance, bystipulating student-intake numbersfor various subjects.

The purpose of this paper is toreview the formulation andimplementation of policies that haveinfluenced teacher qualificationrequirements and standards in HongKong amid the profound changes inthe political, economic and socialcontexts since the 1990s. In theconcluding section, we will examinethe government’s paradoxical policiestowards teacher quality: While thegovernment is keen to improveprofessional standards to supporteducation reform, in the recent pastit has been unwilling to require newteachers to be professional trained. Atthe same time, it is preoccupied withmeasures to ensure that English-language teachers are both in goodsupply and “highly qualified.” Thepaper will offer a critique of theseissues, which may have implicationsfor teacher-education policieselsewhere.


Professional Training RequirementsAny person who wishes to teach

in a school in Hong Kong has toapply to the Education andManpower Bureau (formerly theEducation Department) forregistration as a “registered” or a“permitted” teacher. To qualify forregistration as a registered teacher, aperson will have obtained “qualified-teacher” status through completionof an approved teacher educationprogram offered by a recognizedinstitution. This program may be asubdegree-level Certificate inEducation, a Bachelor’s Degree inEducation, or a PostgraduateCertificate/Diploma in Education. Inthis regard, a registered teacher isequivalent to full licensure in theUnited States. However, in HongKong, “qualified” teacher status doesnot specify the subject area that ateacher can teach. Furthermore, thereis no need for graduates from teachereducation institutions to fulfill anyadditional requirements, such aspassing a test, to become a registeredteacher.

On the other hand, a personholding the minimum academicqualifications but without arecognized teacher-trainingqualification may be employed by aschool as a “permitted” teacher.He/she will be eligible to be aregistered teacher after acquiringqualified-teacher status throughcompletion of in-service training.

The “permitted teacher” status inHong Kong is similar to emergencycertification or emergency permit inthe United States in the sense thatpermitted teachers have not met theminimum requirements for fullregistration. However, there is nostipulation that permitted teachersmust complete teacher training in aspecified period to receive registeredstatus. In other words, they will beallowed to stay in the teaching forceindefinitely. Until the year 2004, therequirements were so lax that a

permitted teacher was eligible forregistration as a registered teacherthrough mere accumulation ofteaching experience.

Nevertheless, a few measures havebeen put in place to encouragepermitted teachers to undergo in-service training. For instance, a salarybar is imposed on them should theyfail to complete their professionaltraining within the first five years ofservice. Training also is necessary forpromotion to senior teacher posts.

From the 1950s to the 1970s,untrained teachers or permittedteachers had been regarded as aconvenient buffer to meet thetremendous expansion in masseducation. In 1974, the percentagesof untrained primary and secondaryteachers, many of whom had onlycompleted secondary schooling, wereas high as 27.5% and 67.4%respectively. In the mid-1990s, withthe stabilized demand for newteachers and the expansion of teachertraining capacity, the correspondingpercentages had significantlydecreased to below 15% and 25%respectively.

Though the Education andManpower Bureau stipulates thatschools should give priority toappointing teachers with teacher-training qualifications, this guidelinehas never been enforced. It was notuntil 1997 that Hong Kong’s newchief executive announced the policyobjective of requiring all newprimary- and secondary-schoolteachers to be graduates andprofessionally trained in the“foreseeable future.” This policy waswarmly welcomed by the educationalcommunity. To achieve the “allgraduate, all trained” objective, thechief executive announced in 1998that subdegree primary andsecondary teacher-educationprograms offered by the Institute ofEducation would be gradually

replaced by degree or above programs(Hong Kong, 1998). However, notarget year has hitherto been set toimplement this policy. Without afirm policy commitment, untrainedteachers have continued to join theteaching force. In 2005, nearly one-quarter of the teachers newly joiningthe profession were untrained.

Academic QualificationsRequirements

The minimum qualificationrequired to be registered or permittedteachers in primary and secondaryschools used to be secondary-schoolgraduation, i.e. attainment of theCertificate of EducationExamination. Only recently, in 2004,was the requirement raised to includepossession of a post-secondarydiploma equivalent to an associatedegree in the United States.However, in reality, the academicqualifications of teachers are muchhigher than the minimumrequirements stipulated bylegislation. At present, the majorityof new and serving teachers in bothprimary and secondary schoolspossess a bachelor’s degree or above.As mentioned in a previous sectionon the Teacher Education System,since 1998, all pre-service teacher-education programs at less than fullbachelor’s degree or sub-degree levelhave gradually been replaced bydegree-level programs. In 2004, thelast cohort of certificate-level studentsgraduated, symbolizing the completeupgrading of all pre-service teachereducation for primary and secondaryteachers to degree level. In 2005,82.5% of primary and 95.2% ofsecondary teachers newly joining theteaching force possessed a degreequalification.

Professional Development andNew Standards Requirements for

Serving TeachersIn Hong Kong, once teachers

have acquired qualified-teacherstatus, that status will remain validthroughout their teaching careers. Inother words, there are noprofessional-developmentrequirements for the purpose of re-licensing, except for those teacherswho wish to apply for promotion tosenior posts.

However, in the past few years,the standards of the teachingprofession have been the subject ofincreasing scrutiny by thegovernment and the community. Thegovernment has issued numerousreports, policy papers and speechesurging principals and teachers toactively participate in professionaldevelopment, which is seen as crucialto the success of the educationreform. In particular, the governmenthas taken an active role in settingpolicies to raise the academic andprofessional standards of languageteachers.

In the past decade, the HongKong government and the businesscommunity have been increasinglyconcerned with the allegedly fallingEnglish standards of university andschool graduates and keen toimprove the quality of languageteaching in schools. In the year 2000,the government decided to set uplanguage proficiency requirements forover 15,000 new and serving teachersof English and Putonghua(Mandarin) in both primary andsecondary schools. These teacherswould have to satisfy therequirements in five areas: reading,writing, listening, speaking, andclassroom language assessment.Specifically, any teacher who beganteaching English or Putonghua fromSeptember 2004 would have todemonstrate, before taking up theresponsibility, that she or he hadalready met the requirement. In

addition, all serving teachers in thesetwo subjects will have to meet therequirement before the end of the2005-06 school year. Those whofailed to attain the requirementwould not be allowed to teach therespective language subjects.

The language-proficiencyrequirements represent the first directand large-scale governmentintervention to establish mandatoryprofessional standards for servingteachers, besides the requirement ofobtaining qualified-teacher status.This had led to vehement protests byteacher unions that objected to the“re-licensing” of qualified teachers.Eventually, the governmentcompromised by grantingexemptions to teachers who alreadyhad a degree major in the relevantlanguage subject; it also agreed toallow teachers to attain therequirements through in-servicetraining as an alternative to openassessment.

Even before the proficiencyrequirement target date was set, thegovernment began to stipulate thatall English- and Chinese-languageteachers also should be wellgrounded in subject knowledge andthe pedagogy of their respectivesubjects. In 2003, a report by theStanding Committee on LanguageEducation and Research (SCOLAR)stated that:

Effective language teachers needto be proficient in the language theyteach, have a good grounding insubject knowledge, and beacquainted with the latest theoriesand practices in language teachingand learning. They synthesize andapply their knowledge and skills tomotivate and help their students toimprove language ability. (p. 19)

Following the recommendationsof the committee, the governmentrequested that all school principals,starting with the 2004-05 school

year, recruit language teachers whohad both a degree in the relevantlanguage subject and teachereducation qualifications with a majorin that language subject. If the newrecruit does not have a relevantdegree major, he or she shouldcomplete a first degree orpostgraduate-level program focusingon the subject knowledge of theparticular language within five years.In addition, if the recruit does nothave teacher training, he/she willhave to complete a teacher-educationprogram with a language majorwithin three years.

At the same time, servinglanguage teachers are encouraged toupgrade their qualifications andpursue continuing professionaldevelopment. To help languageteachers who do not have a degreemajoring in the relevant language,the government provided incentivegrants for postgraduate programs forteachers to upgrade subjectknowledge. By January 2005, over3,600 applications had beenapproved. Total funding of over HK$600 million (US $77 million) hadbeen allocated.

For teachers of all subjects,another consultative committee, theAdvisory Committee on TeacherEducation and Qualifications,published a report in 2003 settingout a teacher competenciesframework as well as a policyframework for the continuingprofessional development of servingteachers. It recommended that allteachers should engage in continuingprofessional development activities ofnot less than 150 hours in a three-year cycle. The recommendations arenot mandatory. However, amidst thefalling birth rate and decliningstudent enrollment in Hong Kong,teachers are increasingly concernedabout job security. Many of themhave decided to choose professional

development programs that satisfythe qualification and standardsrequirements stipulated by thegovernment, irrespective of theirinterests or their specific needs ofprofessional development (Lai,2005).

Data and Measures

Most of the data presented in thischapter are derived from the Statisticson Primary and Secondary SchoolTeachers, 2004/05 (titled as TeacherStatistics from 2000 to 2003, andTeacher Survey prior to 2000)published by the Education andManpower Bureau.

Prior to the 2002-03 school year,teacher statistics were collected yearlyby the government throughadministering a survey questionnairethrough schools to all 50,000primary and secondary teachers, theemployment data of which wereverified by the school administration.Since 2002-03, schools and teachershave been asked to update their staffand personal profiles through a Web-based e-services system. The responserate has been very high as eachschool is held accountable forensuring data is submitted by theschool’s teachers. The Education andManpower Bureau also sendsreminders to those schools that havenot submitted their returns.

Teacher Statistics differentiatessubject teachers into two types–thoseteaching a subject as their main field(or first major subject taught) andthose teaching the subject as eithertheir main field or asecondary/additional field (or as oneof the subjects taught). By definition,the number of teachers in the lattercategory is larger than the former.For instance, in the year 2005,among newly arriving teachers insecondary schools, 82 taught Chinese

history, but only 14 of them taughtthe subject as their main or firstmajor subject.

Finally, since nearly all secondaryschools in Hong Kong operate classesat both the junior- and senior-secondary levels, it also is commonfor teachers to teach across bothlevels. In this regard, the Hong Kongteacher statistics do not contain abreakdown by these levels.


In 2005, the number of permanentteachers in government, aided andprivate primary, secondary andspecial schools were 22,127, 26,163and 1,380 respectively. Among them,73.4% of primary- and 92.2% ofsecondary-school teachers held atleast a bachelor’s degree. In primaryschools, the percentage of degree-holding teachers was the highest ingovernment schools. Thecorresponding percentages weresimilar across all types of secondaryschools (Table 1).

In primary schools, the subjectswith the highest percentages ofdegree holders were English language(79%) and ICT (78.2%). Insecondary schools, nearly all theteachers of senior secondary sciencesubjects (i.e., biology, chemistry andphysics) and economics were degreeholders, followed by English-language teachers (95.5%). It isnotable that both primary andsecondary schools prefer to deploydegree holders to teach Englishlanguage, irrespective of their subjecttraining.

In the past few years, there hasbeen a steady increase in the numberof teachers who possessedpostgraduate qualifications: in 2005,7.3% and 24.9% of primary andsecondary school teachers,

respectively, held a masters’ degree orhigher.

In terms of professionalqualifications, 94.7% and 94.9% ofprimary and secondary schoolteachers possessed teacher educationqualifications. The percentage oftrained teachers was highest ingovernment schools (Table 1). Inprimary schools, the percentage ofteachers without teacher training was

the highest in the following subjects:English language (3.8%), music(2.9%) and general studies (3.2%).In secondary schools, thecorresponding subjects were ICT(5.8%), music (6.7%), mathematics(5.5%), physics (4.4%) and English(4.5%).

Overall, the majority of servingteachers have completed a bachelor’sdegree level university education andalso held professional qualifications.

Table 1Number of Teachers in Hong Kong by Academic Qualifications/Training, 20051

Level/ Sector Less than Bachelor’s Untrained Trained Bachelor’s Bachelor’s Degree or Degree or

Degree Above above andTrained

Primary Schools (N=22,127)Government Schools 268 1,302 10 1,560 N/A

(17.1%) (82.9%) (0.6%) (99.4%)Aided Schools 5,103 13,608 820 17,891 N/A

(27.3%) (72.7%) (4.4%) (95.6%)Private Schools 510 1336 342 1,504 N/A

(27.6%) (72.4%) (18.5%) (81.5%)Total 5,881 16,246 1,172 20,955 15,495

(26.6%) (73.4%) (5.3%) (94.7%) (70.0%)

Secondary Schools (N=26,163)Government Schools 168 1,757 27 1,898 N/A

(8.7%) (91.3%) (1.4%) (98.6%)Aided Schools 1,658 19,449 762 20,345 N/A

(7.9%) (92.1%) (3.6%) (96.4%)Caput Schools 39 346 19 366 N/A

(10.1%) (89.9%) (4.9%) (95.1%)Private Schools 179 2,567 516 2,230 N/A

(6.5%) (93.5%) (18.8%) (81.2%)Total 2,044 24,119 1,324 24,839 23,001

(7.8%) (92.2%) (5.1%) (94.9%) (87.9%)

1 Statistics on primary and secondary school teachers, 2005/06. a. Caput schools are schools that receive Government assistance in the form of a per caput grantb. Private schools include Direct Subsidy Schools

Table 2Number of Teachers by Academic and Teacher Training Qualifications, 20052

Degree & Non-degree Degree & Non-degree TotalTrained & Trained Untrained & Untrained

Primary 15,495 5,460 751 421 22,127(70.0%) (24.7%) (3.4%) (1.9%) (100%)

Secondary 23,001 1,838 1,118 206 26,163(87.9%) (7.0%) (4.3%) (0.8%) (100%)

2 Statistics on primary and secondary schoolteachers, 2005/06.

The corresponding percentages inprimary and secondary schools were70% and 87.9% respectively (Table2).

However, in the absence of pre-service training requirement, nearlyone-quarter of the newly joinedteachers are untrained. In 2005, 738and 1,131 new teachers joinedprimary and secondary schoolsrespectively, compared with 1,131and 1,003 in 1997. Among them,the proportions without trainingwere 24.8% and 23.9% respectively,compared with 37.2% and 70.6% in1997. The data indicate that thereduction in the proportion of newlyjoined teachers without training hadbeen faster at the secondary levelthan the primary level. Nevertheless,similar to past decades, theseuntrained teachers have continued toserve as a convenient buffer to meetteacher demand in Hong Kong.

Out-of-field Teaching

Caution has to be exercised whencomparing the Hong Kong data on“out-of-field” teaching with those ofother places. As mentionedpreviously, the Hong Kong data donot allow a breakdown betweenteachers of junior- and senior-secondary levels. Since it is morecommon for teachers to teach out-of-field at the junior-secondary level—e.g. those with an academic major inChinese language andhistory/geography often teach junior-secondary Chinese history andEnglish language respectively—thepercentages of out-of-field teachingin secondary-school subjects in HongKong are likely to be higher thanthose places which only report out-of-field teaching at the senior-secondary level. Nevertheless, for afew subjects that mainly are offeredat the senior-secondary level, such asindividual fields of science (physics,

chemistry, biology) and economics,the data are more comparable.

In addition, for the Hong Kongdata, the criteria of matching theteachers’ subject field with theteaching field are more stringent thanthose adopted in other places. Forinstance, a Hong Kong teacher witha subject major in mathematics orphysics teaching ICT or one with amajor in chemistry teaching biologywill be classified as out-of-field. Inthis regard, the percentages of “out-of-field” teaching in Hong Kong arelikely to be higher than thosereported in other places.

Nevertheless, the Hong Kongdata include both majors andminors/electives as qualified for ateachers’ subject field. In this regard,this definition of “subject-trained” ismore lax than that adopted in otherplaces in which only a teacher’ssubject major is counted.

Teaching outside one’s subjectfield has long existed in Hong Kong,particularly in subjects in which therehas been a short supply of qualifiedteachers. For instance, only 46% and55.7% of the English languageteachers in primary and secondaryschools respectively were classified bythe Education Department as“subject-trained” in 1996 (seeMeasure 1 below). It was only in thepast few years that the governmentand the community have becomeconcerned with this problem. Suchan interest has largely arisen fromtwo policy developments–first, thegovernment’s quest for “highlyqualified” language teachers andsecond, the government’s advocatingof specialist teaching in three coreprimary school subjects—Englishlanguage, Chinese language andmathematics. With the morestringent requirements, manylanguage teachers who previouslywere considered as “qualified” arenow categorized as “underqualified”

or “out-of-field.”The state of out-of-field teaching

also is affected by the quality ofpreparation in subject matter thatprimary- and secondary-schoolteachers receive. Similar to otherplaces, secondary teachers in HongKong are prepared to teach one ortwo specialist subjects. However, thepreparation of primary-schoolteachers is quite different from thosecountries that prepare teachers forgeneralist teaching in primaryschools, such as the United States,United Kingdom, Australia, Japanand South Korea, and from thosethat practice specialist teaching, suchas China. Until recently, primaryteaching in Hong Kong is organizedsomewhere between the “generalist”and “specialist” approaches, andteachers teach on the average three tofour subjects. Similarly, the formerColleges of Education and theInstitute of Education prepared theirgraduates to teach three “general”subjects in primary schools, i.e.Chinese language, mathematics andgeneral studies, plus a fourth electivesubject chosen from the subjects ofEnglish, ICT, visual arts, music andphysical education. Accordingly, theTeacher Statistics categorized nearlyall these graduates, regardless of theirteaching specialization, as subject-trained in the three “general”subjects. Hence, the percentages ofout-of-field teaching in these threesubjects are very low, but muchhigher in the remaining electivesubjects.

The Teacher Statistics in HongKong contains data on the numberof teachers assigned to teach subjectsthat do not match their academicmajors or minors in degree/subdegreestudies and their subject majors inprofessional or pedagogical training.Hence, through differentcombinations of these qualifications,it is possible to derive four measures

of out-of-field teaching in HongKong (Table 3):

1. Non-subject-trained:teachers without a relevant subjectmajor or minor in their academicstudies at subdegree level or above orteacher training;

2. No relevant degree: teacherswithout a relevant subject major orminor in their degree studies;

3. No relevant teachertraining: teachers without relevantteacher training in the subject theyteach; and

4. No relevant subject indegree and teacher training: teacherswithout a relevant subject major orminor in their degree studies and

teacher training. This stringentmeasure is analogous to thedefinition of “highly qualified”teachers in the United States and tothat adopted by the StandingCommittee on Language Educationand Research as a benchmark for“highly qualified” language teachers.

Measure 1 is the most laxmeasure of the adequacy of subjectpreparation because any teacher whohas taken the relevant subject as amajor or minor in his/her academic(at subdegree level or above) orteacher-training program is regardedas “subject-trained.” In other words,using this measure, any teacher whohad taken a subject as one of his or

her three general subjects in asubdegree certificate program in theformer Colleges of Education will beclassified as “subject-trained.” Thisexplains why only 3.3% of theprimary Chinese-language teacherswere classified as “non-subject-trained” in 2005. In contrast, whenthe more stringent Measure 4 isadopted, the great majority (79.2%)of these teachers will be categorizedas non-subject-trained.

In general, the percentages ofteachers considered inadequatelyprepared in the subject taught arehigher under Measure 2 (i.e., norelevant degree) than those underMeasure 3 (i.e., no relevant teacher

Table 3Distribution of Teachers by Subject Taught by Whether Teaching Out-of-field, 20053

Subject Taught

Primary SchoolsChinese Language 3.3% 78.8% 4.1% 79.2% 10,246English Language 29.1% 74.5% 35.6% 78.5% 7,953Mathematics 5.9% 91.0% 6.3% 91.3% 9,543General Studies 6.0% 88.0% 8.2% 89.8% 9,404Visual Arts 53.1% 93.3% 65.1% 94.1% 5,655Music 29.5% 80.2% 42.6% 82.2% 3,160Physical Education 5.1% 84.9% 22.2% 85.7% 3,281

Secondary SchoolsChinese Language 10.3% 30.4% 15.1% 35.5% 5,407English Language 10.5% 34.8% 18.9% 41.9% 5,614Mathematics 22.6% 46.9% 29.3% 52.9% 4,906Science,

Science & Technology 10.8% 33.5% 17.1% 38.7% 2,205Physics 11.9% 22.1% 22.3% 31.5% 1,197ICT 49.8% 59.8% 69.3% 78.8% 2,863Chinese History 40.3% 59.3% 53.7% 71.5% 2,471Geography 22.3% 34.3% 27.6% 39.5% 1,447Visual Arts 10.8% 40.6% 17.4% 46.1% 867Music 13.2% 34.8% 26.6% 46.1% 597Physical Education 4.4% 42.1% 7.7% 43.9% 1,278

Without arelevant subject

major or minor atsub-degree level

or above orteacher training

(Measure 1)


major or minor atdegree level or

above(Measure 2)

Without relevantteacher training

(Measure 3)


major or minor indegree studiesand teacher

training(Measure 4)

Total number ofteachers

3 Statistics on primary and secondary school teachers, 2005/06.a. Measure 1: For primary school teachers, regardless of their specialization, graduates from the Hong Kong Institute of Education (formerly Colleges of Education) are all regard-ed as subject-trained in Chinese Language, Mathematics, and General Studies. For cultural subjects, those having completed relevant in-service certificate courses also are classifiedas subject-trained.b. Measure 1: Trained Teachers are teachers holding a post-graduate certificate/diploma in education, a degree in education, a sub-degree teacher certificate, or those who havebeen granted qualified status through the Non-graduate Teacher Qualifications Assessment scheme or equivalent.

training), particularly in the primaryschools. For example, while 91% ofprimary mathematics teachers do nothave a relevant degree, only 6.3% ofthem have not received teachertraining in the subject. The highpercentages of the former are hardlysurprising, as until a decade ago,primary teaching was still largely acareer for nongraduates. In addition,despite the fact that many primary-school teachers had subsequentlyobtained a bachelor’s degree throughpart-time studies, they often hadcompleted a general degree ineducation studies, instead of a degreewith an subject major or minor.

The data in Table 3 show that, inprimary schools, the percentages ofteachers without professional training(Measure 3) are the highest in visualarts (65.1%) and music (42.6%).The situation has reflected the long-standing practice in primary schoolsto assign untrained teachers to teachthe cultural subjects, which generallyare regarded as less academicallydemanding. This assignment also isin part due to administrative reasonsas many school heads prefer to relievethe heavy marking load of languageteachers by allocating them a fewperiods of visual arts or music. Infact, the visual-arts lessons arenicknamed by school heads as“dumb” lessons as teachers do nothave to lecture their students most ofthe time.

Under all the four measures, thehighest percentages of out-of-fieldteaching in the secondary schools arein ICT, Chinese history, and to alesser extent, mathematics. Forinstance, the percentages of teacherswithout a relevant degree in therespective subjects (Measure 2) are ashigh as 59.8%, 59.3% and 46.9%.This largely reflects the prevailingwork assignment at the junior-secondary level, in which schoolheads often assign science teachers to

teach ICT and mathematics, orChinese language teachers to teachChinese history. Similar to theprimary schools, this practice often isan administrative measure to bringabout an equitable workload amongteachers. Nevertheless, as explainedearlier, the levels of out-of-field inHong Kong secondary schools arerelatively high compared to those inother nations are partly due to thefact that the Hong Kong data includeboth junior- and senior-secondarylevels, and the criteria of matchingthe subject field with the teachingfield are more stringent by definition.

The government and thecommunity, nevertheless, are mostconcerned with out-of-field teachingin the subject of English language,particularly in the primary schools.Even using the most lax measure(Measure 1), nearly 30% (29.1%) ofthe English-language teachers inprimary schools have not receivedany training or education in thesubject, compared with 10.5% in thesecondary schools. Other measuresindicate that 74.5% of the former donot have a relevant degree, comparedwith 34.8% in secondary schools(Measure 2), and 35.6% of theformer are without a relevant teacherqualification (Measure 3).

Using the most stringentdefinition (Measure 4), 78.5% of theprimary English-language teachershave not taken the subject in degreecourse and teacher training,compared with 41.9% in secondaryschools. These relatively highpercentages have reflected a prevalentshortage in the supply of highlyqualified English-language teachers inHong Kong, as school heads oftenhave to assign teachers without anytraining or education in English toteach the subject.

Retreat on ProfessionalTraining

Despite the fact that the chiefexecutive had announced in 1997 thepolicy objective of requiring all newteachers to be graduates andprofessionally trained in the“foreseeable future,” the governmenthas hitherto refrained from setting atarget year to achieve this policy.There is plenty of evidence that thegovernment has actually retreatedfrom the “all graduate, all trained”policy. In 1997, the UniversityGrants Committee was asked by thegovernment to makerecommendations on how to achievethe policy, but its report (UGC,1998) was never released to thepublic. Apparently, at that time, thegovernment was concerned about theadditional resources required toincrease the number of pre-serviceteacher education places inuniversities. However, with a gradualdecline in school enrollment andhence a reduced demand for teachers,this reason was no longer convincing.

As teacher educators increasedtheir pressure on the government toimplement the policy, the latterbegan to openly question thedesirability of requiring all teachers tobe pre-service trained. Differentreasons were given. One was theinadequate supply of trained teachersin subject areas such as Englishlanguage. Most disturbing of all, thegovernment asserted that the trainingrequirement would deter highlyqualified people from enteringteaching (Cheng, 2002). TheSecretary for Education andManpower openly stated that “tocapture the best talents, the teachingprofession must not be a closedsystem” (SEM, 2003). Interestingly,the government also referred to thearguments against pre-service teachereducation in the United States in the

past few years. On a radio program, asenior government official waved acopy of the report Meeting theHighly Qualified Teacher'sChallenge: The Secretary's AnnualReport on Teacher Quality (U.S.Department of Education, 2002) assupporting evidence.

The government thinking on pre-service teacher education hasinfluenced its teacher educationpolicies. Instead of ensuring anadequate supply of pre-servicetrained graduates, it has instructedteacher education institutions to shiftthe balance of initial teachereducation provisions from the pre-service to the in-service route. Thelatter route was considered morecost-effective.

What has gradually emergedfrom the debate was that thegovernment has serious doubts aboutthe academic standards of students inteacher education, and perceives thatthe quality of noneducationuniversity graduates is better becausethey have higher academicattainments and better mastery ofsubject content. Interestingly, thisperception also is shared by somesecondary school principals whocontend that any trainingrequirement would reduce theirchoices of teachers.

In the absence of a firm policycommitment, untrained teachershave continued to join the teachingforce. As mentioned previously, in2005, nearly 25% of the newlyjoined primary and secondary schoolteachers are still untrained. Thisabsence of training requirements forpeople to obtain employment asteachers in Hong Kong has beenconsidered as a condition thatmaintains teaching as a low-statusoccupation and having a low level ofprofessionalization (Morris, 2004).The retreat of the government fromthe “all graduate, all trained” policy

only serves to perpetuate thissituation.

One Quest for High Quality

While the government does notbelieve that new teachers have to beprofessionally trained, itparadoxically wants to ensure thatlanguage teachers are “highlyqualified.” As reported earlier, it hasput in place the mandatory languageproficiency requirement for English-language and Putonghua teachers,and supported the standingcommittee’s policy requiringChinese- and English-languageteachers to have taken the relevantsubject in degree- and teacher-training programs. Theserequirements are stringent by worldstandards and have a number ofimplications.

First, the new requirements meanthat most language teachers whowere previously regarded as “subject-trained” (Measure 1) are no longerqualified. The impact is most seriousfor primary-school teachers becauseof the high proportion of nondegreeteachers, and the generalist nature oftheir degree and teacher training.

Second, these policies haveinadvertently raised the expectationsof parents and the community of thestandards of language teachers, andthey have become more critical of theprevalent practice of out-of-fieldteaching in English language inschools. However, as serving teacherswill not be able to attain the requiredqualifications within a short timespan, the media and the communityhave been increasingly impatient andmany parents have lost confidence inthe quality of language teachers.Several times in a year, the mediapublished the percentages oflanguage teachers who have not metthe language proficiency

requirements or are teaching out-of-field, with headlines like “Half of theteachers failed the language exams”or “Over 80% of English teachersnot meeting the SCOLARrequirements.” This usually led tofurther public outcries about thealleged poor quality of languageteachers in Hong Kong. Therepercussion is that the image of thewhole teaching force has beenadversely affected.

With the portrayed negativeimage and an employment marketalready affected by a decline instudent population, the attractivenessof the teaching career to prospectivegraduates has sharply declined in thepast few years. For instance, studiesby Lai et al. (2005a; 2005b)indicated that the percentage ofSecondary 7 (year 13) studentsinterested in teaching as a career haddeclined from 50.8% in 2002 to34.2% in 2005. In addition, recentdata released by the tertiaryinstitutions indicated that theadmissions scores of secondary-school students admitted to mostundergraduate programs in English-language education had dropped aswell. In short, instead of attractingmore highly qualified entrants tolanguage teaching, the governmentpolicies of setting stringent standardsand criticizing serving teachersprobably have quite the oppositeeffect.

There also is evidence that thegovernment’s preoccupation with thequest for highly qualified teachers inthe language subjects had led to themarginalization of other schoolsubjects, such as visual arts, musicand general studies. First, manyserving teachers and student teachers,being concerned about theiremployment prospects, prefer tostudy language subjects in theirprofessional development or pre-service teacher-education programs

respectively, irrespective of whethersuch training really suits their ownneeds or interest. Second, in order toguarantee an adequate supply ofqualified English teachers, thegovernment has asked teacher-education institutions to shift a largenumber of teacher-education placesfrom other subjects to English. As aresult, it may result in an inadequatesupply of qualified teachers in thenon-English subjects. Third, theInstitute of Education, in order toprepare its students for specialistteaching in the languages in primaryschools, has reduced the curriculumtime devoted to other subjects. In thefuture, it is likely that graduates inprimary teacher education may onlybe qualified to teach one subject,despite that they may be assigned byschool heads to teach other subjectsin primary schools. Paradoxically, thegovernment policy to quest forhighly qualified teachers in onesubject will lead to the increase theproportion of out-of-field teaching inother subjects.

ReferencesCheng, Y. C. (2002, November 9)Teacher status revamp method seenas realistic. South China MorningPost, Education Post.

Choi, P. K. (2005). A criticalevaluation of education reforms inHong Kong: Counting our losses toeconomic globalization. InternationalStudies in Sociology of Education,15(3), 237-256.

Education Commission. (1992).Education Commission Report No. 5:The teaching profession. Hong Kong:Government Printer.

Education Commission. (1997).Education Commission Report No. 7:Quality school education. Hong Kong:Government Printer.

Education Commission. (2000).Learning for life, learning through life:Reform proposals for the educationsystem in Hong Kong. Hong Kong:Government Printer.

Education and Manpower Bureau.(2006). Statistics on primary andsecondary school teachers, 2005/06.Hong Kong: Government Printer.

Hong Kong. Chief Executive.(1997). Speech by the ChiefExecutive, the Honorable Mr. TungChee Hwa, at the ceremony tocelebrate the establishment of theHong Kong Special AdministrativeRegion. Hong Kong: GovernmentPrinter.

Hong Kong. Chief Executive.(1998). The 1998 policy Address:From adversity to opportunity. HongKong: Government Printer.

Lai, K. C. (2005). Bureaucraticcontrol and the professionalization ofHong Kong primary teachers. NewHorizons in Education, 51, 1-8.

Lai, K.C., Chan K.W., Ko, K.W., &So, K.S. (2005a). Teaching as acareer: A perspective from HongKong senior secondary students.Journal of Education for Teaching,31(3), 153-168.

Lai, K.C., Chan, K.W., Ko, K.W., &So, K.S. (2005b). Teaching as a careerin Hong Kong: Understanding sevensecondary students’ perceptions.Unpublished document.

Morris, P. (2004). Teaching in HongKong: Professionalization,accountability and the state. Researchpapers in education, 19(1), 105-121.

Standing Committee on LanguageEducation and Research. (2003).Action plan to raise language standardsin Hong Kong: Final review report.Hong Kong: Government printer.

U.S. Department of Education.(2002). Meeting the highly qualifiedteacher challenge: The Secretary'sannual report on teacher quality.Washington, DC: U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office.

University Grants Committee.(1998). Review of teacher education.Unpublished document. HongKong: University Grants Committee.

University of Hong Kong. (2006).JUPAS admission grades. RetrievedFebruary 13, 2007, fromhttp://www.hku.hk/admission/jupas-grades.htm

Introduction

It has been said repeatedly thatteacher quality is crucial forsuccessful schooling. But currentneo-liberal and market-orientededucation reforms seem to have hadthe substantive effect, generally, ofundermining the bases for teachercollaboration, discouraging teachersfrom taking initiative, anddamaging their sense of efficacy andconfidence, thereby deteriorating thequality of teaching and schooling.Unfortunately, this outcome seems tobe the case in Japan.

From the 1970s, Japaneseeducation began to attract attentionas a successful example among manydeveloped countries including theUnited States. It is ironical, then, thatbeginning in the 1980s, the Japanesegovernment launched radicaleducation reform. This reform stillcontinues, being further intensifiedand attacking both public schoolsand their teachers. It is the time tore-examine seriously the necessity,appropriateness and effectiveness ofcurrent reforms, to determinewhether they make schooling,teaching and learning better—orworse.

Stevenson and Stigler (1992)

conducted cross-cultural research onteaching and learning, and students’mathematics and readingachievements, in American, Chinese,and Japanese elementary schoolsfrom the mid-1970s to the 1980s.They found that the academicachievement of Asian elementaryschool children was higher than thatof their American counterparts. It issafe to say that teacher training andculture of teaching must have playeda significant role in affecting thesescores and outcomes. Indeed, theresearchers identified two importantcharacteristics of teaching in Japan.First, they stated that teacher trainingin Japan takes place largely as on-the-job training. Second, they noted thatteachers’ presence in a single staffroom contributed to a collaborativeculture for teaching facilitated bydiscussion of teaching practices withpeers. Current reforms, however,have been undermining thefoundations of this practical culture.Keeping the above in mind, thispaper investigates some majorcharacteristics of teacher training andthe culture of teaching in Japan, andthen, makes a brief explanation ofand comments on current reforms inrelation to those characteristics.

The Japanese education system as

a whole has been characterized as asingle-track 6-3-3-4 system withcompulsory and neighborhoodschooling at elementary and lowersecondary levels. The system isfounded on the value of meritocracyin that entrance exams determineadmissions to high schools anduniversities. However, there also aremany nonselective universities andspecial training colleges with openadmissions policies. The Ministry ofEducation, Culture, Sports, Scienceand Technology (hereafter, theMinistry of Education) controls theeducation system centrally bydeciding the curriculum andeducational standards.

Japanese elementary andsecondary education is characterizedby a holistic approach that puts thefull development of the child as itsmain goal. To this end, schools havea wide variety of rituals, events, andextracurricular activities. At bothelementary and secondary levels,teaching and learning arehomeroom-based in that studentsremain with the same teacher formost subjects in elementary school.In secondary school, students remainin the same homeroom where subjectteachers instruct them in thedifferent courses in the curriculum.

CHAPTER 4The Qualifications of the TeachingForce In JapanHidenori FujitaInternational Christian University

In collaboration with Walter Putnam DawsonInternational Christian University

Teachers at all levels of publiceducation in Japan have maintained astrong sense of professionalism,which makes them dedicated careereducators. However, in recent yearseducators have been confronted witha number of societal problems, whichchallenge them in their many roles(Fujita, 1991 & 1997).

Globalization, the informationtechnology revolution, and anincreasingly more diverse andmulticultural society all reflectchanges in Japanese society withimplications for educationalpractitioners. The knowledge base,incentives, and status for schoolinghave all changed. There are globalstandards for knowledge, technology,and qualifications. Thesedevelopments raise importantquestions as to what knowledgeshould be taught and what skillsdeveloped.

Beyond questions of cognitiveabilities, schools in Japan are calledupon to solve social ills that may bethe result of educational pathologiesor social pathologies. Such problemsinclude a breakdown in schoolauthority structures, socialmaladjustment, and juvenile crime.Can schools be expected to bear thebrunt of the responsibility to ridsociety of such overarching problems?They often are called upon to do justthat (Fujita, 1997).

The current climate in theeducation sector in Japan is one of“reformism.” A host of ideologiescontend for the lead in educationalpolicy dialogue. Among them areneoliberalism, neoconservatism,consumerism, privatization,marketization, and as well as a hostof buzzwords such as “accountability”and “efficiency” (Fujita, 1997, 1998,2000a, 2000b, & 2005).

Major reform trends haveincluded the reorganization of boththe school system (the 6-3-3-4

system) and classroom-level practicestoward values of “technicism,”“testism,” market competition, aswell as individualism. There also areincreased calls for decentralization,deregulation, and devolution ofschool management, curriculumdesign and policy-making power.Teachers are subjected to a culture ofevaluation, inspection, and auditing.Most of these efforts serve toundermine proven practices inJapanese education and consist ofmisguided tinkering to the detrimentof all Japanese stakeholders ineducation. Nevertheless, there are anumber of aspects of Japaneseeducation that remain strong, withteacher training being one of themdespite the oncoming wave of“reformism” (Fujita, 1997, 2000a, &2005).


In Japan there is the nationalcurriculum (course of study), whichhas been revised about every 10 yearsand upon which entrance exams forsenior high schools and universitiesshould be based. Maximumclassroom size is prescribed by theMinistry of Education, and fundingfor the salaries of public schoolteachers is provided by the centraland prefectural governments1.

Public school teachers are hiredby the prefectural board of educationand rotated among schools in theprefecture usually every seven oreight years. Before employment theseindividuals matriculate from variousteacher training programs at collegesand universities, and afteremployment, take a wide range of in-service training programs providedby the Ministry of Education, localboards of education and numerousvoluntary study associations ofteachers. There are three levels of

teacher’s certificates (Table 1). Thehighest is the “advanced level,” whichis conferred with a degree of master’sor higher. The next is the first levelcertificate for an individual with abachelor’s degree, and the lowestcertificate is the second levelcertificate, which is a temporarycertificate valid for 15 years, for thosewith junior college degrees. Inaddition to the three levels ofcertification, there are three types ofcertificates. The general certificate isa non-subject-specific certificate forelementary school teachers. There is a“special subject certificate” forelementary school teachers in fieldssuch as music, art, and homeeconomics. Finally, the “subject-basedcertificate” is required for allsecondary school teachers. Thevariety of teacher’s certificatesavailable can be seen in Table 1,produced by the Ministry ofEducation.

There are certain requirementsfor obtaining the different certificatesdelineated by the Ministry ofEducation. An applicant mustgraduate from a university with ateacher training program accreditedby the Ministry of Education.Furthermore, he or she must acquireall the prescribed credits for bothsubject courses and pedagogical andguidance courses3, and mustparticipate in a three-week teachingpracticum for all levels of teacher’scertificates and a one-week nursing-

1 A “prefecture” is a local administrative unit withinwhich cities, towns and villages are encompassed. It isthe equivalent of a state in the United States. There are47 prefectures in Japan.

3 Prescribed credits for the 1st class certificate are as fol-lows: For elementary school teachers, 8 credits of sub-ject courses, 41 credits of pedagogical and guidancecourses and 10 credits of either in addition to those forthe BA degree; for junior high school teachers, 20 sub-ject credits, 31 pedagogical and guidance credits and 8credits of either; for senior high school teachers 20 sub-ject credits, 23 pedagogical and guidance credits and16 credits of either. In addition to these, 8 course cred-its on the Japanese Constitution, physical education,foreign-language communication, and media literacyare required for all three education levels.

care internship for elementary andjunior high school teacher’scertificates. Upon completion ofthese requirements, the prefecturalboard of education will issue ateacher’s certificate. However, theacquisition of a teacher’s certificatedoes not guarantee employment.

Due to a decline in the school-age population in Japan in recentyears, the job opportunities forprospective teachers are limited andonly about 30 to 40% of graduatesof teacher training colleges are ableto secure employment in publicschools. In the next 10 years,however, job opportunities willexpand dramatically due to themandatory retirement of a largenumber of teachers.

A prospective teacher must pass abattery of tests as decided by theprefectural board of education or“ordinance-designated” city board ofeducation4. These tests may include

written tests, interviews, proficiencytests, and an essay test. The writtenexamination includes a number ofsections covering pedagogical theoryand methods, educationalpsychology, student guidance andcounseling, subject knowledge,education laws and regulations,educational administration, schoolmanagement, and general schoolculture. The personal interviewincludes a requirement that theapplicant conduct a demonstrationlesson. Given the high level ofcompetition for teaching jobs inJapan, there even are private cramschools, which prepare students forthese examinations. The names ofsuccessful applicants are entered inthe register of eligible teachers foreach prefecture or district.Subsequently, boards of educationassign these teachers to schools basedon the staffing needs of the school.Upon employment, the first-year

teacher is subjected to a one-yearprobationary period. Training doesnot end with the end of thisprobationary period, however.

One major characteristic ofteacher training in Japan is thefrequency and variety of in-serviceteacher training programs. Thisvariety is reflected in the detailfound in Table 2, which summarizesthe teacher training scheme inJapan, as defined by the Ministry ofEducation. Another major reasonfor quality teaching in Japan can beattributed to this scheme of teachertraining, which is closely linkedwith teachers’ collaborative cultureand with research-basedinstructional strategies.

As depicted here, teacher trainingin Japan is multi-dimensional,continuous, and systematic. There

Table 1Types of Teacher’s Certificates in Japan. 2

Classification Completion of a Completion of an Completion of aMaster’s course undergraduate course junior college course

Elementary school teacher

Lower secondary school teacher

Upper secondary school teacher

Kindergarten teacher

Nurse teacher

Special school teachers(for the blind, the deaf, and the other disabled)

2 Japanese Ministry of Education homepage.

4 An “ordinance-designated city (ODC)” is a city witha population over 500,000 persons which has authori-ty over educational administration like that of a pre-fecture. There are 15 ODCs.

Advanced certificate(plus general certificate forkindergarten, elementary,

lower and secondary school teacher)

1st class certificate(plus general certificate forkindergarten, elementary,

lower and secondary school teacher)

2nd class certificate(plus general certificate forkindergarten, elementary,

lower and secondaryschool teacher)

Advanced certificate 1st class certificate

2nd class certificate

2nd class certificate

Note: 1. Different lower and upper secondary school teacher certificates are available depending on the subject to be taught. Thecertificate for nurse teachers is the same regardless of special school type.

2. In addition to the general certificate, there are also special certificates and temporary certificates.

are five levels of teacher training: (1)the national level; (2) the prefecturalboard of education level; (3) themunicipal board of education level;(4) the school level; and (5) the levelconsisting of voluntary educationalassociations, groups, and includingindividual teachers’ self-training.

Training at the national level is

largely classified into two categories,regular teacher training, and ad-hoctraining that seeks to addressspecific issues such as informationtechnology or AIDS education.Participants in these programs areexpected to make presentations intheir schools and communities onwhat they have learned.

At the level of prefectures andlarge cities with populations over200,000 persons, the boards ofeducation are responsible for offeringa series of training courses every year.These include (1) induction trainingfor newly appointed teachers; (2)training for all teachers with five, 10,or 20 years of experience; (3) training

Table 2Types of Teacher Training Programs in Japan.5

5 Japanese Ministry of Education homepage.

Training on Planning &Coordination of EducationalAffairs depending upon theexperience

Trainings depending on the function

1st Year 5th Year 10th Year 15th Year 20th Year 25th Year 30th Year 35th Year

Training for Student Guidance Supervisors, etc.

Training for DeputyPrincipals

Training for Principals

Specialized Trainings on Teaching Instruction or Student Guidance (held by Education Center, etc.)

Training Held by a Municipal Board of Education

Training at the School

Trainings held by the Body or Group for Educational Studies

Trainings held by an Individual Teacher

Trainings on SpecializedKnowledge or Technology

Others

Trainings held by the Government(Teacher Training Center)

Trainings Subsidized by theGovernment

OthersTraining

atN

ationalLevel

LeaderTraining

Trainingon UrgentProblem

Leader Training for Information Technology Utilization in Education, AIDS and Drug Abuse Prevention Training Meetings, etc.

Training on Future Course Guidance, Leader or other Trainings on New Industrial Technology or other subject

Middle Rank Teachers’ Training Course Principal & Deputy Principal Training Course

Overseas Training for Young TeachersExchange of Citizens between Japan and U.S.ADispatch of Young Teachers to U.S.A.

Short time Overseas Visit

Teachers’ Center Training Course

Teachers’ Overseas Assignment Project

Training for Experienced Teachers

Training for Newly Appointed Teacher in Charge of Planning &

Coordination of Educational Affairs

Induction Training for Newly Appointed Teachers

Training for Teachers with5 year experience



Long-term Dispatch for Training to a University, Training Institution or Private Company

TrainingC

oursesofferedby

theBoard

ofEducationPrelecture,D

esignatedthe

coreM

unicipalityM

unicipalBoard

ofEducation

SchoolTeacher

Offshore Training

for curriculum coordinators, studentguidance coordinators, vice-principals, and principals; (4) long-term (one- or two-year) trainingprograms in universities, researchcenters, or private companies forabout 10 teachers selected from eachprefecture and large city. There alsoare leader-training seminars for headteachers, principals, and vice-principals. These programs are allcompulsory but there also areprograms created ad hoc by the localboard of education or the educationtraining center for which teacherseither are selected or may volunteer.

Among these training programs,induction training and the trainingprogram for teachers with 10 years’experience are mandatory. Theinduction training program is a one-year program that consists of twoparts. The first part is a 60-day on-campus training period during whichthe trainee teaches two days a week.The second part is an off-campustraining component during whichthe trainee teaches for one day aweek. This off-campus trainingperiod includes a five-day teachertraining retreat. Under the guidanceof a mentor teacher each newlyappointed teacher learns the variousroles of the teaching profession. Off-campus training consists of a series oflectures, seminars, and workshopsprovided at the teacher trainingcenter in the prefecture or city,including school visits and othersocial activities.

The training program forteachers with 10 years of serviceincludes 20 days of both on-campusand off-campus training periods.During the on-campus trainingperiod the teacher conducts a seriesof demonstration lessons, studies onteaching materials, a self-evaluationof his or her job performance, anddiscussions with the principal, vice-principal, and other experienced

teachers. The off-campus componenttakes place at the teacher trainingcenter and includes lectures,seminars, and workshops.

Teacher training at the level ofmunicipal boards of education variesamong the different municipalitiesdepending on the educational issuesthat the municipalities have judgedto warrant being the focus of trainingsessions. Teachers also take part in avariety of voluntary education studyseminars, symposiums, andworkshops organized by voluntaryassociations created by teachers.

There also are teacher trainingopportunities at the school level.Schools hold lesson-study seminarsfrom time to time, which are openeither to all teachers of the school orto teachers from other schools with auniversity professor and/or staffmembers of the local board ofeducation invited as guestcommentators. In the case where theschool is designated and supportedfinancially as a research anddevelopment school (R&D school)by the local board of education orthe Ministry of Education, it takesthe form of an all-day workshop,often attended by hundreds ofteachers. A typical program iscomposed of lesson demonstrationsin all classes in the morning followedin the afternoon by theme-baseddiscussions among the participantsdivided into several groups, and/or alecture by a guest speaker such as auniversity professor, a superintendentof the local board of education, orsome other distinguished person.

Teachers also take their owninitiative to improve theirpedagogical skills. There are anumber of seminars and studygroups that are voluntarilyestablished and joined by teachers.They are created based on thefollowing criteria: subject, region,teachers’ union, university affiliation,

and connections with other academicand educational associations. It isevident from the sheer number oftypes of training programs andorganizations that teachers areprovided with a wealth of mandatoryand voluntary forums that they canparticipate in for the betterment oftheir pedagogical and administrativeskills.

A number of issues have arisenrelated to the quality of teaching andteacher training in Japan. Subjectknowledge and teaching skill aretypical examples of targets forreform. Other areas for improvementinclude teachers’ interpersonalrelationship with their students,guidance and counseling, classroommanagement, as well as teachers’decline in confidence, dedication andmorality. In relation to these themes,a number of reform initiatives havebeen implemented.

Some of the reforms have relatedto recruiting new teachers andproviding training for low-performing teachers. In order to adddiversity to the teaching ranks, somedistricts have introduced a specialteacher’s certificate for those withexperience in business or social workbut lacking a formal teacher’scertificate. For teachers who areunderqualified, special trainingprograms have been implementedand in some extreme cases teacherswho have not proven theircompetence have been dismissed. Avolunteer program also has beencreated so that some individuals canact as teaching assistants or help withextracurricular activities. More part-time teachers have been hired toreduce class sizes and help learnerswho require supplementalinstruction. One very significantreform has been the introduction of aperformance-based teacher evaluationsystem in Tokyo. Reforms such asthis one, which was proposed and

advocated by the Central Council ofEducation and business leaders, tendto start in Tokyo and then spread toother prefectures throughout Japan.Although numerous, these reformsare by no means the only reforms tobe proposed. There are a number ofreforms that are still under discussionand these are enumerated below.

One reform proposal wouldmake teacher’s certificatescomprehensive and flexible. There isa plan to establish new graduateschools for teacher educator graduateprograms. There also is a call tointensify certificate requirements byadding criteria to evaluate practicalskills related to teaching. A furtherregulatory proposal would institute arenewal system whereby teacherswould be required to renew theirteacher’s certificates after a designatednumber of years.

The reform initiatives andproposals address virtually everyaspect of teacher training andcertification. Before examining theirvalue it is necessary to present some

data to provide an overview of thestate of teacher qualifications, jobconditions, and attitudes.

Data and Measures

As discussed in a number of otherchapters in this volume, teachercredentials are a basic indicator of thequality of teaching. The assumptionis that higher credentials andcredentials in the appropriate fieldindicate that a teacher should be aneffective mode for the transmissionof knowledge to his or her students.After examining statistics, it isnecessary to read the statisticalindicators reflecting teachers’ jobconditions and job satisfaction, asthese are inevitably crucial for teacherretention.


In Japan, as in other developedcountries, there are a number of lifepaths that lead individuals to the

teaching profession. Educationalbackgrounds can vary quitesignificantly for teachers holdingvirtually the same job status.

Table 3 presents the percentage ofteachers with different credentials atthe different levels of education. Inthis table, “normal college anduniversity” stands for teacher traininginstitutions at the higher educationlevel, while “general college anduniversity” stands for liberal artscolleges, technical colleges, anduniversities with several faculties6.“National schools” are those attachedto national colleges and universities(national university corporations),while public and private schools areequivalent to those in the UnitedStates.

This table makes it evident thatthere is an overall tendency for uppersecondary teachers to be graduates ofgeneral colleges and universities. Incontrast, normal colleges anduniversities tend to send theirgraduates to public and nationalschools while private schools draw the

Table 3Highest Degrees Held by All Fulltime Teachers at Different Levels of Education in Japan in PERCENTAGES, 20047

6 As of April 1, 2006, there are 713 four-year colleges and universities (83 national, 74 public and 666 private ones) and 468 junior colleges (7 national, 40 public and 421 privateones) in Japan. Among these, those which have accredited teacher training programs are 570 four-year colleges and universities (79.9%) consisting of 77 national, 44 public and 449private universities (92.8%, 59.5% and 80.8% respectively), and 280 junior colleges (59.8%) of which 14 are public and 266 are private (35.9% and 63.2% respectively).

7 Japanese Ministry of Education, 2004.

Normal College and University General College and University

Subtotal MA or higher BA JC Subtotal MA or higher BA JCDegree Degree Degree Degree

Public SchoolsPrimary 59.8 2.1 56.6 1.2 40.2 0.4 26.5 12.7 409,665Lower Secondary 40.3 2.5 37.5 0.3 59.7 1.1 51.9 6.3 235,317Upper Secondary 19.1 2.3 16.5 0.3 80.9 8.1 70.9 1.2 194,925Six-year Secondary 37.9 6.1 31.8 - 62.1 4.5 54.5 3.0 136Private SchoolsPrimary 39.7 4.1 35.4 0.2 60.3 4.0 48.1 7.7 3,480Lower Secondary 16.1 3.1 13.0 0.1 83.9 15.8 65.8 2.0 12,837Upper Secondary 12.7 1.5 11.0 0.1 87.3 11.4 73.6 1.5 60,086Six-year Secondary 15.8 3.0 12.8 - 84.2 22.6 59.0 2.1 247 National SchoolsPrimary 85.0 13.9 70.7 0.4 15.0 0.6 11.2 3.1 1,763Lower Secondary 65.1 17.2 47.2 0.7 34.9 3.6 28.3 2.5 1,640Upper Secondary 36.1 16.2 19.6 0.3 63.9 26.9 36.5 0.3 594 Six-year Secondary 31.4 18.6 12.8 - 68.6 23.3 45.3 - 87

majority of their teachers from generalcolleges and universities at all threelevels of schooling.


Ingersoll in his chapter refers to “out-of-field” teaching as a problem in theUnited States that adversely affects thequality of teaching. Table 4 isinteresting in that it presents a verydivergent picture regarding “out-of-field teaching” when comparing theUnited States and Japan. It shows thatsuch a problem is seemingly not ofgreat significance in Japan.

Table 4 lists the number andpercentage of classes, not the numberof teachers, which is used as theindicator in the United States.Although no such national data isavailable in Japan, Table 5 presentssuch data for Niigata prefecture. Noneof these statistics can be described asalarming. For the core courses, thepercentage of classes taught by “out-of-field” teachers is negligible. Theteacher certification system in Japanassures that teachers should teach thesubjects they have been trained to

teach. The numbers here are low andreflect “emergency” personneldecisions where a teacher may teachclasses outside of his/her field as a lastresort when a teacher from that field isnot available. Nevertheless, thisoccurrence is rare.

Despite the infrequency of out-of-field teaching, there are somearguments and complaints fromteachers on the issue of out-of-fieldteaching. Especially in the small juniorhigh schools with one or two classes ateach grade level, the number ofteachers is small, and accordingly,some teachers are forced to teach asubject that is not in their field, whichmakes them feel uncomfortable,imposed upon, and needlessly busy.This is one reason why theconsolidation of small schools hasbecome one reform policy.

The Teaching Profession in Japan

Job Conditions and Retention RatesIngersoll in his chapter on teachingin the United States points to teacherretention rates as a major factor

affecting teaching quality. Trainingteachers who leave the professiondefeats the purpose. Training is thefirst step in providing qualityteaching. Next, the well-trainedteaching workforce must continue toprovide a high level of educationbased on the expertise andknowledge they have acquired intheir training and teachingexperiences. Thus it is necessary toexamine and discuss teacherretention rates in Japan. Table 6presents data that would suggest thatteacher retention rates in Japan are apositive aspect of Japanese educationand the culture of teaching.

The statistics indicate that themajority of teachers remain in theteaching profession and only leave itat retirement age. The number ofteachers who cited job change as areason for leaving was comparativelyvery low. These statistics would seemto indicate that the teachingprofession is an attractive professionin Japan that is competitive withother career alternatives. There are anumber of factors that contribute tothe attractiveness of the teachingprofession, and monetary incentivesand financial security always figureprominently in any job choice. The

Table 4PERCENTAGE of Secondary School Classes Taught by a teacher without aCertificate in the Field, by subject, 20048

Junior High School Senior High School

# of Classes % of Classes # of Classes % of Classes

Japanese Language 652 0.6 41 0.0Social Studies 671 0.6 357 0.4Mathematics 1300 1.1 214 0.2Science 363 0.3 65 0.1Music 178 0.2 4 0.0Fine Arts 1682 1.4 154 0.2Health and Physical Ed 1311 1.1 104 0.1JrHi: Indus. ArtsSrHi: Info Tech 2358 2.0 395 0.4Home Economics 2644 2.2 165 0.2English 411 0.3 100 0.1JrHi: OtherSrHi: Vocational 7 0.0 1713 1.7Total 11577 1.1 3313 0.9

8 Japanese Ministry of Education National Data, 2004.

Table 5PERCENTAGE of Secondary SchoolTeachers Who Teach Classes Withouta Certificate in the Field, by Subject,20049

Japanese Language 2.3%Social Studies 2.6%Mathematics 5.2%Science 1.9%Music 0.7%Fine Art 11.2%Health & Physical Education 2.8%Industrial Arts 36.3%Home Economics 34.8%English 2.6%

9 Niigata Prefecture Board of Education homepage,Prefectural data, 2004.

following table (Table 7) reveals thatpublic school teachers receivecompetitive salaries that are evencomparable with their counterpartsin private schools.

Teachers’ Perceptions of TheirProfession in Japan inComparison with China andthe United Kingdom

It should come as no surprise thatwell paid teachers typically arehappier in their professions as

educators. But while this trend holdstrue within each country, it is notnecessarily relevant to the cross-national comparison. Attitudes thatcontribute to a high level of jobsatisfaction to Japanese teachers canbe found in a study comparing theUnited Kingdom (UK), China, andJapan (Fujita, 2001 & 2006).

Table 8 and Table 9 present thepercentage of teachers who answered“accurate” or “accurate to somedegree” to the questions concerningthe teaching profession and theirwork lives respectively. These tables

are based on the comparative surveyconducted by the current author andhis colleagues in 2000 for Japan and2002 for the United Kingdom. Boththe English and Chinesequestionnaires were translated fromthe Japanese questionnaire. The UKsample is a representative sample ofEngland, Wales, Scotland andNorthern Ireland, while the Chinesesample was drawn from Shanghaiand Kunming. The Japanese samplewas strategically drawn from 11major cities in 11 prefecturesincluding Tokyo, considering the

Table 6PERCENTAGE of Retired Teachers in Japan, by Reason of Retirement, 200410

Total Total %of retiring disease death job change admission otherTeachers Retires Retires age to schools

Total 934,230

Primary 407,598 9,319 2.3% 63.1% 2.3% 2.3% 8.2% 0.2% 23.9%Public Schools 402,579 9,128 2.3% 63.9% 2.3% 2.3% 8.1% 0.2% 23.2%Lower

Secondary 257,605 6,929 2.7% 54.4% 2.0% 2.4% 14.2% 0.6% 26.4%Public Schools 243,680 6,308 2.6% 57.6% 2.0% 2.4% 14.0% 0.4% 23.7%Upper

Secondary 269,027 10,313 3.8% 65.2% 2.0% 2.2% 8.5% 0.6% 21.6%Public Schools 206,236 6,953 3.4% 80.3% 1.3% 2.3% 5.1% 0.3% 10.8%Private Schools 62,190 3,341 5.4% 33.7% 3.6% 2.0% 15.6% 1.1% 44.1%

10 Japanese Ministry of Education National Data, 2004.

Table 7PERCENTAGE of School Teachers in Japan, by Monthly Salary (Unit: 10T=100,000), 200411

-10T yen 10-15T 15-20T 20-25T 25-30T 30-35T 35-40T 40-45T 45Tyen- Meanyen yen yen yen yen yen yen yen (1000yen)

Public SchoolsPrimary 1.7 0 0.2 4.3 6.2 12.3 22.3 29.6 23.5 389.2Lower Secondary 1.2 0 0.3 5.3 8 14.2 28.1 24.3 18.4 377.9Upper Secondary 0.9 0 0.3 4.9 7.1 11.6 22.9 23 29.3 393.5Six-year Secondary - - - 8.1 5.4 35.1 29.7 10.8 10.8 356.6Private SchoolsPrimary 1.5 0.4 2.6 14.4 14.4 13.2 13.1 14 26.5 364.7Lower Secondary 0.7 0.2 1.7 11.5 13.8 13.3 13.8 13.8 31.2 385.4Upper Secondary 0.6 0.2 2.5 10.5 10.4 11.4 14.3 15.7 34.4 391.7Six-year Secondary 9.4 4.7 20.3 32.8 15.6 3.1 6.3 1.6 6.3 229.4National SchoolsPrimary 0.4 - 0.1 2.1 7.1 30.6 42.9 10.7 6 358.8Lower Secondary 0.2 - 0.1 1.4 7 23.3 47.7 13.1 7.2 366.4Upper Secondary 0.8 - 0.2 1.2 3.7 12.6 26.1 30.7 24.8 400.1Six-year Secondary 1.2 - 1.2 7 11.6 20.9 27.9 14 16.3 358.5

11 Japanese Ministry of Education National Data, 2004.a. US$1 = 110 Japanese Yen

diversity of the localities throughoutJapan (Fujita, 2001 & 2006). As forthe Japanese survey, a similar surveywas conducted with focus on theorganizational culture and work livesin 1995 in eight cities, all of whichare included in the survey of thisstudy (Fujita, 1997). The resultspresented here are substantiallysimilar to those of the previous one.

Table 8 is interesting in that itsuggests at least three trends.

First, all three countries show veryhigh percentages, over 90%, in items1, 2, 6, 12, 13 and 14. This suggeststhat these aspects are the basic featuresof teaching profession. Teaching is akind of job or profession that isphysically demanding and tends toexploit teacher’s own life extensively. Italso requires a sense of mission, highexpertise and constant efforts to

improve oneself and its expertise, andits job performance is subjectivelyrewarded with the feeling ofaccomplishment. In other words,expertise, sense of mission, anddedication are critical in teachingprofession.

Second, the images, perceptions,and feelings about the teachingprofession differ among the countrieswith the following tendencies: Asshown in the items 4, 5, 9 and 10, itssocial status is less enjoyed in a moredeveloped country; its role tends tobe defined as a more diffuse one,involved with every aspect ofstudents’ personality, in lessdeveloped country; and, conceptsincluding “teachers are professionals”and “enjoy autonomy in designingwork” are more pervasive in a moredeveloped country.

Third, as shown in the items 7and 8, such images as “models of lifefor the children” and “intellectuals”also differ among these threecountries, with both of the imagesmost pervasive in China, least inJapan and in-between in the UK. Onthe other hand, such perceptions as“financially secured with goodbenefits” and “have to maintain arelationship of authority towardpupils” are most pervasive in the UK,least in Japan, and China in between.

Among these three, the thirdpoints are especially suggestive forunderstanding current conditions ofJapanese teachers and the impacts ofrecent reform policies. Japan is lowestin all of these four aspects: “modelsof life,” “intellectuals,” “to maintainauthority toward pupils,” and“financial security.” Why is Japanlowest among these three countries?To answer this question, thefollowing section provides a briefexplanation of recent educationreform trends in Japan.

Impacts of Recent EducationReform on Teachers’Perceptions in Japan

Responding to the survey, Japaneseteachers displayed a moderate degreeof feelings of financial security that isslightly lower than teacher responsesin the UK and China. This is notsurprising as Japan has the highestcost of living in the world. Inaddition, there is a possibility that itreflects the recent decline ofcompetitive salaries of public schoolteachers compared to employeesholding a bachelor’s degree in theirmajor and working for a privatecompany. The decline in salaries isdue partly to cutbacks in salaries andfringe benefits, as well as educationpolicies that have led tointensification of teaching job.

Table 8Teachers’ Perceptions of the Teaching Profession – PERCENTAGE of those whoanswered “accurate” or “accurate to some degree.”

Japan China UK

1. Constant efforts has to be made to improve oneself 98.6 99.6 97.32. Requires highly professional knowledge and skills 93.5 95.8 99.13. Financially secure with good benefits 43.1 51.5 52.54. Have high social status 42.3 70.0 17.45. Involved with every aspect of students’ personality 73.9 88.8 55.56. Exploits one’s own life extensively 78.2 88.1 77.47. Teachers are the models of life for the children 57.7 94.6 71.38. Teachers are intellectuals 56.5 94.0 71.39. Teachers are professionals 92.3 67.9 98.010. Enjoy wide range of autonomy in designing work 56.5 46.2 94.911. Have to maintain a relationship of authority towards pupils 68.4 84.8 97.512. Physically demanding 98.9 95.3 96.613. Must have a sense of mission 92.4 94.0 92.414. Gives a feeling of accomplishment 94.0 91.3 89.6Total number of respondents (sample size) 1277 726 1382

Table 9Teachers’ perceptions of their work lives – PERCENTAGE of those who answered“Yes” or “Sometimes.”

Japan China UK

1. Happy to have become a teacher 88.3 77.2 92.32. Tired chronically 79.4 93.1 88.53. Authority of teachers is declining 88.8 70.2 96.54. Busy everyday 96.6 97.5 99.95. Want to quit teaching 29.5 24.0 55.1Total number of respondents 1277 726 1382

Secondly, Japanese teachers tendnot to think of themselves asintellectuals and the role models forchildren compared with theircounterparts of UK and China.Theoretically, it can be said that theseperceptions should be higher in lessdeveloped societies and should tend todecline along with the socio-economicdevelopment and educationalexpansion. Then a question arises:Why is it significantly lower in Japanthan even in UK? One possibleanswer is such that universityeducation has expanded more inJapan than in UK countries andaccordingly there are more BA degreeholders among parents and ordinarypeople in Japan. It also is plausiblethat the cultural urbanization hasadvanced more in Japan than in UKcountries and accordingly thetraditional culture of respectingteachers has declined more. A furtheranswer is that Japanese schools andteachers, especially public schools andtheir teachers, have been underrelentless attack from variousstakeholders since the 1980s andforced by reform policies to becomeefficient in some specific aspects suchas school disorder problems. As aresult, many teachers have becomeconfused trying to make sense of theirroles and lost confidence in beingteachers, intellectuals and role modelsfor children.

Finally, Japanese teachersdisplayed a moderate degree offeelings about the importance ofmaintaining a relationship ofauthority towards pupils, much lowerthan those of UK and China. It iscorrect to say that this is deeplyrelated to the educational reformmovements and policies over the lastthree decades in Japan. Especiallysince the 1980s, progressive andchild-centered ideas of teaching andlearning have been spread andemphasized in Japan. In 1980, the

revised national course of study wasenforced and the policy called Yutori-kyoiku (education free from stress)was started, cutting down lessonhours and educational content andemphasizing a new conception ofacademic ability, a new progressivestyle of learning and a new scheme ofacademic assessment, with the sloganof “Yutori (affordability) and Jujitu(enjoyable fulfillment).” This policyhas been further strengthened by thefive-day school week policy, whichwas partly implemented in 1992 andfully in 2002, giving up Saturdays asa school day12.

These various policies, however,have come under criticism sincearound 2000, and reactionary reforminitiatives are being taken under thecurrent administration as of January2007. The steps being taken includeexpansion of the parental choicescheme and selective six-year publicsecondary schools, the introductionof the national test for all sixth andninth graders and a school evaluationscheme, introduction of the renewalsystem for teacher certificates, andthe emphasis on indoctrinatorymoral education and severepunishment of disorderly behaviors.Most of these plans are criticized bythe current author and othereducation scholars/critics for reasonsincluding deteriorating furtherJapanese education and practical andmoral bases of teaching and teachers’collaboration as well as expandingthe differences of educationalopportunity by family backgrounds(Fujita, 1997, 2000, 2005, 2006 &2007; Hirota, 2004; Kariya, 2002 &2007; Mimizuka, 2007). It is right tosay that these reform movements andpolicy discourse lie behind theunique perceptions of Japaneseteachers mentioned above.

Teachers’ Perceptions of TheirWork Lives in Japan inComparison with China andthe United Kingdom

Table 9 shows teachers’ perceptionsof their work lives in Japan, Chinaand the UK. The data come from thesame survey used for Table 8.

Almost all teachers of all threecountries feel “busy every day,” andmost teachers also feel “tiredchronically,” indicating that theintensification of the teaching job isnow a common feature in manycountries. Most teachers also feel“happy to have become a teacher”(happy to be a teacher, hereafter).They also agree “the authority ofteachers is declining” (authoritydecline, hereafter), but thepercentages vary significantly amongthe three countries: UK is highest,Japan is next and China is lowest.The most striking results is thedifferences in the feeling of “want toquit teaching” among these threecountries: more than half of UKteachers indicate a desire to leave theprofession, while in Japan only about30% indicate such a desire and only24% in China.

Why do these differences appear?Although it is not easy to identifytheir causes or backgrounds, thefollowing tables (Tables 10 to 12)provide some evidence for feasiblespeculation. These tables are thesummary results of regressionanalyses, the dependent variables ofwhich are the feelings of “authoritydecline,” “happy to be a teacher” and“want to quit teaching,” respectively.

Although there are somedifferences among these threecountries, major determinants andpatterns basically are similar. In allthree countries, teachers tend to feelthe decline of their authority, if theyfeel that mass media tend to criticizethe schools and teachers unduly

12 The backgrounds, contexts and impacts of these poli-cies like “Yutori-kyoiku” and “five-day school week” areinvestigated and discussed in Fujita’s books and articles(Fujita, 1994, 1997, 2000, 2005 and others).

without understanding the reality ofschools, and if they feel fearful ofstudents. In other words, these daysteachers feel their authority declining,partly due to the growing unduecriticism of teachers in policydiscourse and society at large, andpartly due to the increase of suchschool-disorder problems as

vandalism and violence againstteachers. Furthermore, in China andJapan, the increase in parents’complaints and claim-makings maketeachers feel as if their authority is indecline. In Japan and the UK, thoseteachers who feel maintaining arelationship of authority towardstudents important tend to feel their

authority declining more than thosewho do not feel the need to holdfirm authority. In short, these resultssuggest that increasingly harshconditions surrounding teachers bothwithin and outside schools maketeachers feel their authority declining.

As for the feeling of “happy to bea teacher,” in all three countries thatdisposition depends mostly on thefeeling of accomplishmentexperienced through teaching—reflecting the nature of teachingprofession and its associated reward.This connection is more prominentin Japan than in China and UK, asindicated in the above table. Notonly the feeling of accomplishmentbut also the two other variables,“staying in touch with studentswhom you taught before” and“talking about your experience of lifeand your philosophy to students,”have statistically significant impactson the feeling of “happy to be ateacher,” and these three variablescombine to explain about 33% of itsvariance. On the other hand, inChina and the UK, the secondlargest determinant is teachers’ socialstatus, which is not significant inJapan.

The final question to beinvestigated here is why manyteachers, especially in the UK,indicate a desire to leave theprofession. The most powerful,negative determinant is to be foundin the response to the feeling of“happy to be a teacher”: If he or shefeels happy to have become a teacher,he or she is not likely to have such adesire. On the other hand, thefeelings of “authority decline” and“busy every day” tend to matchteachers’ desires to leave theprofession in China and the UK, andthe feeling of “tired chronically” alsotends to do so in the UK. In Japan,however, not the feeling of “busyevery day” itself but the feeling of

Table 10Determinants of the feeling of “authority of teachers is declining.”

Independent variables Japan China UK

Mass media do not understand the everyday experience of schools .203 .217 .218

Fearful of students .161 .182 .160Parents report complaints often .144 .178 —Teachers have to maintain a relationship

of authority toward students .112 — .085R2 .126 .152 .094

Analysis of variance df 4 3 3F-value 43.9 39.3 39.8

Probability of significance .000 .000 .000

Table 11Determinants of the feeling of “happy to have become a teacher.”13


Teaching gives the feeling of accomplishment .515 .455 .440Teachers have high social status — .121 .129Staying in touch with students

whom you taught before .102 — -Talking about your own experience of life

and your philosophy to students .086 — -Discussing educational viewpoints

and directions with colleagues — — .074R2 .326 .255 .253

Analysis of variance df 3 2 3F-value 195.1 114.0 148.7

Probability of significance .000 .000 .000

Table 12Determinants of the feeling of “want to quit teaching.” 12


Happy to have become a teacher - .516 -.461 - .496Authority of teachers is declining — .255 .199Busy every day — .117 .072Tired chronically .285 - .179

R2 .402 .359 .449Analysis of variance df 2 3 3

F-value 418.0 124.0 361.9Probability of significance .000 .000 .0002

14 Regression analysis; values =ß; all values are significant at .000

13 Regression analysis; values =ß; all values are significant = .002

“tired chronically” has a much largerimpact in causing them to desire toleave the profession. As indicated inTable 8, the profession these days isextremely busy and physicallydemanding for a teacher, and tendsto exploit one’s own life extensively.But at least in Japan, these featuresare not critical for making teachersfeel unhappy in being a teacher anddesire to leave the profession. It issuch factors as the feeling of “tiredchronically,” partly caused byrelentless undue criticism and attacksagainst teachers and schools, thatmake teachers unhappy, isolated,hopeless, and desiring to leave theprofession. This is the case at least inJapan.


As referred to in the study onteacher attitudes and perceptions,Japanese teachers see themselves asprofessionals who have a sense ofpride in their professions. Japaneseteachers enjoy a career that providesthem with a handsome pay scale, jobautonomy, high sense ofaccomplishment, and a collaborativecommunity with their colleagues thataffords them chances to grow anddevelop as educators.

Because of the well-regulatedguidelines governing teachercertification, Japanese teachers arewell-trained in the appropriatesubject matter and pedagogicalcourses. The data in Tables 4 and 5attest to the fact that “out-of-fieldteaching” is not a significant factoraffecting the quality of teaching inJapan. Furthermore, the data onretirement suggests that job retentionin the teaching profession in fairlystable. A further indication of jobretention is the statistic that only0.6% of teachers leave the professionafter their first year of service. This is

far preferable to a situation like thatin the United States where fully 40-50% of teachers leave the professionin the first five years of service (seeIngersoll chapter). The currentstatistics in Japan regarding teacherprofessionalism, quality teaching, andretention of teachers paint a positivepicture.

As proved especially in Tables 6and 9, it also is abundantly clear thatJapanese teachers are happy in theirprofession as educators. Furthermore,despite the challenges, they do notindicate a desire to leave theprofession, an attitude that explainsmost directly the exemplary rate ofteacher retention in Japan. TheJapanese teaching profession stillremains an attractive option forcollege students in Japan.Nevertheless, there is the possibilitythat “reformism” for the sake ofchange will lead to drastic changes inthe profession and the way it isviewed. Some political actors inJapan would seek to meddle in thefield of education reform, puttingpolitical gain ahead of social progress.The teaching profession andeducators stand at a crossroads wherethey must lead the field of educationin the direction they see fit resistingthe chaotic winds of reform thatconstantly change direction.

Since the 1980s a tide ofeducation reform movements hasemerged in many countries includingthe United States, the UnitedKingdom, and Japan and reframedthe policy discourse on evaluatingand organizing public education.This new framework has placed moreemphasis on freedom rather thanequality, and quasi-public (orsuperficial) accountability rather thanresponsibility for our children andcommunity. More confidence hasbeen vested in market efficiencyrather than intrinsic educationalvalue, and direct managerial control

rather than the professional expertiseof autonomous teachers.Policymakers have looked onlytoward narrow-sighted, short-term,and measurable outcomes to thedetriment of broadly viewed, long-term functions and effects ofeducation. In this changingenvironment, teachers and schoolshave been under relentless attackfrom various stakeholders and forcedto cope with the growing pressuresfrom backers of the principles ofmarket efficiency and quasi-publicaccountability that are embodied inthe policies favoring parental choiceof schools, “testism,” the auditculture, and achievement-orientedteacher evaluation and rewardingsystems.

The rapid pace of reforms andthe normative tone of the dominantreform discourse have cast a shadowover more viable approaches andpolicies based on research andempirical evidence. Policymakers, themass media, and practitioners havebecome shortsighted and hasty inmaking changes and getting concreteresults (Fujita 1997, 2000a, 2000b,2005, 2006, & others). Researchersmust keep the needs and expectationsof practitioners in mind whenplanning research which seeks to helpimprove the quality of teaching andeducation, especially in the currentclimate where confidence and trustin teachers has been eroded byreformers and critics who know littleof the realities of education inschools. Practitioners and researchersmust work in tandem to forge a newcollaborative community bridgingthe divisions between universities,schools, and research institutes.

The ideologies behind reformismare wrought with irony and illogical.The current reform initiatives andproposals seek to address crises thatdo not exist and rather will give riseto unforeseen educational crises.

Stakeholders must ask themselves ifthere is a need for reform after closeexamination of the realities ofeducation. This examination must bea transparent process that is based inthe values of justice and trust. Thecurrent reform trends will underminethe ideal of equal schooling for all aswell as that of a collaborativecommunity of educators who create aholistic learning and caringeducational space. Thus, byinfringing upon the autonomy ofteachers, these reforms have thegreater danger of lessening theattractiveness of the teachingprofession and adversely affecting thequality of teaching in Japan.

Time is of the essence for thestakeholders in Japanese education toavoid an educational crisis broughton by the forces of reformistdilettantism. Choices must be madethat will have a significant effect onthe quality of teaching for decades tocome. Is quality teaching assured bycontrol and inspection, or byimbuing teachers with democraticautonomy and professionalism? Theanswers to these questions can onlycome from an approach to policydiscussion and practice based inmethodologically rigorous researchthat provides reliable results to lay atthe foundation of future policy-building. Only thus can educationuphold the values of trust anddignity to the benefit of all thoseinvolved in the educational endeavor.

ReferencesFujita, H. (1997). Kyoiku-Kaikaku[Education Reform]. Tokyo:Iwanami-Shoten.

Fujita, H. (1999, January 18-21).Choice, quality and democracy ineducation: A comparison of currenteducational reforms in the UnitedStates, the United Kingdom and Japan,Paper presented at the internationalsymposium on The Public and thePrivate in the United Statessponsored by the JapaneseAssociation for American Studies andthe Japan Center for Area Studies ofthe National Museum of Ethnology,held in Osaka, Japan. RetrievedFebruary 13, 2007, fromhttp://www.childresearch.net/RESOURCE/RESEARCH/2000/FUJITA/index.html

Fujita, H. (1999, February 26-28).Today’s juvenile problem andeducational reform in Japan: Itsreappraisal and future implications,Paper presented at the Japan-UnitedStates Conference on JuvenileProblems and Violence in aChanging Society held in Tokyo,Japan. Retrieved February 13, 2007,fromhttp://www.childresearch.net/RESOURCE/RESEARCH/1999-1998/FRIEND/index.html

Fujita, H. (2000a). Education reformand education politics in Japan. TheAmerican Sociologist, 31(3), 42-57.

Fujita, H. (2000b). Shimin-Shakai toKyoiku [Civic society andeducation]. Seori-Shobou.

Fujita, H. (2005). Gimukyoiku oToinaosu [Reappraisal of compulsoryeducation]. Chikuma-Shobou.

Fujita, H. (2006). Kyoiku-kaikakuno Yukue [Where is educationreform going?]. Iwanami-Shoten.

Fujita, H., & Wang, S.-Y. (1997).Teacher professionalism and theculture of teaching in Japan: Thechallenge and irony of educationalreform and social change. In H.Fujita, (Ed.), A study on the culture ofteaching and teacher professionalism.Tokyo: Tokyo University Press.

Fujita, H., & Wong, S-K. (1999).Postmodern restructuring of theknowledge base in Japanese masseducation: Crisis of public cultureand identity formation. EducationJournal, 26(2), 27(1), pp. 37-53. TheChinese University of Hong Kong.Japanese Ministry of Educationhomepage.

Niigata Prefecture Board ofEducation homepage, Prefecturaldata, 2004.

Stevenson, H.W., & Stigler, J.W.(1992). The learning gap: Why ourschools are failing and what we canlearn from Japanese and Chineseeducation. New York: Summit Books.

Introduction

Korea has recently seen anunprecedented interest in teachers asthe most important factorinfluencing student achievement,which naturally yields a conclusionthat the quality of teachers ought tobe improved in order to raise thequality of education. The world-famous educational zeal of Koreanparents—expressed through excessivespending on private tutoring—hasgiven rise to distrust of publiceducation and dissatisfaction withpublic school teachers. Although theKorean government since the 1990shas made policy efforts aimed atrevitalizing public schooling andimproving the quality of the teachingforce, a sense of crisis based on anotion that qualified and dedicatedteachers are in short supply inschools is gaining even strongercurrency.

To improve the quality ofteachers, it takes a coherent policyeffort that integrates the entireteaching career—that is, from thepoint at which aspiring teachers entera teacher training institution untilthey reach retirement. There shouldbe systematic and comprehensiveefforts to improve professionalismand quality of teachers at each phase

of the teaching career: Whenattracting talented persons toteaching and preparing them for thejob; when employing and placingthem; and in their early career andthe subsequent service period. That isbecause teacher quality cannot beenhanced by focusing on only asingle career phase.

Nevertheless, the phases thatreceive particular attention in Koreaare teacher preparation andcertification due to a unique attributeof Korea's teacher labor market. InKorea, relatively competitiveindividuals in the labor market aspireto enter teaching profession.Teaching is considerably favored bythe Korean youth because of itsdistinct merit of guaranteed tenure,particularly in the current age ofemployment instability, and itstraditionally upheld social status.Also, the teacher turnover rate is verylow, so that most teachers remain inthe profession until the point ofretirement. Thus, for the goal ofhaving as many high quality teachersas possible in schools, a crucialmatter is how to prepare and certifythe competitive individuals whointend to enter the teachingprofession in such a way that theyconsequently form a high-qualityteaching force. Hence, it is natural

that national attention is being paidto the system of teacher preparationand certification.

At this juncture, the definition ofteacher quality should be examined.In an Organization for EconomicCooperation and DevelopmentOECD (1994) study reviewing theconcept of teacher qualitycomprehensively and systematically,teacher quality is defined in thefollowing five dimensions: first,knowledge of curriculum andcontent of education; second,pedagogical skill includingattainment of diverse instructionalstrategies and the ability to utilizethem; third, self-reflection and self-criticism that ensure teacherprofessionalism; fourth, empathy andcommitment that recognize dignityof other persons; and fifth, themanagement skills required tomanage the affairs in and out ofclassroom.

Depending on what qualities of aperson should be viewed asconstituting an ideal teacher, the goalof teacher preparation as well as thedesign of teacher training may vary.For example, the ratio betweensubject-specific pedagogy andtraining in subject matter content,the ratio between general pedagogyand subject matter training, and the

CHAPTER 5The Quality and Qualifications of the Teaching ForceIn the Republic of KoreaEe-gyeong KimKorean Educational Development Institute

period and method of practiceteaching could vary. Although thestate supervises teacher certificationin Korea, there exists no agreed-uponnational standard as to theeducational curriculum of teacherpreparation. Thus, curricularorganization and required hours varyamong different teacher traininginstitutions, thereby inhibitingeffective quality control of thepreparation phase.

Another important issue at handin the discussion of securing a high-quality teaching force is that of thebalance between supply and demandof teachers. At present, in Korea,there is an undersupply of teachersfor elementary schools, so that thequality as well as suitability for aschool's needs of the candidates forteaching positions cannot bereviewed at a satisfactory level. In thecase of secondary schools, oversupplyof teachers has resulted in a largeexcess of unemployed teachingcertificate holders produced byteacher training institutions. Suchundersupply and oversupply aredeeply related to the types of teachertraining institutions. Whileelementary school teachers aretrained nation-wide at designatedinstitutions designed for the purposeof supplying elementary schoolteachers, secondary schools teachersare trained at both purpose-basedteacher training institutions andother open tertiary institutions. TheKorean government has failed toadjust the freshmen quota of thosedivergent teacher training institutionsin a way that matches the demandfor teachers, which has resulted inthe proliferation of the traininginstitutions for secondary schoolteachers, consequently creating theproblem of teacher oversupply.

Both oversupply and undersupplyof teachers can cause the lowering ofthe quality of teachers and quality of

schooling; therefore, it is veryimportant to design a flexible policyfor teacher supply. When anoversupply of teachers occurs, boththe personal and social costs increase,since graduates of teacher-traininginstitutions cannot find employmentas teachers. In addition, an excess ofaspiring teachers in teacher traininginstitutions creates difficulties inproviding specialized training tothem and reduces their opportunitiesfor practice teaching, so thelikelihood of lowering the quality ofteacher preparation increases. Whenan undersupply of teachers occurs,teacher candidates who have notundergone the regular processes ofpreparation, certification, andselection may be employed, or out-of-field teachers may be employed, orteacher shortages may be handled byincreasing the workload of theexisting teachers. Those outcomesincrease the likelihood ofdeteriorations both in teacher qualityand the work environment (Santiago,2002).

The governance structure ofKorea's education is very centralized.Like that of the generaladministration, educationaladministrative organization is basedon three levels of structure--central,intermediate, and the local. There isthe Ministry of Education andHuman Resources Development atthe central level, and there are 16Metropolitan and Provincial Officesof Education at the intermediatelevel, and 180 Regional Offices ofEducation at the local level. Underthose administrative jurisdictions, asof 2005, there were a total of6,499,518 students and 304,097teachers in 9,003 national/publicelementary and secondary schools;and 1,296,883 students and 76,292teachers in 1,673 private schools.

The Korean government with itstraditionally centralized

administrative structure has started todiminish the size of the centraladministrative organs since the late1990s, under the banner of making asmall and efficient government.Propelled by such an effort atdownsizing, the Ministry ofEducation and Human ResourcesDevelopment has also been reducingits organization and personnel,concurrently transferring its majoradministrative decision-makingauthority including budget planningto intermediate level offices ofeducation. However, inertia withinthe traditional centralized governanceremains powerful, so that thecentralized practice is still prevalentin such core dimensions as finance,personnel management, andorganizational supervision.Particularly, intermediate and localoffices' reliance upon the centralgovernment financially is too strong,as evinced by the fact that over 80%of the local educational expenditureis provided by the central ministry.

The relationship between theoffices of education and individualschools also is characterized by itsconspicuously top-down manner.Elementary schools and middleschools are supervised by LocalOffices of Education, while highschools by Metropolitan andProvincial Offices of Education. Suchsupervision and control are notrestricted to a particular set ofdesignated matters, but can beextended to other matters deemednecessary for normal management ofeducational institutions andrealization of national educationgoals. Although school-basedmanagement was adopted in themid-1990s for the purpose of givingmore autonomy of individualschools, the decision-makingauthority and scope of local schoolofficials remains limited.

The formulation andimplementation of teacher policiesalso are under the jurisdiction of thecentral government; preparation,certification, and employment ofteachers are administered by theMinistry of Education and HumanResources Development. Therefore,the scope of influence that can beexerted upon teacher policy by localoffices of education and schools isvery limited.

Teacher Preparation

Teacher Preparation System A person must acquire a teachingcertificate in order to teach at aschool, even as a part-time lecturer.In Korea, regardless of the type ofteacher training institutions, i.e.,either national/public or private,completion of designated courses innationally accredited teacher traininginstitutions results in conferring of astandard teaching certificate. Thosepre-service institutions for elementaryand secondary school teachers areseparate with different tracks.

Elementary school teachers aretrained at 11 national universities ofeducation. These universities ofeducation had been two-year collegesuntil 1981, when the call forimproving the quality of elementaryschool education upgraded their

status to that of four-yearuniversities. In addition, there aretwo departments of elementaryschool education in the KoreaNational University of Educationand Ewha Womans University, whichis a private institution. The followingFigure 1 shows the types of traininginstitutions of elementary schoolteachers and the freshmen quota forthe year 2005.

Secondary school teachers arebeing trained through various routes,with at least four major paths. Theyinclude 40 national and privateteachers colleges, 57 departments ofeducation in general universities, 136teacher training programs in generaluniversities, and 135 graduateschools of education, totaling 368institutions, which produces over

25,000 graduates every year. Thefreshmen quota in the teachertraining programs and graduateschools of education is bigger thanthat of teachers colleges. Table 1shows different types of traininginstitutions of secondary schoolteachers and the freshmen quota forthe year 2005.

In order to enter the teachertraining institutions, applicants needto have educational attainment atleast equivalent to that of a highschool diploma. The Ministryencourages the applicants' aptitudefor teaching and their personality beassessed in the entrance examination,though difficulty in developing anobjective and valid assessment toolhas made actual implementation ofsuch measures in student selection

Figure 1Elementary Teacher Training Institutions with Freshmen Quota, 20051

13 institutions (6,225 students)

Ewha WomansUniversity

1 university (private)

50 students

Korea NationalUniversity of Education

1 university (national)

160 students

University of Education

11 universities (national)Seoul, Incheon, Busan,

Daegu, Gwangju, Gongju,Cheongju, Jeju, Jinju,Cheongju, Chuncheon

6,015 students

Table 1Secondary Teacher Training Institutions with Freshmen Quota, 2005 (unit: students)

Number of Institution Freshmen Quota Teaching

Types of National/ Private Total National/ Private Total Certificate,Institution Public Public Recipients

Teachers College 13 27 40 4,030 6,748 10,778 14,120Department of Education 8 49 57 511 2,920 3,431 1,715Teacher Training Program 32 104 136 6,032 16,216 22,248 9,536Grad. Schoolof Education 36 99 135 7,397 13,090 20,487 4,759Total 89 279 368 17,970 38,974 56,944 30,130

1 Internal data from Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development

very limited. Upon graduation, graduates of

teacher training institutions areentitled to receive the teachingcertificate, and there exists nograduation examination administeredat national level. The path throughwhich certified teachers get employeddiffers between the national/publicand private institutions. TheMinistry of Education is responsiblefor the hiring of national and publicschool teachers, and basic matterssuch as procedures and methods ofthe employment test are specified bylaw. However, superintendents of the16 Metropolitan and ProvincialOffices of Education are delegated bythe Education Minster to exercise theauthority to employ national andpublic school teachers (EducationalCivil Servant Employment Act,Article number 3). To be employedby national and public schools, acertified teacher must pass theteacher employment testadministered by the 16 Metropolitanand Provincial Offices of Education.Since the teacher employment testconsists mainly of a paper-and-penciltest covering pedagogical and subject-matter knowledge, critics often arguethat it is of limited value inevaluating the prospective teachers'teaching skills or their aptitude forteaching (Ee-gyeong Kim, et al.,2004).

Meanwhile, in the case of privateschools, the methods and proceduresfor teacher employment aredetermined by individual schoolfoundations. According toregulations for private schoolteachers, acquisition of the teachingcertificate follows the same regulationfor the teachers of national andpublic schools, but the matterspertaining to teacher employment isdecided by individual schools.

Since the number of teachersproduced by teacher education

institutions determines teachersupply, it is closely related to theissue of supply and demand ofteachers in the future. In Korea, bothphenomena—undersupply andoversupply—are apparent. At theelementary school level, teachersupply is restricted because there areonly 13 institutions nationwide.There occurred a temporary shortageafter 1999 due to a policy loweringthe retirement age for school teachersfrom 65 to 62. That resulted in amassive retirement of 22,000elementary teachers by 2000, and ittook time to replenish the neededteaching force. However, mostvacancies had been filled by 2005,which caused prospective elementaryteachers to worry aboutemployability. Recent research onteacher demand and supply revealedthere would be an oversupply ofelementary teachers starting the year2011 due to a decrease of studentpopulation caused by low fertilityrates (Ee-gyeong Kim, et al., 2006).It now is being argued amongscholars and practitioners whether tocontinue efforts to increase the poolof elementary prospective teachers.

In contrast, an oversupply of thesecondary school teachers is evidentby the low employment rate ofcertificate holders. In recent years, onaverage only about 30% of graduatesof the various training institutions ofsecondary school teachers could findteaching posts; and the employment

rate was a mere 16.2% in 2005. Sucha serious imbalance between supplyand demand of teachers goes beyondthe simple issue of oversupply ofteachers and gives rise to concernsabout low-quality teacher education,tending to lower public trust of theteaching profession. Table 2 showsvacancies and employment rate forelementary school teachers, whileTable 3 shows the numbers ofprepared and employed at thesecondary level.

The most serious problem facingteacher-education institutions is theirfailure to convert excellent humanresources into excellent teachers. It isoften pointed out that, whileexcellent students are admitted toteacher-training institutions, thoseinstitutions fail to prepare them to beeffective teachers. Bluntly, Korea'steacher-preparation process isproblematic.

Conspicuous problems in theteacher preparation system are relatedto the issue of supply and demand ofteachers, as well. A rationaladjustment should be applied to theundersupply and oversupply of theteaching certificate holders.Particularly, there should be measuresto resolve the problem of oversupplyof secondary school teachers and togive intensive, high-quality educationto the trainees, whose number shouldcorrespond to future demand forteachers.

Table 2Number of Vacancies and Employment Rate (Elementary), 1999-2005. 2

(unit: persons)Year Vacancy Employed Employment Rate (%)1999 10,026 7,825 782000 8,133 5,729 70.42001 9,575 5,599 58.52002 6,925 6,187 89.32003 8,884 7,222 81.32004 9,395 8,897 98.22005 6,050 5,941 98.2

2 Internal data from Bureau of Teacher Training, Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development.

Teacher PreparationCurriculum

Teacher preparation in Korea isundertaken not only by institutionsspecializing in teacher training suchas the universities of education forelementary school teachers andteachers colleges for secondary schoolteachers, but also by nonspecializinginstitutions including teacher-education programs and graduateschools of education. Diversity in theinstitutions of teacher preparationimplies diversity in the educationalcurricula of teacher preparation.

However, the differences thatexist among different universities giverise to differences in the quality ofthe teachers they produce. In fact,differences in the training processamong different institutions aresubstantial, and it is very difficult toseek adjustment of, and control over,those differences.

Whereas universities of educationthat prepare elementary schoolteachers retain relative uniformitycompared to the institutions thatprepare secondary school teachers,there exist rather significantdifferences in the educationalcurriculum among different

universities. Universities of educationoffer four-year programs like generaluniversities, and total credit hoursrequired for graduation normally is140~145, albeit with smalldifferences among differentuniversities of education. However,curricular variance is morepronounced among differentuniversities of education: the periodof practicum ranges from six to nineweeks, with three to five credit hoursassigned to that work; 15 to 30 credithours given to intensive course; 43 to63 credit hours to courses dealingwith subject matters (see Table 4).

Differences also are apparent inthe ratio between required coursesand electives. Credit hours allocatedto pedagogical studies vary amongdifferent institutions, such as six to14 credit hours when they arerequired and four to 12 credit hourswhen they are electives. Subject-matter education exhibits equalvariance in allocated credit hoursamong different institutions—43 to63 when it is required and zero toeight when it is an elective. Inaddition, courses in generaleducation, arts, and physicaleducation also show high variance.

Hence, even among theuniversities of education, which are

considered to have strongeruniformity than the traininginstitutions of secondary-schoolteachers, there exist big differences inthe credit hours to be completed foreach domain and in the ratiobetween the required and electivecourses. At the same time, variancesamong universities are high in thehours allocated to intensive courses,practicum, and subject mattereducation.

Among teachers colleges,curriculum is supervised by eachindividual institution, resulting indiversity of curriculum amongdifferent colleges. And in the cases ofthe teacher-education programs ingeneral universities and graduateschools of education, the curriculumis guided by the EnforcementRegulation Number 12 of theTeacher Certification AuthorizationAct, which specifies a certain numberof subject matter and pedagogycourses.

Teachers colleges offer a four-yearprograms like general universities andthe total credit hours required toacquire teaching certificate isnormally 140, including over 40credit hours of subject matter coursesand over 20 credit hours of generalpedagogy courses, with small

Table 3Ratio Between Preparation and Employment, Secondary School Teacher, 1999-2005.3 (unit: persons)

Year Preparation (A) Employment (B) Employment

Teachers Teacher Graduate Total National/ Private Total RateCollege training school of public school (B/A)

program education school

1999 11,297 11,731 1,737 24,765 4,277 1,268 5,545 22.30%2000 10,745 12,576 2,264 25,585 5,457 2,298 7,755 30.30%2001 10,762 11,428 3,263 25,453 2,675 1,770 4,445 17.50%2002 12,931 10,448 1,887 25,266 7,388 1,235 8,628 34.10%2003 16,171 10,394 4,604 31,169 7,155 1,914 9,609 30.80%2004 17,346 9.953 4,888 32,187 5,867 1,797 7,664 23.80%2005 17,273 10,483 5,417 33,173 3,980 1,384 5,364 16.20%Total 96,525 77,013 24,060 197,598 36,799 11,666 48,465 24.50%

3 Internal data from Bureau of Teacher Training, Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development. a. Figures in the “National/public school” column indicate the number of people who passed the employment test; Figures in the “Private school” column indicate the numberof people who are newly employed.

628

2531

2026

264

2222

60-

31(8

)(2

9)(3

3)(2

1)(2

3)

2912

1013

167

1226

3518

1215

7-35

(14)

3540

3544

3633

3830

3540

3421

30-4

4(3

7)(4

3)(4

6)(3

7)(4

1)

1413

166

1614

128

1414

156-

166

44

124

46

84

44

124-

1220

1720

1820

1818

1618

1819

1216

-20

4953

5050

4350

4663

4648

4928

43-6

3(5

1)(5

4)(6

0)(5

4)(5

4)(5

7)(4

8)(6

54)

(56)

(53)

26

28

84

23

0-8

(4)

5153

5652

43-5

150

5463

5048

51(5

3)(5

4)(6

6)(5

6)(6

2)(5

7)(5

6)(6

5)(6

0)(5

3)(5

3)31

43-6

3

108

66

128

89

1114

126-

14(1

8)(1

6)(9

)(1

2)(2

4)(1

5)(1

4)(1

5)(1

8)(2

0)(2

0)2

32

22

12

200-

3(4

)(3

)(4

)(4

)(2

)12

118

612

810

1112

1612

206-

16(2

2)(1

9)(1

2)(1

2)(2

4)(1

5)(1

8)(1

9)(2

0)(2

2)(2

0)

Inte

nsiv

eC

ours

e21

15-2

121

2122

-30

2021

2121

2021

2115

-30

(24)

(21-

25)

(21-

24)

(20-

23)

Prac

ticu

m5

34

44

44

44

33

43-

5

Gra

duat

ion

The

sis

P/F

P/F

P/F

P/F

P/F

P/F

P/F

P/F

P/F

P/F

P/F

P/F

Soci

alSe

rvic

eA

ctiv

ity

P/F

P/F

P/F

P/F

P/F

31 (Fre

eel

ecti

ve)

Tota

l14

414

514

414

514

514

014

514

514

014

514

014

014

0-14

5(1

58-

(157

)(1

58-

(157

)(1

69-

(154

)(1

55)

(155

)(1

54-

(157

-(1

50)

(150

-16

1)16

2)17

4)15

7)16

0)17

4)

Subj

ect

Spec

ific

Peda

gogy

Art

s& ph

ysic

aled

ucat

ionReq

uire

d

Ele

ctiv

e

Sub-

tota

l

Req

uire

dE

lect

ive

Sub-

tota

l

Com

po-

siti

onof

Cou

rses

Peda

gogy

Subj

ect

Spec

ific

Peda

gogy

& Spec

ial

Act

ivit

ies

Tab

le4

Cre

dit

Hou

rsA

ssig

ned

toC

urri

cula

rD

omai

nsin

the

Uni

vers

itie

sof

Edu

cati

on

Req

uire

d

Ele

ctiv

e

Sub-

tota

l

Req

uire

d

Ele

ctiv

e

S ub-

tota

l

U.o

fU

.of

U.o

fU

.of

U.o

fU

.of

U.o

fU

.of

U.o

fU

.of

U.o

fU

.ofK

orea

Ran

geG

yeon

gin

Gon

gju

Gw

angj

uD

aegu

Bus

anSe

oul

Jeon

juJi

nju

Jeju

Che

ongj

uC

hunc

heon

Nat

'l.U

niv.

ofE

duca

tion

Cur

ricu

lar

dom

ains

differences among colleges. In thecase of the teacher educationprogram of general universities,students are required to take over 42credit hours of subject matter andover 20 credit hours of pedagogycourses, with the earned averagepoint of at least 80 credit hours forboth, to receive teaching certificate.In the case of graduate schools ofeducation, students are required totake over 42 credit hours of majorsubject throughout theirundergraduate and graduate periodsand 20 credit hours of pedagogycourses.

In the preparation of secondary-school teachers, the differencesamong teachers colleges, teacher-training programs in generaluniversities, and graduate schools ofeducation are great. Particularly, it isproblematic, critics argue, that theteacher training programs of bothgeneral universities and graduateschools of education producesecondary-school teachersmechanically, simply by meeting theminimum standards specified by theTeacher Certification AuthorizationAct.

Curricular variance amongdifferent colleges of education isvisible: in the case of the total credithours for graduation, about 60% ofthe teachers colleges require 140credit hours, 30% require 150 credithours, and the rest require below 140credit hours down to 130.Differences among colleges incurricular organization also areevident: 6 to 60 credit hours ofgeneral education, 52 to 120 credithours of subject matter, 6 to 21credit hours of general pedagogy, and42 to 108 credit hours of subject-specific pedagogy and subject matter.Also, the proportion of subjectmatter is 38 to 80%, that of generalpedagogy, 10 to 23%, and theproportion of subject-specific

pedagogy within subject matter is 10to 51%; hence, variance amongcolleges is clear.

Practice teaching is a veryimportant curricular part of theteacher-preparation process.However, it is difficult to seek tostrengthen practice teaching whenthere is a such an oversupply ofteachers to be found at the secondarylevel. It is impractical to impartintensive practice teaching to thestudents, when only one in fiveeventually will enter the profession,making the practice-teachingexperience a waste of time andmoney for the remaining fourstudents.

Universities of education, whichprepare elementary school teachers,run practice-teaching programs thatare more diverse and systematic thanthose of the secondary-teacher-education institutions. Elementaryteachers participate in practiceteaching programs that are offeredrepetitively over several academicyears. They include diverse activitiessuch as observation, participation,classroom teaching, practicalmanagerial work, and so on.Duration of practice teaching rangesfrom six to nine weeks with three tofive credit hours issued, dependingon university. Both types and hoursof practice teaching of majoruniversities of education arepresented in the Table 5 below.

Under current circumstances inwhich new teachers are required toteach in the classroom immediatelyupon their employment without aninduction period, the minimumamount of practice teaching offeredcannot guarantee that the prospectiveteachers receive sufficient training toface the reality of classroom teaching.Therefore, it is necessary tostrengthen the management ofpractice teaching by lengthening itsperiod, diversifying its types, and

making it educationally meaningful. Calls for improvement of the

curricula of teacher preparation canbe narrowed down to the followingtwo problems: first, the problem oflack of quality control amongdifferent institutions; and second, theproblem inherent in practiceteaching. There should be aminimum level of standardization tohelp maintain uniformity amongvarious curricula of the differentteacher-training institutions, on theone hand, and to strengthen theirprofessional content, on the other.Such inter-institutionalstandardization could ensure thatfirst, a trainee can build his or herbasic capacity to be an effectiveteacher, regardless of the location andtype of the institution he or sheenters, and second, qualitativeequalization of the teachers producedby different institutions can beachieved to a desirable degree. Also,there should be efforts to strengthenpractice teaching, includingdiversification of the period ofpractice teaching, lengthening itsduration, and adoption of aprobationary period.

To resolve these problems, theKorean government has pursued thefollowing measures: revising thecurricula of teacher preparationinstitutions; adopting anaccreditation system of teacherpreparation institutions; improvingteacher preparation institution to thelevel equivalent to graduate school;abolishing the teacher-preparationfunction of graduate schools ofeducation; and integrating thedepartments of teachers colleges.

Teacher Certification System

Overview Prospective teachers whosatisfactorily meet the graduationrequirements specified by the TeacherCertification Authorization Actreceive a teaching certificate. Theteaching certificate is conferred bythe Minister of Education throughan authorization procedure withoutexamination. It means that thecertificates are conferredautomatically upon graduation. Theyspecify the school level for which theteacher is eligible to teach as well asmajor and minor subjects he or she isauthorized to teach.

There is no age restriction for

certificate acquisition. Teacherscolleges, which prepare secondaryschool teachers, require their studentsto take a total of 140 credit hoursincluding over 42 credit hours ofmajor subject and over 20 credithours of teacher training subjects,albeit with some differences amongcolleges. In the teacher educationprograms of general universities,students are required to take over 42credit hours of major subject andover 20 credit hours of teachertraining subjects, with the averageGPA of at least B for both, to receivea teaching certificate. In the case ofgraduate schools of education,students are required to take over 42credit hours in their major subject

throughout their undergraduate andgraduate periods and 20 hours ofteacher training subjects.Examinations are administered tothose wish to become teachers toconfer the preliminary teachingcertificate when the problem ofteacher undersupply occurs.

An identical teaching certificate isconferred at different types ofteacher-training institutions, whetherthey be national/public or private.The certificate can be attained bycompleting the specified number ofteacher training courses in nationallyapproved teacher traininginstitutions. However, employmentprocesses are different dependingupon the types of schools. While the

Table 5Types and Required Credit Hours of Practice Teaching, University of Education

Hours Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Total1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 DurationUniv.

SeoulNat’l.Univ. of Education

GyeonginNat’l.Univ. of Education

ChuncheonNat’l.Univ. of Education

GwangjuNat’l.Univ. of Education

BusanNat’l.Univ. ofEducation

Types of Practice Teaching

Observation non-credit 1 week

Participation 1 2 weeks 4

Classroom Teaching 2 2 weeks 2 weeks (9 weeks)

Practical Works 1 2 weeks

Observation 1 2 weeks

Subject Matter 1 1 5

Practical Works 3 6 weeks(8 weeks)

Observation no-credit 1 week

Practical Works 1 2 weeks 3

Classroom Teaching 2 4 weeks(7 weeks)

Observation pass/fail 1 week4

Classroom Teaching 4 8 weeks (9 weeks)& Practical Works

Observation 1 1 week

Participation 1 2 weeks 4

Classroom Teaching 2 5 weeks(8 weeks)

& Practical Works

teachers of national and publicschools are selected via an open,competitive employment testadministered by each Metropolitanand Provincial Office of Education,private school teachers are employedvia an independent selectionprocedure of each individual school,since the head of the private schoolreserves the right to employ teachers.Recently, however, in considerationof teacher professionalism, privateschools have been advised by thegovernment to hire their teachersthrough open competitive measures.

Higher level certificates in theprofession are acquired based on thepredetermined process and standards.The Grade 1 teaching certificate, a

higher level certificate attainable afterthe Grade 2 certificate is conferred,can be acquired by completing over15 credit hours of in-serviceeducation courses administered byin-service training institutionsdesignated by the regulations of theEducational Civil Servant Law. Thetraining for the Grade 1 teachercertification is imparted to all grade 2teachers who have over three years ofteaching experience. On average, ittakes five to six years for a teacher toacquire the Grade 1 teachingcertificate after his or her entry intothe teaching profession. Table 6 sumsup the certification system for theGrades 2 and 1 teaching certificates.

In Korea, a teaching certificate is

a national certificate, which meansthat the national governmentrecognizes that the certificate holderhas acquired the knowledge and skillsneeded to perform the duties ofteaching. For the nationalgovernment to recognize thecertificate holder's professionalquality with certainty, it is necessaryto control the quality of certificateacquisition process, and after thecertificate is conferred, to supervise ina way that ensures continuedprofessional development. However,under the current system of teachercertification of Korea, prospectiveteachers who lack the ability andaptitude to be teachers can enterteaching profession. Entering a

Table 6The Summary of Teacher Certification System

Type of Certificate Grade 2 Teacher Grade 1 Teacher

Certificate AcquisitionMethod Authorization without examination Authorization without examination

Supervisory Body for Certification • Committee for TeacherCertification Authorization is formed.

• Re-issuing of certificate follows the pre-set regulation in the cases ofdeprivation and loss of the certificate.

—

Legal Base forCertificate Acquisition

Appendix 2 of the Item 2, Article No. 21,Elementary and Secondary SchoolEducation Law

Article No. 18 & 21, TeacherCertification Authorization Act

Relation toEmployment

Open competition (age and qualifyingconditions)

Promotion based on qualifying process

Age Restriction — —

Certificate Acquisition Method and Procedure

By submitting the non-examinationauthorization application to the head ofuniversity

• Completing over 15 credit hours of re-education courses administered by in-service training institutionsdesignated by the regulations of theEducational Civil Servant Law, with theearned average point of 60 or higher

• Re-education is imparted to all grade 2 teachers.

Requirement for Certificate Acquisition

• Graduates of four-year traininginstitution

• Those who acquired master's degreefrom graduate school of education

• Certification standard and evaluationresult of in-service

teachertraining institution is ratherdifficult compared with graduation.Researchers argue that the absence ofnational-level standards to managethe overall quality of certificate hascontributed to the current problem.The existing practice certainly lowerspublic trust of the teaching certificate(Kim, Ee-gyeong, et al., 2004). Toresolve such problems, manyobservers agree that it would benecessary to change the way theteaching certificate is acquired and totoughen the acquisition criteria. Italso has been advocated that anational certification system beadopted. Policy studies are underwayto identify the performance standardsof different types of teachers to comeup with national level standards.

There is another problem thatsurfaces after the teaching certificateis acquired: the fact that there is noexpiration date of the certificateimplies that once a person acquiresthe certificate, he or she need notseek further professionaldevelopment. To counter thisproblem, it has been advanced thatteachers be required to take part inperiodic in-service training to renewtheir certificate for the purposes ofenhancing public trust of theteaching certificate and improvingteacher professionalism. Researchers

propose the adoption of acertification renewal system thatwould validate the teachingcertificate periodically.

Data on Teachers’Qualifications

Teaching certificates are conferredbasically to those who graduate from four-year teacher-traininginstitutions and those who acquiremaster's degrees from graduateschools of education; the proportionof the former is much higher amongthe entire pool of certificate holders.According to statistical data, as of2005, about 70% of elementaryschool teachers had a bachelor'sdegree, while about 23% had amaster's degree. Those pool of thosewho graduated from institutions lessthan a four-year university datesfrom the 1970s, when theuniversities of education offeredonly two-year programs; hence,about 93% of those whose academicqualifications do not include abachelor's degree are elementaryschool teachers (see Table 7).

The percentage of certificateholders whose academicqualifications are at least a master'sdegree is higher in metropolitan areasthan in small and medium-size cities,

in private schools than innational/public schools, and insecondary schools than in elementaryschools. Sixteen percent of teachersin elementary schools hold a master’sdegree, compared with 28% atsecondary school level. Thepercentage of the certificate holdersamong the entire teachers was over99% in 2005 (see Table 8).


Even an excellent system oftraining and certification of teachersthat produces high-quality teachersdoes not guarantee optimalplacement in teaching posts, therebyheightening the quality of classroomteaching. Even an excellent teacher islikely to provide low-qualityinstruction when he or she isassigned to the subject about whichhe or she is not knowledgeable. Theproblem of out-of-field teaching, oneof the most direct causes of loweringof instructional quality, is closelyrelated to assignment of teachers.Out-of-field teachers refer to thosewho teach subjects for which theyhave not attained specializedknowledge during theirundergraduate or graduate schoolperiod.

Table 7Teachers’ Academic Qualification, by Location, School Level, and School Type, 2005

Location Metropolis 166,120(100) 8,157(5) 117,741(71) 40,222(24)S&M City 209,117(100) 16,184(8) 145,118(69) 47,815(23)

School Level Elementary 157,407(100) 22,513(14) 109,921(70) 24,973(16)Secondary 217,830(100) 1828(0.5) 152,938(70) 63,064(29)

School Type Nat’l./Public 298,436(100) 23,442(8) 207,563(69) 67,431(23)Private 76,801(100) 899(1) 55,296(72) 20,606(27)

Total 375,237(100%) 24,341(7%) 262,859(70%) 88,037(23%)

Total No.of Teachers

No. of Teacherswith AcademicQualification

below Four-YearUniversity

No. of Teacherswith Bachelor’s

Degree

No. of Teacherswith Master’s Degree

(or higher)

Classification

4 Data from KEDI and MOEHRD (2005). Annual Report on Educational Statistics. Seoul: Korean Educational Development Institute.

In Korea, the Elementary andSecondary School Education Lawprovides guidelines for determiningthe number of teachers assigned toeach school. The number ofclassrooms, which usually reflects thesize of a school, becomes theyardstick for determining thenumber of teachers assigned to eachschool. According to the law, in thecase of middle school, three teachersare to be assigned to a school with upto three classrooms, and if there aremore than three classrooms in aschool, 1.5 more teachers are addedper additional class (Article Number34). In the case of high school, threeteachers are to be assigned to a schoolup to three classes, the same numbersas middle school, while two teachersare added with one additional classincrease (Article Number 35). Thenumber of students as well asteachers’ teaching loads are notconsidered in determining thenumber of teachers supplied to eachschool. This formulation tends toincrease teacher and becomes thecause of out-of-field teaching insmall-sized schools.

Although the superintendent ofeach intermediate-level office ofeducation is responsible for supplyingappropriate numbers of teachers to

schools according to the law, it issometimes not properly observed, sothat small-sized schools with smallnumber of classes cannot have all theteachers needed for all subjectmatters. Under such a circumstance,to supplement the insufficient unithours for instruction of differentsubjects and for the sake ofadministrative convenience, out-of-field teaching takes place. Out-of-field teachers cannot guarantee thequality of instruction, irrespective oftheir academic qualifications.

In Korea, a teacher’s major andminor subjects are specified on theteaching certificate, which isconferred to teachers uponcompleting authorized teacher-education programs. Recently, theKorean government adopted a systemrecognizing a “minor qualification”acquired through in-service trainingin order to enhance the flexibility ofthe teacher supply. This qualificationis given to certified teachers whocannot otherwise be assigned toschools because the subject mattersspecified in their teaching certificateas a major or minor are no longeroffered at a school due tounpopularity.

For example, French and Germanlanguage courses were offered at theupper-secondary level until 1980s.

However, the preference of studentsand schools for Japanese or Chineseover French or German has left manyFrench or German teachersunassigned. Because public schoolteachers are national public servantsand employment is guaranteed untilthe age of 62, there should beremedial measures to reassign theseteachers. Granting a minorqualification through in-servicetraining was initiated to address thisproblem.

To acquire the minorqualification, teachers go throughshort-term in-service training of 180hours during vacation, and arepermitted to teach new subjects forwhich they have prepared themselves.Through this in-service, a number ofteachers have become qualified toteach subjects different from themajor or minor specified in theirteaching certificate. However, theshort-term intensive training, whichis offered during vacation(approximately for three months),can be a tremendous burden on theteacher, and further, the lack of in-depth study is criticized for failing tohelp teachers acquire specializedknowledge and competency.Compared with the 20 credit hoursrequired for acquiring a minorcertificate at a university, the newly

Table 8Teaching Certificate Holders, 20055

Location Metropolis 166,120(100) 166,039(99.95) 41(0.02) 40(0.02) NoneS&M City 209,117(100) 208,908(99,90) 164(0.08) 45(0.02)

School level Elementary 157,407(100) 157,248(99.90) 126(0.08) 33(0.02) NoneSecondary 217,830(100) 217,699(99.94) 79(0.04) 52(0.02)

School type Nat’l./public 298,436 (100) 298,216(99.93) 168(0.06) 52(0.02) NonePrivate 76,801(100) 76,731(99.91) 37(0.05) 33(0.04)

Total 375,237(100%) 374,947(99.92%) 205(0.05%) 85(0.02%) None

Number of regular teachers

Category Sub-total Teacher Prelim. teacher Others Unqualified

5 Date from KEDI and MOEHRD (2005). Annual Report on Educational Statistics. Seoul: Educational Development Institute.

initiated in-service training is hardlysufficient to prepare teachers forclassroom teaching.

In addition, the in-servicetraining programs and methods areunder severe criticism. The vacation-time courses consist of lecturesmainly by professors and lecturersfrom teacher-training universitiesthat are of limited effectiveness inhelping teachers apply their newlyobtained knowledge in the classroomsetting. Due to the impractical natureof the training, teachers are forced toprepare for teaching thoughindividual study of instructionalmaterial. As a result, the quality ofclassroom teaching suffers.

Nevertheless, teachers whosesubject matter has turned out to beunpopular appear to have no otherchoice but to acquire the minorqualification through the trainingcourse. And when the number of theapplicants seeking the training isgreater than available seats, teacherswith fewer years of service have todefer the training to the future.

We need to understand thephenomenon of out-of-field teachingmore accurately to come up witheffective policy alternatives. It isnecessary to determine in whatregions out-of-field teaching takesplace most frequently and to whatextent, and in which school level andsubject matter it is concentrated. Forthe purpose of the investigation, asurvey questionnaire was developedand conducted based on stratifiedsampling of 2,000 secondary-schoolteachers nationwide. The survey wasadministered from mid-November toearly December, 2005. A total of1,423 teachers returned thequestionnaire marking 71.2%response rate.

The data in Tables 9, 10, 11, 12and 13 show five different measuresof out-of-field teaching. Tables 9, 10and 11 are prepared based on

teaching certificates, while Table 12and 13 are based on undergraduateor graduate majors/minors.

Table 9 shows the percentage ofsecondary teachers who teachsubjects other than the one specifiedas the major on his or her teachingcertificate. Table 10 shows thepercentage of teachers who teachsubjects other than the one specifiedas major or minor on his or herteaching certificate, while Table 11shows the percentage of teachers whoteach subjects other than the onespecified as major, minor, or minoracquired through in-service training.

Among Tables 9, 10 and 11,Table 9 applies the toughest standardrequiring a teaching certificate with aspecific major on it. The comparisonbetween Tables 10 and 11 shows thata small portion of teachers arequalified to teach core subjects

through in-service training. Shown inTable 11, Korean, English and socialstudies do not reveal seriousproblems, as the percentage ofteachers who teach those subjectswithout a certificate in the field isrelatively low. However, about 11%of math teachers and 25% of scienceteachers teach a subject without aproper in-field certificate.

In general, as the definition ofout-of-field teachers becomestougher, the percentage of out-of-field teachers becomes higher. AsTables 12 and 13 show, thepercentage of out-of-field teacherswho are defined as such based onundergraduate or graduatemajor/minor is much lower than thatbased on teaching certificate. Whenthe undergraduate or graduatemajor/minor definition is applied,the percentage of out-of-field

Table 9PERCENTAGE of Secondary Teachers in Korea in the Core Academic FieldsWithout a Teaching Certificate (Major) in the Field by Type of School, 2005. 6

Korean English Math Science SocialStudies

Total 3.64 8.70 11.03 24.81 5.14 Type of School

National & Public 4.48 10.00 11.04 27.27 5.23 Private 1.98 6.45 11.01 20.29 5.00

Degree of WealthRich 7.41 1.61 6.56 24.64 0.00 Poor 2.93 10.99 12.95 24.12 6.11

Community TypeLarge Cities 3.57 6.67 11.59 27.47 4.44 Medium and Small Cities 4.04 6.33 12.20 21.60 5.43 Rural 3.17 16.67 6.98 23.81 6.15

Grade LevelLower Secondary 4.47 12.17 10.26 32.47 8.04 Upper Secondary 2.44 5.80 11.64 17.26 3.33

Number of Classes1 ~ 12 6.06 17.24 12.00 24.53 7.14 13 ~ 26 5.26 11.84 9.33 19.53 4.62 27 ~ 33 2.25 4.69 8.00 35.87 3.30 34 ~ 55 2.35 5.95 14.77 22.03 6.38

6 Survey by author. a. Private schools refer to schools whose ownership belongs to the private foundation.b. Lower-secondary school level refers to those teaching grades 7~9th, and upper- secondary level refers to grades

10~12th. c. Degree of wealth refers to the level of community wealth where the school is located. Since there was no accu-

rate data available regarding community wealth, it was drawn based on teachers’ perception.d. The number of classes refers to the total number of classes per school. It informs the size of schools.

teachers in most subjects dropssignificantly, though the percentageof out-of-field science teachers is stillhigh enough to cause seriousconcerns.

Considering the fact that there isan oversupply of secondary teachersand almost 100% of secondaryteachers hold teaching certificates,the data concerning out-of-fieldteachers raise the problem of qualityof teaching caused by mismatchbetween professional expertise andteaching subjects.

There also are large cross-schooldifferences in out-of-field teaching.In most fields, teachers in national orpublic schools are more likely to beassigned to teach out of their fieldthan are those in private schools. Forexample, according to Table 11, 25%of teachers teaching science classes inpublic schools are out of field,compared with 18% of those inprivate schools. In four of the fiveacademic fields, there is higherpercentage of out-of-field teachers innational or public schools than inprivate schools.

Teachers at schools located inrelatively poor communities are morelikely to be assigned to out-of-fieldclasses—a tendency observed in fourof the five subject areas. Korean is theonly subject showing a differenttendency. Rural and remote areas arecharacterized as much less affluentand providing fewer opportunitiesthan urban areas. This causes theproblem young people abandoningtheir hometown to look for bettereducational or economicopportunities. Korea is facing acontinuing population decrease inrural areas due to economic, cultural,and educational deprivation in theagricultural and fishing regions. Theeffect is a continuous decrease in thestudent population of rural areas andsmaller schools in those areas.

A logistical problem results. It is

Table 10PERCENTAGE of Secondary Teachers in Korea in the Core Academic Fields Withouta Teaching Certificate (Major or Minor) in the Field by Type of School, 2005.7







Number of Classes1 ~ 12 6.06 6.90 12.00 24.53 7.14 13 ~ 26 3.16 5.26 9.33 19.53 3.0827 ~ 33 1.12 1.56 8.00 35.87 0.00 34 ~ 55 0.00 3.57 13.64 22.03 4.26

7 Survey by author.

Table 11PERCENTAGE of Secondary Teachers in Korea in the Core Academic FieldsWithout a Teaching Certificate (Major, Minor or Minor Acquired through In-service Training) in the Field by Type of School, 2005.8







Number of Classes1 ~ 12 3.03 3.45 12.00 22.64 4.76 13 ~ 26 3.16 3.95 9.33 17.97 3.08 27 ~ 33 1.12 1.56 8.00 34.78 0.00 34 ~ 55 0.00 2.38 12.50 18.64 3.19

8 Survey by author.

not possible to place as manyteachers in small schools as would beneeded to cover every academicsubject. If they were placed, theywould not be able to fulfill theirrequired hours of teaching. Hence,the easiest solution to the problem isout-of-field teaching. The size ofschools expressed by the number ofclasses per schools is closely related tothe percentage of out-of-fieldteachers as shown in Table 12.Multiple-grade teaching, in whichstudents of different grades gather ina single classroom to receiveinstruction, often is utilized to solvethe problem. That scenario, however,places a burden on teachers andrepresents an obstacle to instructionaleffectiveness.

While out-of-field teaching ismost pronounced in small schools,metropolitan areas are not immunefrom it either. Teachers of unpopularsubjects get out-of-field assignmentsto fill up their work day.

More out-of-field teaching occursat the lower-secondary level than

upper- secondary. According to Table13, lower-secondary teachers aremore likely to be assigned to out-of-field classes. It is obvious in four ofthe five core subjects, except math.Science seems to be the most seriouscase. Approximately 30% of lower-secondary teachers teaching scienceare out-of-field, while there are 16%at the upper-secondary level. Teacherstend to be considered subject-matterspecialists in the upper grade levels,because more rigorous andsophisticated knowledge andcompetencies are required. It is rathereasier for teachers to teach lower-secondary classes than upper-secondary classes.

Out-of-field teaching occursbecause of inflexibility in supply anddemand of teachers. Small schools inrural areas experience difficulties insecuring teachers to teach all subjectmatters due to a shortage of students,so teachers in those schools oftenfind themselves handling multiplesubject matters beside the onesspecified in their teaching certificates.

In such cases, teachers feel burdenedby out-of-field classes and tend toharbor discontent about suchpractices, which leads to providinglow-quality classroom instruction tostudents.

Another important reason whyout-of-field teaching occurs can befound in the recent change in Korea'seducational policy adopting a newnational curriculum that emphasizesschool autonomy and student choice.Some subjects have disappeared as11th and 12th graders have chosennot to enroll in some courses.Unpopular subjects include militarytraining and foreign languages likeFrench and German. Korean lawsecures the employment status ofpublic school teachers, so theycannot be dismissed, even when theirsubjects are no longer taught.

The government's attempts toresolve the problem of out-of-fieldteaching, including having someteachers circulate to other schools,employment of part-time andcontract teachers, and an industry-school co-teaching system, have notproven successful. For instance, thecirculation plan calls on teachers whocannot fulfill their required teachinghours in their home school to teachin other schools, for bonus points, ora stipend. But that plan has not beenwelcomed by teachers because, first,they find it is burdensome tocommute to several other schools,teach there, and adapt to unfamiliarschool atmosphere; second, they arenot exempt from administrativechores at their home school, thoughthey work long hours elsewhere; andthird, bonuses for such work are notgiven evenly across differentmetropolitan and provincial regions,so there are teachers who do notreceive benefits for such aburdensome teaching assignment.The practice of out-of-field teachingseems an unavoidable choice.

Table 12PERCENTAGE of Secondary Teachers in Korea in the Core Academic Fields Withoutan Undergraduate or Graduate Major in the Field by Type of School, 2005.9







Number of Classes1 ~ 12 3.03 13.79 0.00 26.42 4.7613 ~ 26 2.11 9.21 0.00 22.66 1.54 27 ~ 33 2.25 3.13 2.67 38.04 4.40 34 ~ 55 4.71 4.76 4.55 20.34 2.13

9 Survey by author.

Conclusions

It is certain that measuring thequality of teaching force is quitecomplicated because many aspectsare mingled together. Viewed fromoutside the system, the quantity andquality of teachers in Korea seems tobe all right. The profession is favoredby excellent students and there existsa plethora of teacher aspirants, soteacher-education institutions do nothave to worry about attractingqualified students. Nearly 100% ofprospective teachers acquire theirteaching certificates before entering aschool—an indication of a qualifiedteaching force.

However, it is not certain that thequality and qualifications of theKorean teaching force are goodenough considering all the problemsassociated with teacher preparationand certification. It is not anexaggeration to say that teacher-

preparation institutions have failed toturn excellent human talent intoexcellent teachers. Among otherdeficiencies, the practicum period ofsix weeks for the elementary level andfour weeks for the secondary level isthe only opportunity for classroomexperience available to a studentteacher before he or she actuallystarts work as a regular teacher.When new teachers are placed inclassrooms without properpreparation, it is difficult to expectthem to adapt themselves successfullyto the new organization and culturecalled classroom and the school. Theprocesses and standards ofcertification cannot be exemptedfrom criticism, either. Despite thefact that the teaching certificate is anational certificate, there have beenno efforts at quality control at thenational level to ensure the quality ofprospective teachers.

There are belated governmentinterventions designed to raise thequality of initial teacher education

and certification, but they have failedto produce visible outcomes. Forinstance, policy measures toundertake evaluations of educationinstitutions and to either shut downthose institutions of poor quality orto upgrade teacher-educationinstitutions to the level of graduateschools were proposed several yearsago, but have not been properlyimplemented; there is no prospect oftheir easy implementation in theforeseeable future, either. During thelast three decades, education reformefforts pursued by the Koreangovernment did not give enoughattention to issues related to teacherquality.

Many people question the viewthat the teacher is a professional, onthe grounds that the teachingprofession does not seem to have alot in common with otherprofessions. This is a fundamentalchallenge facing Korea’s educationsystem today. To meet that challenge,it is necessary to come up with asystemic reform in which teacherprofessionalism is fully developedthrough the phases of initialeducation, certification, andassignment. At the secondary-schoollevel, the oversupply of prospectiveteachers has been exaggerated overtime, which undermined recognitionof the problem of hidden shortages.In order to guarantee that each andevery school is equipped with fullyqualified teachers, more attentionshould be paid to the problem ofout-of-field teaching. It is particularlyimportant because education of goodquality can never occur withoutteachers of good quality possessingappropriate skills and knowledgeacquired through training in theareas they are supposed to teach.

Table 13PERCENTAGE of Secondary Teachers in Korea in the Core Academic FieldsWithout an Undergraduate or Graduate Major or a Minor in the Field by Type ofSchool, 2005.10







Number of Classes1 ~ 12 3.03 0.00 0.00 24.53 4.7613 ~ 26 2.11 1.32 0.00 21.88 1.54 27 ~ 33 2.25 0.00 1.33 36.96 0.0034 ~ 55 1.18 1.19 3.41 20.34 2.13

10 Survey by author.

ReferencesHwang, G., et al. (1999). Measures toimprove the teacher training andeducation system. Seoul: KoreanMinistry of Education.

Kim, E. (2003). Policy research toanalyze Korea's participation in theOECD Teacher Policy Review Project.Seoul: KEDI.

Kim, E., & Han, Y. (2003).Attracting, developing and retainingeffective teachers: A background reportfor Korea. Seoul: KEDI.

Kim, E., et al. (2004). Research on themeasures to revise the teachercertification and training system.(Committee for Revising the TeacherCertification and Training System)Seoul: KEDI.

Kim, E., et al. (2006). The supplyand demand of elementary andsecondary teachers in the midst ofchange of school education. Seoul:KEDI.

Korean Educational DevelopmentInstitute. (2004). Analytical data onthe educational statistics. Seoul:KEDI.

Korean Educational DevelopmentInstitute and Ministry of Educationand Human Resources Development.(2005). Annual report on educationalstatistics. Seoul: KEDI.

Lee, J., et al. (2004). A study on themeans to innovate teacher policy:Teacher personnel management system.CR 2004-25. Seoul: KEDI.

Ministry of Education and HumanResources Development. (2001).Comprehensive measures for thedevelopment of teaching profession toface the twenty-first century. Seoul:MOEHRD.

Park, A. (1997). The essence ofgeneral education in teacher trainingand the tasks for development, InSecuring specialization in the teachertraining curriculum. Collection of thepapers for the conference of theKorean Society for the Study ofEducation.

Park, Y. (2005). Revision of theTeacher Certification System, In2004 Discussion of Korea's education:Tasks of Korea's education seen throughthe perspective of educationalcompetitiveness. Seoul: KEDI.

Santiago, P. (2003). Teacher demandand supply: Improving teaching qualityand addressing teacher shortage. Paris:OECD.

Introduction

Education has been both the keysource of competitive strength and anecessity for the economic growthand social viability of Singapore as anation since self-government in1959. In a process of continualdevelopment and ongoingimprovement, education policies andpractices have been reviewed andrefined through the years. Since themid 1990s, the world has beenconstantly changing around us andthis fact has challenged the Ministryof Education (MOE) to makefundamental paradigm shifts in thestrategic direction of the educationsystem so that it is geared to meet theneeds of Singapore in the 21stcentury (Gopinathan, 1999; Sharpe& Gopinathan, 2002).

First, globalization is rapidlyrecasting the economic landscape andredefining the internationalworkplace in which nations have tooperate. Second, technologicalchange is proceeding at a rapid pace,resulting in changes in the waysindividuals live and work. Third,intellectual capital increasingly willbecome the basis for competitiveadvantage among companies and

nations. Therefore, education inSingapore must equip successivegenerations to thrive in an intenselycompetitive global marketplace, toimbue them with moral attitudes,enterprising and innovative mindsets,and to ensure they aretechnologically savvy, flexible andwilling to continually learn andupgrade their skills. To succeed inthis endeavor, Singapore will bedependent on a high-quality teachingworkforce with the values, instincts,life skills and competencies on whichwe entrust them with the heavyresponsibilities of molding the livesof our young people.

As in other Asian nations,teachers generally are well respectedin Singapore society, and theMinistry of Education has beenactively calling for the public andparents to give respect, appreciation,and regard to the profession (Goh &Chang, 2002; Lee, 1996, 2006;Shanmugaratnam, 2004, 2006a; Teo,1998). The MOE also is cognizant ofthe important role teachers play ineducating new generations to breaknew ground and chart new directionsfor Singapore. Since embarking onthe “Thinking School, LearningNation” vision in 1997 (Goh, 1997),

the MOE has regarded teachers ascentral to this whole change processand as exemplary role models inseeking out new ideas, learning andpractices, and continuouslyinnovating and refreshing their ownknowledge (Shanmugaratnam,2004).

The MOE’s goal of building up aqualified teaching force is achievedthrough a process of careful anddetailed planning, aggressive teacherrecruitment, comprehensive trainingand effective teacher retention.Quality is as important as numbers;nevertheless, numbers do count.With better recruitment comes theopportunity to make an investmentin the future by adding morequalified teachers to every school.With more teachers per school, andcoupled with better job prospects,retention rates of good-qualityteachers also will improve.

The purpose of this paper is todescribe the qualifications of theteaching force in Singapore. Thepaper will first provide a briefsummary of the Singapore educationsystem with a focus primarily onprimary and secondary education.The next section will introducequalification standards and

CHAPTER 6The Qualifications of the TeachingForce: Data From Singapore Steven K. S. Tan and Angela F. L. Wong withS. Gopinathan, Kim Chuan Goh and Isabella Y. F. WongNational Institute of EducationNanyang Technological Universityand Kong Hong Ong Ministry of Education

preparation requirements forbecoming a teacher. Specifically, itwill address the levels of qualificationof the current teaching force, both atthe recruitment and certificationstages. Finally, the paper will addressteacher qualifications for teachingdifferent subjects in secondaryschools and how the educationsystem as a whole manages the issuesof underqualified teachers and out-of-field teaching.

Overview of the SingaporeEducation System

The mission of education isSingapore is to “mould the future ofthe nation”—that is, to shape thelearning of young people who willdetermine the future of the nation.As a system, the key advantage ofSingapore education is that it is wellstructured and efficient in providingeducational pathways and differentlypaced curricula to cater to thedifferent needs, capabilities, aptitudesand learning modalities of students.To do so, the system identifies asearly as possible the different abilitiesand interests of students and then“mass customizes” flexibleeducational programs to cater to thevarying requirements of each groupof students. Singapore’s educationsystem therefore is geared towards abroad-based holistic educationallowing students to draw from adiversity of knowledge, learningexperiences and opportunities so thatthey can pursue their passions anddevelop special talents. The goal alsois to nurture and prepareSingaporeans to go forward with astrong social conscience and mindsetso that they will be ready to competein the highly innovational, highlyentrepreneurial economy of thefuture (Chen, 2000; Lee, 2006;MOE, 1999; Shanmugaratnam,

2003, 2004, 2006b; Teo, 1999,2001).

Every child in Singaporeundergoes at least 10 years of generaleducation, comprising six years ofprimary (elementary) education andfour years of secondary (high school)education (see Figure 1). Thedifferent educational courses availableto pupils in post-secondary educationwill not be discussed in this paper.

Primary EducationAt the primary level, pupils gothrough two stages: (a) a four-yearfoundation stage, from primary oneto four (grades 1 – 4); and (b) a two-year orientation stage from primaryfive to six (grades 5 and 6). Theemphasis during the foundation stageis on basic literacy in English andtheir mother tongue (i.e., Chinese,Malay and Tamil languages) andmathematics. Arts and crafts, healthand physical education, moraleducation, music, science and socialstudies are included in thecurriculum to ensure that studentshave a good grounding acrossdifferent areas of study. Furthermore,primary education seeks to providestudents with sound values and lifeskills, and to develop students’thinking and communication skills.

Secondary EducationAt the end of primary six, pupils takethe Primary School LeavingExamination (PSLE). According tolearning pace, aptitude andinclination, pupils are placed in oneof three secondary-school streams:Special, Express, or Normal. Thesecourses provide pupils with differentcurricular emphases that match theirabilities and interests. The majority(approximately 61%) of pupils takesthe Special or Express courses, whilethe remaining 39% enter the Normalcourse stream (see Statistics forSecondary Enrollment by age, level,

stream, Planning Division, Ministryof Education, 2006).

The Special and Express streampupils are of higher ability and studythe same curriculum except that theSpecial stream pupils learn theirmother tongue as a first languagewhile their Express counterparts aretaught it at a second language level.These pupils complete theirsecondary education in four years bysitting for the Singapore-CambridgeGeneral Certificate of EducationOrdinary-Level Examination.

Within the Normal-course track,pupils have the option of takingeither the Normal/academic orNormal/technical curriculum, bothof which lead to the Singapore-Cambridge General Certificate ofEducation Normal Examination atthe end of four years. Those who arecompetent can proceed onto a fifthyear of study where they sit for theSingapore-Cambridge GeneralCertificate of Education Ordinary-Level Examination similar to thosepupils from the Special and Expresscourses.

Teacher Preparation,Requirements and Standards

The importance given to teachersand the teaching profession inSingapore has enabled the nation tomaintain a dynamic educationsystem capable of delivering qualityeducation to meet changing needsand demands for more than fourdecades. It is therefore crucial for usto be able to attract and retain thepeople we need to educate ouryoung. To this end, all theinterrelated processes pertaining torecruitment, training, certification,appointment, and deployment ofteachers for the Singapore schools arethe sole responsibility of the Ministryof Education. This is not done in

Figure 1Structure of Schooling in Singapore by Education Level, Typical Age and Years of Schooling, 2006.

1 Education Statistics Digest 2006, Planning Division, Ministry of Education, 2006

isolation, but in constantconsultation with schools, theNational Institute of Education(NIE) (see below for elaboration onthe role of NIE in teacher training),and other stakeholders—for example,teachers, parents, other governmentministries, universities, andbusinesses. This is particularlyimportant as Singapore seeks tomaintain a high level of qualificationsamong the teachers beyond thoserelated to licensing standards that iscommon to many countries.

A structure that is basically“closed” enables Singapore to manageits teaching workforce both in termsof quantity and quality, and tocarefully monitor issues. Such acentrally managed system helpsSingapore prevent wastage in humanresources and minimize problems liketeacher shortages and high turnover,underqualified teachers and out-of-field teaching.

Role of the Ministry of EducationResponsibility for hiring teachers tomeet the needs of the Singaporeschool system lies primarily with theMinistry of Education. The MOEuses feedback gathered annuallyfrom schools as well as its own datato plan for personnel needs and alsoattempts to do strategic forecastingto resolve both short-term needs(such as vacancies resulting fromretirements and resignations) andlong-term system requirements suchas planning for new schools,initiatives and programs.

Since 2004, the profession hasbeen attracting a steady flow of about1,900 teachers per year, and willcontinue to recruit close to thatnumber every year over the next fiveyears (Shanmugaratnam, 2004). TheSingapore teaching force stands at28,500 today, up from 24,600 in2001, and is on track to reaching30,000 by 2010 (Shanmugaratnam,

2006a). The MOE seeks to recruitteachers from the top one-third ofeach cohort of Singaporeans. Thismeans the MOE attracts recruits fromuniversity-degree holders and thosewho have done well in thepolytechnical schools. Besides meetingacademic standards, aspiring teachersalso must have aptitude and interest,as revealed in interviews withexperienced principals and teachers(Teo, 2000). The next section willdescribe the academic qualificationsrequired to become a teacher in detail.

Academic Qualifications Requiredfor TeachingInterested applicants are invited toattend “Teaching as a Career”recruitment seminars organized bythe MOE and held regularly duringthe year. Individuals also can applyvia the Internet on the MOEWebsite. Depending on anindividual’s academic qualifications,one can apply to become either agraduate or nongraduate teacher.

To be considered a graduateteacher, individuals must possess auniversity (bachelor, undergraduateor college) degree, includingcoursework in requisite teachingsubjects. The section on “SecondaryGrade Level Teachers’ SubjectQualification and the Subject Taughtin Schools” provides an indication ofmajors (subjects) individuals musthave studied at the university level tobe qualified to teach that subject(s)in schools.

The admission criteria fornongraduate teachers (i.e., thosewithout any university degree) caninclude any one of the followingacademic qualifications: (a) theGeneral Certificate of Education(GCE) ‘Ordinary’ level (Grade 10)2;(b) the General Certificate ofEducation (GCE) ‘Advanced’ level(Grade 12); or (c) a Polytechnicdiploma.

Once individuals meet theacademic qualifications, they are thenshortlisted for the interview process,wherein each application isconsidered in competition with thatof other applicants. The interviewersseek to learn more about thefollowing qualities in an individual:• passion for teaching• ability to communicate well with

others• creative and innovative spirit• confidence• leadership qualities• good role model

Recruitment, training anddeployment of teachers in Singaporeis quite unlike that in other nations.First, it is important to emphasizethat individuals who are hired astrainee teachers are regarded as fullcivil-servant employees (calledGeneral Education Officers)3 of theministry. Therefore, all traineeteachers are guaranteed teachingpositions and are automaticallydeployed to schools upon completionof training at NIE (see below).

Second, as civil servants, alltrainee teachers receive a full monthlysalary, including Central ProvidentFund4 (CPF) contributions, year-endbonuses, NIE tuition grant, andother benefits due all civil serviceemployees even when they areundergoing NIE training (see below).Depending on the individual’squalifications, pedagogical training,working experience and gender5, ateacher’s starting salary ranges from$1,020 to $2,0606 (U.S.) a month.

2 The General Certificate of Education or GCE is asecondary-level academic qualification, and isgenerally divided into two levels: Ordinary level (O-level) and Advanced level (A-level). Students inSingapore take the O-level examination at grade 10,and the A-level examination is taken at grade 12.

3 General Education Officers (GEO) is the civilservice terminology for teachers.

4 The Central Provident Fund (CPF) is acomprehensive social security savings plan for theSingapore workforce.

5 Male Singaporeans who have completed compulsoryNational Service will receive additional incrementsbecause of the time spent during the two years ofmilitary training.

6 1 US$ = Singapore $1.60.

Third, all individuals hired butuntrained will be sponsored to attendthe NIE for their pedagogicaltraining in the subject areas andgrade levels that they have been hiredfor. Finally, because of this hugecapital investment in them in termsof salaries and tuition grants, traineeteachers are required to serve a so-called teaching bond, ranging fromthree to four years, after theygraduate from teacher training.

Role of the National Institute ofEducation in Teacher TrainingThe provision of teacher education inSingapore on a long-term andorganized basis started with theestablishment of the Teachers’Training College (TTC) in 1950,which conducted certificate coursesin education for nongraduates.Graduate teachers were trained at theSchool of Education established inthe same year at the then Universityof Malaya (later the University ofSingapore). In 1973, the Institute ofEducation (IE) was established out ofthe TTC to train both graduate andnongraduate teachers on a full-timebasis and including a part-timeteaching cadetship scheme. In 1980,a full-time teacher-in-training schemewas implemented for all aspects ofteacher training.

In 1991, the Institute ofEducation and the College ofPhysical Education (set up in July1984 to train specialist teachers inphysical education) were merged toform the present National Instituteof Education as an autonomousinstitute of the NanyangTechnological University. Currently,NIE is the sole teacher-traininginstitution in Singapore whoseprimary role is the training of allteachers for Singapore local schools.All successful individuals who arehired by the MOE and do not havethe required pedagogical training are

expected to enroll in NIE for one ofthe teacher-education programs.

Even though NIE is autonomous(with its own council and director), itshares a symbiotic relationship withthe Ministry of Education. MOEhires the teachers, and NIE trainsthem. NIE works with MOE todefine academic qualificationstandards for hiring differentcategories of teachers and providesinput into the interview-selectionprocess. NIE faculty are invited to beinvolved in the numerous MOEcurriculum-review committees, andhelp make recommendations for anycurriculum changes and initiatives.Such curricular changes are reflectedin timely revisions to NIE’s teacherpreparation programs, so thatteachers are current in theirknowledge and qualified. This appliesboth to the training of new teachersand professional development forover 26,000 practicing teachers in theeducation system.

Due to this close relationshipwith the MOE, all teachers who havecompleted any one of the teacher-education programs offered by NIEautomatically are certified to teach inthe Singapore school system. NIEmaintains the professional teachingstandards that define whataccomplished teachers should knowand be able to do through its qualityprograms and stated outcomes.Therefore, individuals completing anNIE program do not have to takeadditional examinations and/or seekcertification through a teachingstandards board. Technically, MOEand NIE, in this interrelated system,act as the standards board.

Programs Offered by NIE to TrainTeachersNIE offers three different initialteaching-preparation programs tohelp individuals obtain a teachingqualification (or certification) to

enable him or her to teach in theSingapore school system. Theseprograms are:(a) Diploma in Education (Dip Ed)(b) Postgraduate Diploma in

Education (PGDE)(c) Bachelor of Arts/Science

(Education) (BA[Ed]/BSc[Ed])The diploma program is a

nondegree two-year program thatleads to the awarding of a diploma ineducation and is specifically designedfor nongraduate teachers. Generally,those trainee teachers withpolytechnic diplomas or the GCE A-level qualifications as well as thosedegree holders who do not meet therequirements for appointment asgraduate teachers (a minority) will besponsored for this program.

University graduates (i.e., degreeholders without teachingqualifications) are sponsored for theone-year post-graduate Diploma inEducation program7. This program isakin to the fifth-year program insome teacher-education programs inthe United States where individualshave the opportunity to apply theory(preservice content area) to practice(internship, field experiences, orpracticum) and obtain a teachingcredential. However, theseindividuals in Singapore do not earna master’s degree in teaching.

The four-year degree program isopen to all successful GCE A-levelholders who qualify for universityadmission8. These trainee teachersgenerally are appointed as graduateteachers while undergoing NIEtraining and upon completion oftraining, similar to those in thePGDE program (see above).

7 The Postgraduate Diploma in Education (PGDE) is aprofessional qualification for undergraduate degreeholders and is synonymous to the PostgraduateCertificate in Education (PGCE) found in England,Wales and Northern Ireland, or the PGDE inScotland.

8 Those individuals who fail to qualify for the BA[Ed]/BSc [Ed] program with their ‘A’ levelqualifications can still be hired by MOE asnongraduate teachers and sponsored for the Diplomain Education program at NIE.

All the teacher-educationprograms offered by NIE generallyoffer several main components ofstudy with the following approximatedistribution:(a) Education studies (20%)(b) Curriculum studies (50%)9

(c) Practicum (25%)(d) Language enhancement and

academic discourse skills (5%)In education studies, trainee

teachers learn the key concepts andprinciples of education that areessential for effective teaching andreflective practice in schools. Thesecourses also give the teachers theopportunity for in-depth study ofsome significant aspects of education.Curriculum studies modules aredesigned to provide teachers with thepedagogical skills to teach specificsubjects in schools. The practicum isthe internship (or field experience, orteaching practice) where traineeteachers spend a protracted amountof time in schools, ranging from oneto 10 weeks in duration, dependingon the program. During thepracticum, trainee teachers are givenopportunities to practice their craftunder the guidance of one or morecooperating teachers and universityfaculty. Finally, language-enhancement and academic-discourseskills provide teachers with the oraland written skills necessary foreffective communication as teachersin both classroom teaching and intheir professional interaction withothers.

Therefore, all those who enter theteaching profession in Singapore asqualified teachers will definitelypossess a professional qualification. Itwill either be the Bachelor of Arts(Education) or Bachelor of Science(Education) degree, PostgraduateDiploma in Education or theDiploma in Education. There isintegration and close links betweentheory and practice in all NIE

programs, and the curriculum studiesand practicum components accountfor 75% of all coursework within thecurriculum structure.

Data and Measures

The data presented in this chapterare derived from the EducationStatistics Digest 2006, published bythe Ministry of Education. Thepurpose of the Education StatisticsDigest is to provide basic statisticalinformation on education inSingapore. The statisticalinformation—which includes dataon schools, enrollment, teachers,educational outcomes and finances—gives a quantitative description of theeducation scene. These data werecompiled by the ManagementInformation and Research Branch,Planning Division, Ministry ofEducation and was published in July.

The specific statistics referred toin the 2005 and 2006 EducationStatistics Digests are: (a) secondaryenrollment statistics by age, level andcourse, (b) summary statistics of

teachers in schools, (c) teachers byacademic qualification, (d) vice-principals by academic qualification,and (e) principals by academicqualification.


Table 1 shows the summary ofstatistics on teachers in schools byqualification. In 2005, there were26,382 teachers (excluding vice-principals and principals) comprising18,620 graduates (70.6%) and 7,762nongraduates (29.4%). The Ministryof Education has been steadilyincreasing the number of teachers inthe workforce, but more importantlyis the rise in the number of top-quality scholar-teachers and graduateteachers as the ministry moves toupgrade the quality of the teachingprofession (Lee, 2006;Shanmugaratnam, 2006c). In 2004,there were 25,716 teachers(excluding vice-principals andprincipals), comprising only 17,267graduates (67.1%) and 8,449

Table 1Summary Statistics of Teachers in Schools, 2006.

Level/Type of School Qualification Teacher

Primary Graduate 5,827 (31.3%)Nongraduate 6,516 (83.9%)

Secondary Graduate 10,262 (55.1%)Nongraduate 1,233 (15.9%)

Junior College & Centralized Institutes Graduate 2,531 (13.6%)Nongraduate 13 (0.2%)

Overall Graduate 18,620 (70.6%)Nongraduate 7,762 (29.4%)

Total 26,382

9 In the diploma and degree programs, curriculum studies also include other courses that aim to cover and reinforcethe knowledge (concepts and principles) of different subject content in the school curriculum.

10 Education Statistics Digest 2006, Planning Division, Ministry of Education, 2006.

nongraduates (32.9%) (PlanningDivision, Ministry of Education,2005).

The majority (55.1%) ofgraduate teachers (N = 10,262) wereappointed to secondary schools,while 5,827 graduate teachers(31.3%) are in primary schools.However, another important point tonote is that the percentage ofgraduate teachers in the primaryschools also has increased from 2004.The Ministry of Education’s vision isnot only to increase the number ofgraduate teachers, but also toincreasingly appoint more of them tothe primary schools. As acomparison, in 2004 only 29.9% (N= 5,169) of graduate teachers wereplaced in the primary schools. Bycontrast, 83.9% of nongraduateteachers (N = 6516) taught inprimary schools, while slightly over16% of nongraduate teachers were insecondary schools, junior collegesand centralized institutes.

Levels of Qualifications of theCurrent Teaching Force inSingaporeTable 2 shows the percentage ofteachers (excluding vice-principalsand principals) in schools accordingto academic qualification and level ofschooling in Singapore. Unlike Table

1, where the teachers’ qualificationsare simply classified as eithergraduates or nongraduates, Table 2provides a more detailed breakdownof their academic qualifications, viz.,less than bachelor’s degree, bachelor’sdegree, master’s degree or higher.Such a breakdown helps to betterunderstand the qualifications of theteaching workforce in terms ofgraduate qualifications beyond theundergraduate level. As Singapore’steaching profession moves towards agraduate workforce, there is aconcomitant desire to encouragegraduate teachers to upgrade theircredentials with a master’s degree.

As shown in Tables 1 and 2, thedata indicate that in Singapore amajority of teachers have completeda college education (N = 18,620).However, what is surprising is thatdespite 70.6% of the teaching forcebeing graduates, only 5.3% (N =1,382) of graduate teachers teachingin primary, secondary and juniorcolleges/centralized institutes hold atleast a master’s degree or higher (seeTable 2).

Understandably, close to 60% ofthese teachers (N = 821) are insecondary schools due to the higherproportion of graduate teachers inthese schools. In years to come, thequality of Singapore’s teaching

workforce will no longer bedetermined by the number ofgraduate teachers (it is assumed thatwe will go almost completely to agraduate workforce) but by thenumber of graduates holding amaster’s degree or higher.

Despite the high percentage(83.9%) of teachers with less than abachelor’s degree (see Table 1) in theprimary schools, it is important tomention that all these (nongraduate)teachers have both ample pedagogicaltraining and primary schoolcurriculum content mastery, in theirteaching subjects, for example,English, Mathematics, Science andSocial Studies. The high mathematicsand science achievements ofSingapore fourth-grade students asreported in the Trends inMathematics and Science Study(TIMMS) since 1995 (Mullis,Martin, Gonzalez, & Chrostowski,2003) is testimony to the high levelof teaching competency of theirprimary school teachers.

In the secondary schools, most ofthe teachers with less than abachelor’s degree (N = 1,233) arethose who were certified to teachcurriculum areas like HomeEconomics, Mother TongueLanguages, Physical Education, Artand Music. It was only after 1985

Table 2Percentage of Teachers in Singapore by Academic Qualification by Level of Schools, 2006.11

Grade Level/ Less than Bachelor’s Master’s Degree or Total no. ofType of School Bachelor’s Degree Higher teachers by

Degree school type

Primary 52.8% (6,516) 45.5% (5,622) 1.7% (205) 12,343

Secondary 10.7% (1,233) 82.1% (9,441) 7.2% (821) 11,495

Junior College & Centralized Institute 0.5% (13) 85.5% (2,175) 14.0% (356) 2,544

Total no. of teachers by academic qualification 29.4% (7,762) 65.3% (17,238) 5.3% (1,382) 100.0% (26,382)


that NIE began developing degreeprograms in these areas. In fact, NIEwill be offering for the first time, adegree program to train HomeEconomics teachers for secondaryschools, in 2007.

Table 3 shows the percentages ofvice-principals and principals inschools according to academicqualification and level of schooling inSingapore in 2004 and 2005respectively.

From Table 3, every secondaryschool’s principal (N = 168) has atleast a bachelor’s degree. All vice-principals (N = 37) and principals (N= 70) with less than a bachelor’sdegree are found in the primaryschools, except for one vice-principalin a secondary school. Moreimportantly, the number of schoolleaders in primary schools with atleast a bachelor’s degree or higher (N= 247) have increased from 200413.This increase also is reflected in aconcomitant decrease in the numberof school leaders with less than abachelor’s degree (N = 107).

In 2004, there were a total ofonly 218 primary school leaders(vice-principals = 117; principals =

101) who had such qualifications ofat least a bachelor’s degree or higher.In 2005, that number increased to247 (vice-principals = 137; principals= 110), which is about a 13%increase. This increase is consistentwith the MOE strategy to upgradethe academic qualifications of theoverall teaching workforce, andnotably that of the school leadership.

What is most telling is that thenumber of vice-principals andprincipals with a master’s degree orhigher also have increased from ayear ago, where there were only atotal of 115 (vice-principals = 40;principals = 75) such individuals in2004 as compared with 184 (viceprincipals = 112; principals = 72) in2005. The greater increment is in thevice-principal category. It would notbe inconceivable in the near futurefor the Ministry of Education toexpect all school leaders across allschool types to have at least amaster’s degree.

Secondary-Grade-Level Teachers’Subject Qualifications and SubjectsTaught in SchoolDegree holders with training in the

fields of science, humanities andmathematics are strongly encouragedto teach at the secondary-schoollevel. And trainee teachersspecializing in secondary-schoolteaching in the PGDE program atNIE will be assigned to study twocurriculum areas by the MOE. It ispreferable that students major in twosubject-matter areas in university. Fora subject matter to be considered asthe student’s main or first area ofinstruction, it must have been read asa major up to the third year of thestudent’s university-degree program.For the second curriculum area, thestudent must have read the subject inthe first year or have taken at leasttwo relevant courses in any of thethree years at university.

Table 4 shows the varioussecondary-school subject areas thatcorrespond to the (training) subjectsoffered by the universities and thecurriculum studies assigned toteachers in NIE.

Table 3Percentage of Vice-Principals and Principals in Singapore by Academic Qualification by Level of Schools, 2006.12

Grade Level/ Less than Bachelor’s Master’s Degree or Total no. Type of School Bachelor’s Degree Higher of principals/VPs

Degree by school type

PrimaryVice-Principal 21.3% (37) 56.9% (99) 21.8% (38) 174Principal 38.9% (70) 35.6% (64) 25.5% (46) 180

SecondaryVice-Principal 0.5% (1) 40.5% (77) 59.0% (112) 190Principal - 57.1% (96) 42.9% (72) 168

Junior College & Centralized InstituteVice-Principal - 72.0% (18) 28.0% (7) 25Principal - 58.8% (10) 41.2% (7) 17

Total no. of principals/VPs by academic qualification 14.3% (108) 48.3% (364) 37.4% (282) 754


13 The data from Education Statistics Digest 2004,Planning Division, Ministry of Education, 2005 hassince been updated with the current EducationStatistics Digest 2006 in the MOE website.

Table 4Matching Teaching Subjects (Fields) with Subjects (Majors) offered by Universities and Curriculum Studies Assigned in NIE

Teaching Subjects (Fields) Subjects (Majors) offered by Universities Curriculum Studies at NIE

English Language Communication Studies EnglishEnglish LanguageEnglish LiteratureGeographyHistoryLawTheatre Studies

Mathematics Applied Mathematics MathematicsGeneral MathematicsMathematicsMathematics with Management ScienceChemical EngineeringCivil and Structural EngineeringComputer EngineeringElectrical & Electronic EngineeringEnvironment EngineeringIndustrial and Systems EngineeringMaterials EngineeringMechanical & Production Engineering

Science

Biology Biology BiologyBiochemistryBiological ScienceBotanyLife SciencesMedicineMicrobiologyPharmacyPhysiologyZoology

Chemistry Biochemistry ChemistryChemistryChemistry with ManagementMedicinePharmacyChemical EngineeringMaterials Engineering and/or Science

Physics Applied Physics PhysicsBiological SciencePhysicsPhysics in TechnologyCivil EngineeringElectrical & Electronic EngineeringMaterials Engineering and/or ScienceMechanical & Production Engineering

Social StudiesEconomics Economics EconomicsGeography Geography GeographyHistory History History

Table 5 summarizes the numberof secondary-school teachers who aretrained to teach the various subjectsas their first or second teachingsubjects. It is to be noted thatteachers who graduate from NIE arecentrally deployed to schools by theMOE. In the deployment of teachersto schools, the MOE takes intoaccount the subject vacancies in theschools and deploys teachers whohave been trained in the relevantsubjects, be it their first or secondteaching subject, to match thesevacancies.

Issues of Out-of-FieldTeaching and UnderqualifiedTeachers

There generally is a call worldwide toensure that a nation’s school system isstaffed by talented and qualifiedteachers. In response, many countrieshave implemented different strategiesto recruit the best and train enoughteachers to meet their needs. Thesedifferent programs and initiativesinclude, but are not limited to, thefollowing: (a) more stringentlicensing standards, (b) higheradmission academic criteria forteacher-education programs, (c)diverse alternative-certificationprograms, (d) challenging careerprospects and financial incentives formidcareer professionals from otherfields to enter teaching, and (e)retention benefits to encourageteachers to stay in the profession, orreturn to teaching after retirement oron a part-time basis (Ingersoll, 2003;Shanmugaratnam, 2006a).

The challenge to recruiting moregood teachers for every school is notjust in terms of numbers. ForSingapore the challenge is to supportteachers already in the classroom andto inject more quality into education.One strategy is to improve pupil-

teacher ratios, which already hasresulted in implementation of 20students per class for Primary 1schools since 2005 and for Primary 2classes beginning in 2006. Also, withmore teachers in every school,teachers have expanded opportunitiesto reflect on their teaching, to planand make lessons more interesting, tospend quality time with theirstudents (both in and out of class),and to participate in professionallearning and sharing (Lee, 2006).However, schools still have problemswith underqualified teachers andpoor-quality teaching even thoughthere are numerous highly trainedteachers in each school. The issue hasto do with out-of-field teaching.

Out-of-field teaching is definedas “teachers assigned to teach subjectsfor which they have little educationor training” (Ingersoll, 2004, p. 46).Ingersoll (2004) argues that thisphenomenon is due to a complexinterplay of factors that affect howschools are organized and howteachers are recruited and deployedin schools. His premise is that out-of-field teaching is a viable strategyemployed by school administrators tohelp balance between specificorganizational demands and resourceconstraints experienced by schools.

As mentioned earlier, variousadministrative practices and policiesof recruitment, training, anddeployment of teachers in the

Singapore school system are closelyinterrelated and managed centrally bythe Ministry of Education. For thisreason, out-of-field teaching is notconsidered a significant cause ofunderqualified and poor-qualityteaching by the authors of this paper.The next few sections of this paperwill briefly explain the reasons forthis assertion.

First, the Ministry of Educationrecruits teachers for the whole schoolsystem based on yearly estimates ofneeds provided by principals andMOE’s own forecasting andplanning. The planning is based onstatistical trends as well as actualinformation received from teachers,with the result that the ministry canestimate the numbers of teacherswho might resign after serving theirteaching bond (see section on“Academic Qualifications Requiredto Become Teachers’ above) or whomight resign in the following yearupon reaching retirement age. Thisplanning enables the MOE to hireteachers in its twice-yearlyrecruitment campaign to fill theseanticipated “shortages.”Furthermore, Singapore follows acentrally defined, but locallyimplemented, curriculum withineach of the three secondary-schoolstreams (or course of study). Withwell-established curriculumguidelines, student enrollment inspecific subject classes are

Table 5Summary Statistics on Teaching Subjects of Secondary School Teachers, 2005.14

Teaching Subjects (Fields) First teaching subject Second teaching subject

English Language 1,745 1,675

Mathematics 1,618 2,068

Science 1,115 762

Social Studies 1,414 776

14 Personnel Division, Ministry of Education, 2005.

predetermined and do not changedramatically across academicsemesters or grade levels15. Thispredictability has implications foryearly staffing decisions by the MOEand allows it to plan and coordinateteacher recruitment and deployment.

Second, the issue of qualifiedteachers has been addressed by thesystem in that the ministry hires bothgraduate and nongraduate teachersand sponsors their training at NIE.Graduate teachers with acceptableacademic majors (or teachingsubjects) will be provided withpedagogical training. Fornongraduate teachers, both contentknowledge and pedagogy courseworkare addressed in their programs. Assuch, all teachers graduating fromNIE programs are qualified to teach,both in core content areas andpedagogical practices. Since NIEworks closely with the MOE inestablishing the required standards,the qualifications of Singaporeteachers are seldom questioned.

Third (though closely related tothe second reason), all teachers,regardless of what position they arehired to fill, are trained to teach intwo curriculum areas16 in theirrespective NIE programs. Thisstrategy gives school administratorsgreater flexibility and capacity todeploy their teachers appropriately.Generally, administrators consultwith their teachers about the specificsubject they prefer to teach. Thisallows a better fit between teacherpreparation at NIE and the actualteaching assignments in schools. If aschool has out-of-field teaching inone or more of the subjects, thissituation usually will last no longerthan six months, as will be explainedin the next paragraph.

Fourth, the ministry attempts tomake staffing decisions—bothappointment and deployment—based on expected student

enrollment and feedback provided byprincipals at the end and middle ofeach year. Since NIE graduates twocohorts of teachers, in November andin May, the ministry can deploy theseteachers to schools by January and byJune17. So, if a school faces anyshortage due to sudden resignations,anticipated maternity leave, approvedprofessional-development leave orunexpected out-of-field teaching,such situations can be corrected oralleviated within six months.Furthermore, teachers are allowed toseek deployment to other schoolswhere there are shortages and wheretheir content and teaching expertiseare required. And schools can activelyseek out appropriate staff to help fillopenings. Such yearly movement ofteachers helps the whole system tobalance itself and reach a state ofequilibrium in the levels of teachersupply and demand.

Schools in Singapore are fundedby the Ministry of Education andgenerally schools have their teachersappointed by the ministry18. Theresult is that there is only limitedcompetition for teachers acrossschools and no real shortage ofteachers. If the ministry launches anew curriculum or initiative, theministry will meet those new needsby the allocation of sufficient funds,resources and increased recruitmentand appointment of teaching staff, ashas been done in recent years.Furthermore, in its staffing plans anddecisions, the ministry takes intoconsideration such factors asassignment guidelines (i.e., numberof teaching periods per week), classsize, student enrollment, teacherresignations, etc. The result is thatout-of-field teaching is notconsidered a major cause ofunderqualified teacher placement inSingapore.

Conclusions and Implications

The purpose of this paper is todescribe the process of recruitmentand training the teachers for theSingapore education system. Thecandidates are recruited by theMinistry of Education based on a setof criteria developed in closeconsultation with the NIE, which isto date the sole teacher traininginstitute in Singapore. Depending onthe entry qualifications of thecandidate, one can be trained to eachat the primary or secondary level. Toteach at the primary level, one neednot have an undergraduate degree.But to teach at the secondary level,one must have at least anundergraduate degree in a particulardiscipline. All candidates accepted bythe Ministry will be sent to NIE fortraining before they can be appointedto the education service. However, asdiscussed in this paper, the vision ofthe Ministry of Education is toincrease the number of graduateteachers in its workforce, especially,by increasingly appointing more ofthem to the primary schools. Fromthe figures quoted, with only less that30% of the current teachingworkforce having less than abachelor’s degree, this vision wouldbecome a reality in the not toodistant future.

With regards to the issues ofunderqualified teachers and out-of-field teaching, they are notconsidered problems in the Singapore

15 Student enrollment and teacher numbers remainquite consistent within each school and do not fluctu-ate drastically from year to year because of the stan-dardized national curriculum.16 Teachers in Singapore teach particular subjects, likemathematics, rather than courses such as algebra ortrigonometry. As such, mathematics teachers are quali-fied to teach all topics within the field of mathematics.17 The Singapore school academic year runs fromJanuary to May (semester 1) and from July toNovember (semester 2). Therefore, graduating teachersfrom NIE are deployed to schools at the beginningand middle of the year for each new semester. 18 Independent schools have the autonomy to “hire andfire” their own teachers, and to set their own schoolfees.

context. This is because the variousadministrative practices and policiesof recruitment, training, anddeployment of teachers in theSingapore school system are closelyinterrelated and managed centrally bythe Ministry of Education. Forexample, NIE works closely with theMOE in establishing the requiredstandards of subject content andpedagogy expected of teachersgraduating from NIE. As a result theissue of underqualified teachers doesnot exist. And since MOE overseesall the schools in Singapore, it has agood overview of where the surplusesand shortages are. This helps it toefficiently redeploy teachers toschools that need their expertise,hence eliminating the issue of out-of-field teaching effectively.

In conclusion, it would not beincorrect to say that the Singaporeteaching force is a well qualified onethat serves the Singapore educationsystem well.

ReferencesChen, P. (2000). Speech by PeterChen, Senior Minister of State forEducation, at the First Symposiumon Teaching and Learning in HigherEducation on July 6, 2000. RetrievedFebruary 20, 2007, fromhttp://www.moe.gov.sg/speeches/2000/sp06072000.htm

Goh, C. T. (1997). Shaping ourfuture: Thinking schools, learningnation, Speech by Prime MinisterGoh Chok Tong at the Opening ofthe 7th International Conference onThinking on June 2, 1997, at theSuntec City. Retrieved February 20,2007, fromhttp://www.moe.gov.sg/speeches/1997/020697.htm

Goh, K. C., & Chang, A. (2002).Teachers and teacher education inSingapore. In Teachers and teachereducation in Southeast Asian countries(pp. 292-325). Bangkok, Thailand:SEAMEO-RIHED.

Gopinathan, S. (1999). Preparing forthe next rung: Economicrestructuring and educational reformin Singapore. Journal of Educationand Work, 12(3), 295-308.

Ingersoll, R. (2003). Out-of-fieldteaching and the limits of teacherpolicy. Seattle, WA: Center for theStudy of Teaching and Policy,University of Washington.

Ingersoll, R. (2004). Why someschools have more underqualifiedteachers than others. In D. Ravitch(Ed.), Brookings papers on educationpolicy 2004 (pp. 45-88). Washington,DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Lee, H. L. (2006). Speech by LeeHsien Loong, Prime Minister, at theTeachers’ Day Rally 2006 on August31, 2006. Retrieved February 20,2007, fromhttp://www.moe.gov.sg/speeches/2006/sp20060831.htm

Lee, Y. S. (1996). Speech by Mr. LeeYock Suan, Minister for Education,at the Promotion Ceremony andLaunch of the Education ServiceMission Statement on October 28,1996. Retrieved February 20, 2007,fromhttp://www.moe.gov.sg/press/1996/st00396.htm

Ministry of Education (MOE)(1999). MOE’s Addendum to thePresident’s Address. RetrievedFebruary 20, 2007, fromhttp://www.moe.gov.sg/speeches/1999/sp081099.htm

Mullis, I.V., Martin, M.O.,Gonzalez, E.J., & Chrostowski, S.J.(2003). TIMMS 2003 internationalmathematics and science reports.Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMMS &PIRLS International Study Center,Lynch School of Education, BostonCollege.

Planning Division, Ministry ofEducation (2006). EducationStatistics Digest 2006. RetrievedFebruary 20, 2007, fromhttp://www.moe.gov.sg/esd/Default.htm

Shanmugaratnam, T. (2003). Speechby Tharman Shanmugaratnam,Acting Minister for Education, at theMOE Work Plan Seminar 2003 atNgee Ann Polytechnic on October 2,2003. Retrieved February 20, 2007,fromhttp://www.moe.gov.sg/speeches/2003/sp20031002.htm

Shanmugaratnam, T. (2004). Speechby Tharman Shanmugaratnam,Minister for Education, at the MOEWork Plan Seminar 2004 at NgeeAnn Polytechnic on September 29,2004. Retrieved February 20, 2007,fromhttp://www.moe.gov.sg/speeches/2004/sp20040929.htm

Shanmugaratnam, T. (2006a).Speech by TharmanShanmugaratnam, Minister forEducation and 2nd Minister forFinance, at the Teachers’ MassLecture 2006 at the Singapore Expoon September 4, 2006. RetrievedFebruary 20, 2007, fromhttp://www.moe.gov.sg/speeches/2006/sp20060904.htm

Shanmugaratnam, T. (2006b).Speech by TharmanShanmugaratnam, Minister forEducation and 2nd Minister forFinance, at the MOE NE Forum forPrincipals at the MOE Edutoriumon August 24, 2006. RetrievedFebruary 20, 2007, fromhttp://www.moe.gov.sg/speeches/2006/sp20060824.htm

Shanmugaratnam, T. (2006c). Speechby Tharman Shanmugaratnam,Minister for Education, at the 2006Teaching Scholarship PresentationCeremony at the Suntec SingaporeInternational Convention &Exhibition Centre on August 4,2006. Retrieved February 20, 2007,fromhttp://www.moe.gov.sg/speeches/2006/sp20060804.htm

Sharpe, L., & Gopinathan, S.(2002). After effectiveness: Newdirections in the Singapore schoolsystem? Journal of Education Policy,17(2), 151-166.

Teo, C. H. (1998). Ministerialstatement by Radm (NS) Teo CheeHean, Minister for Education, at theBudget Debate on March 19, 1998.Retrieved February 20, 2007, fromhttp://www.moe.gov.sg/speeches/1998/190398.htm

Teo, C. H. (1999). Ministerialstatement by Radm (NS) Teo CheeHean, Minister for Education & 2ndMinister for Defense, at theCommittee of Supply Debate, FiscalYear 1999 in Parliament on March17, 1999. Retrieved February 20,2007, fromhttp://www.moe.gov.sg/speeches/1999/sp170399.htm

Teo, C. H. (2000). Speech by Radm(NS) Teo Chee Hean, Minister forEducation & 2nd Minister forDefense, at the 2nd TeachingScholarship Presentation Ceremonyon July 15, 2000. RetrievedFebruary 20, 2007, fromhttp://www.moe.gov.sg/speeches/2000/sp15072000a.htm

Teo, C. H. (2001). Making an abilitydriven education happen, Ministry ofEducation Committee of SupplyDebate Fiscal Year 2001, Minister’sFirst Reply on Schools on March 15,2001. Retrieved February 20, 2007,fromhttp://www.moe.gov.sg/speeches/2001/sp15032001.htm

Introduction

The modern education system stemsfrom the reforms established by the1999 Education Act which put inplace administrative structures,decentralization and a learnercentered focus around the reformprocess (Figure 1). This system isbased on nine years of compulsoryeducation (enacted in 2003) with 12years of free basic educationguaranteed by the constitution. Alltypes of education can be provided—by educational institutions and alsoby learning centers organized byindividuals, families, communities,private groups, local administrationorganizations, professional bodies,religious institutions, welfareinstitutes, and other socialinstitutions (Ministry of Education,2006; Office of the EducationCouncil, 2006)

Formal Education Formal education services areprovided mainly to those within theschool system, and are divided intobasic and higher education. 1. Basic Education

Basic education is provided byearly childhood developmentinstitutions, schools, and learningcenters, and covers pre-primary

education, six years of primary, threeyears of lower secondary, and 3 yearsof upper secondary education.

Over 74% of 3- to 6-year-oldchildren totaling just over 1.8 millionstudents receive early childhoodeducation. Whereas the majority ofservices are provided as part of thegovernment primary schools, theMinistry of Education has activelyencouraged private schools and localgovernments to take a more activerole. As a result, there has been asignificant private-sector expansion,particularly in metropolitan Bangkokwhere it comprises 59% of totalprovision, against the nationalaverage of 28%.

By 2005, gross enrollment ratesfor basic education reached 104% forprimary education (5.8 millionstudents), 95% for lower-secondaryeducation (2.7 million students), and64% for upper-secondary education(1.7 million students dividedbetween 1 million in generaleducation and 700,000 in vocationaleducation). 2. Higher Education

Higher education at the diploma,associate, and degree levels areprovided in universities, institutes,colleges and other types ofinstitutions.

Nonformal Education Nonformal education services are

provided by both public and privatebodies. Services provided by theOffice of the Nonformal EducationCommission primarily target thoseoutside the school system, i.e. infantsand pre-school children, the school-age population who have missed outon formal schooling, and the over-school-age population. Currently,services have been expanded to coverspecific target groups, includingprison inmates, the labor force, thedisabled, conscripts, agriculturists,the aged, hill tribe people, localleaders, slum dwellers, Thai Muslims,religious practitioners, those havingno opportunity to further theirstudies in formal schooling aftercompulsory education, Thai peoplein foreign countries, and otherspecial groups.

Informal Education Informal education enables learnersto learn independently in line withtheir interests, potential, readiness,and the opportunities available fromindividuals, society, environment, themedia, and other sources ofknowledge.

CHAPTER 7The Qualifications of the TeachingForce in Thailand Pruet Siribanpitak Chulalongkorn University AndSiriporn BoonyanantaOffice of the Education Council

Educational Administrationand Management

Carried out in accordance withthe 1999 National Education Actand the 2002 Bureaucratic ReformBill, the major reform of educationaladministration and management hasbeen the merging of three agencies –consisting of the Ministry ofEducation, the Ministry ofUniversity Affairs and the Office of the National EducationCommission – into a single Ministryof Education (Office of the

Education Council, 2006). The Ministry of Education is

responsible for promoting andoverseeing all levels and types ofeducation under the administrationof the state. However, localeducation administration is under thesupervision of the Ministry ofInterior. In addition, other ministriesundertake management of educationin specialized fields or for specificpurposes (Figure 2).

Education administration andmanagement in Thailand is classified

into three categories (Office of theEducation Council, 2006):

Administration and Managementof Education by the State

Education in Thailand isadministered and managed by thegovernment through central agencies,through educational service areas,and by educational institutions.

In accordance with amendmentsof the National Education Act, theMinistry of Education is responsiblefor promoting and overseeing all

Figure 1The Thai Education System, 2006.1

1 Ministry of Education, 2006.

levels and types of education;formulation of policies, plans andstandards; mobilization of resourcesfor education; promotion andcoordination in religious affairs, arts,culture, and sports relating toeducation; as well as the monitoring,inspection, and evaluation ofeducational provisions.Administration and management atthe central level is under theresponsibility of five main bodies: theOffice of the Permanent Secretary;the Office of the Education Council(OEC); the Office of the BasicEducation Commission; the Officeof the Vocational EducationCommission; and the Office of theHigher Education Commission.

In conformity with a directive todecentralize authority for educationaladministration, the Basic EducationCommission has established 175educational service areas in 76provinces, with 172 areas in theprovinces and the remaining three in

Bangkok. Each educational servicearea comprises an Area Committeefor Education, with its officeresponsible for approximately 200educational institutions and a studentpopulation of 300,000 to 500,000.

Educational administration andmanagement in educationalinstitutions can be divided into twocategories, basic education andhigher education.

Following the decentralization ofauthority carried out by the Ministryof Education, administration andmanagement relating to academicmatters, budgets, personnel, andgeneral administration are now theresponsibility of the institutionsthemselves. Oversight is through a7-15 member board consisting ofrepresentatives of parents, teachers,community groups, localadministration organizations, alumni,and academicians.

To improve the quality of highereducation, state universities are

moving toward transformation tostate-supervised institutions orautonomous universities thatfunction as legal entities. The newstructure will enable each institutionto develop its own administrationand management system with greaterflexibility and academic freedomunder the supervision of aninstitutional council empowered byits own Act.

Administration and Management ofEducation by Local AdministrationOrganizations

In accordance with the NationalEducation Act, local administrationorganizations can provide educationservices at any or all levelscommensurate with their readiness,suitability, and the requirements ofthe local area. The Ministry ofEducation prescribes criteria andprocedures for assessing readiness toprovide education services, and assistsin enhancing their capability in linewith the policies and requiredstandards. Additionally, the Ministryadvises on the budgetary allocationsprovided by local administrationorganizations.

Administration and Management ofEducation by the Private Sector

The state is responsible foroverseeing administration andmanagement as well as formonitoring the quality and standardsof private educational institutions,both those that provide generaleducation and those offeringvocational education. At present,most private institutions are for-profit schools, with a few prestigiousinstitutions managed by Christiandenominations.

Teachers’ Salary StructureWhen individuals join the teachingservice, they are placed on salary

Figure 2Educational Administration and Management Structure, 2006.2

2 Office of the Education Council, 2006.

scales that correspond to theirqualifications and prior experienceand the civil service salary structure.The base level salary for teachers witha four-year bachelor’s degree is 7,630baht (190 US$) and for those with amaster’s degree is 9,320 baht (233US$) whereas other professionalssuch as doctors and engineers earnabout 30,000-50,000 baht (750-1,250 US$).

According to the Teachers andEducational Personnel Act of B.E.2546 (2003) there is a six-scaleteacher classification frameworkbased on academic status for a newsalary structure. The classificationranges from assistant teachers,teachers, experienced teachers, higherexperienced teachers, and expertteachers, to specialized teachers. Theentry requirement for assistantteachers is either a five-year or 4+1year of post secondary pre-serviceteacher training. An assistant teachersalary is 8,360 baht (209 US$), and ateacher’s salary is 11,470 baht (287US$). Teachers who get promoted toa higher level of academic status

based on performance will get anextra monthly allowance. The scalesof the additional allowance are 3,500baht (88 US$), 5,600 baht (140US$), 9,900 baht (248 US$), and13,000 baht (325 US$) forexperienced teachers, higherexperienced teachers, expert teachers,and specialized teachers respectively.(See Table 1)

By this new framework theteacher will earn a higher monthlysalary when compared with theprevious one. (See Table 2) The aimis not only to attract talented highschool students into pre-serviceteacher training programs but also to

attract talented graduates into theprofession.


Teacher preparation in Thailand hasalways been the responsibility ofgovernment teacher-traininginstitutes. In 2006, there were 56faculties of education in 56 stateuniversities throughout the country,40 of them at Rajabhat universities.An entrance examination is requiredfor all pre-service teacher educationprograms. Prior to 2005, entrants to

Table 1New Teacher Classification Framework, 2004.3

Position Academic Status Monthly Salaries Extra Monthly Beginning Highest Allowance

1. Assistant Teacher - 8,360 B|(209 US$) - -

2. Teacher - 11,470 B|(287 US$) - -

2.1 Experienced Teacher 14,810 B| 32,250 B| 3,500 B|(370 US$) (806 US$) (88 US$)

2.2 Higher Experienced Teacher 18,180 B| 45,620 B| 5,600 B|(455 US$) (1,141 US$) (140 US$)

2.3 Expert Teacher 22,230 B| 48,600 B| 9,900 B|(556 US$) (1,215 US$) (248 US$)

2.4 Specialized Teacher 27, 450 B| 61,860 B| 13,000 B|(686 US$) (1,547 US$) (325 US$)

3 The Ministry of Education, 2006; OBEC, 2004.

Table 2Previous Teacher Classification Framework4

Position Salary Scales Monthly Salaries(Baht)

1. Teacher (Level 1) 1-3 4,230-13,5502. Teacher (Level 2) 2-4 5,050-16,6503. Instructor (Level 1) 3-5 6,210-20,3404. Instructor (Level 2) 5-6 (7)* 9,320-25,180 (30,710)*5. Instructor (Level 3) 6-8 (9)* 11,450-43,440 (46,280)*

4 The Ministry of Education, 2006; OBEC, 2004.a. *The salary scale and monthly salary will be upgraded to a higher scale according to the teacher’s academic per-formance.

teaching jobs had to complete a four-year baccalaureate-degree program.Since 2005, all teachers must obtaina teaching license(1) signifyingprofessional training (Teacher andEducational Personnel Act, 2003).This requires completion of a five-year bachelor’s degree in teachereducation. College graduates whocomplete a bachelor’s degree in fieldsother than education must completea one-year post-baccalaureatediploma in teacher training to obtaina teaching license. However, both thefive-year undergraduate-degree andone-year post-graduate diploma

programs must meet the standards ofprofessional knowledge andexperience set by the Teachers’Council (2006). The minimum is 30credits in general education courses,50 credits in pedagogy courses, 74credits in subject-matter courses, andsix credits of elective courses plus oneyear of student teaching(2) orprofessional practice for the five-yearbachelor’s degree program. Theminimum is 24 credits in pedagogycourse plus one year of studentteaching for the one-year graduatediploma program.

Data and Measures

The data presented in this chapterare divided into two parts, the firstpart comes from the Office of BasicEducation Commission, academicyear 2004 (See Table 3), and thesecond part of data comes from theschool survey conducted by theOffice of the Education Council(OEC), Ministry of Education (SeeTable 4-5).

Note(1)According to the regulations of the Teachers’Council, teachers shall be required to renew theirlicense every five years with certain evaluation criteria.(2)Prior to 2005, the requirement was one semester ofstudent teaching.

Table 3PERCENTAGE and NUMBER of Elementary and Secondary School Teachers in Thailand by Highest Degree Earned, andTypes of School, ( Academic Year) 2004.5

Type of School Highest Degree EarnedLess than Bachelor’s Master’s Degree Total

Bachelor’s Degree Degree or Higher

Total 5 91 4 100(23,827) (427,037) (19,632) (470,496)

Public Schools 4 92 4 100(16,843) (384,358) (17,679) (418,880)

• Poverty EnrollmentLow - - - -High - - - -

• Community TypeUrban 4 92 4 100

(6,260) (147,112) (6,942) (160,314)Suburban & Rural 4 92 4 100

(9,246) (204,754) (9,455) (223,445)Other 4 92 4 100

(1,337) (32,492) (1,292) (35,121)• Grade Level

Elementary* 8 88 4 100(24,890) (285,992) (12,606) (323,488)

Secondary 2 65 33 100(2,579) (80,248) (40,802) (123,629)

Private Schools 13 83 4 100(6,984) (42,679) (1,935) (51,598)

• Grade LevelElementary 16 81 3 100

(6,253) (31,985) (1,935) (39,289)Secondary 6 87 7 100

(731) (10,694) (884) (12,309)

5 Definitions: a. Elementary grade level refers to kindergarten to grade 6.b. Secondary grade level refers to grades 7-12.c. Private schools refer to those that are neither primarily funded nor administered by the local or central government.d. Other community type refers to the whole province in those small provinces with only one school district.* Includes those teachers who teach lower secondary school classes in elementary schools.


The data in Table 3 showed that inthe year 2004 most Thai elementaryand secondary school teachers hadcompleted undergraduate study.Ninety-one percent completed abachelor’s degree, 5% held less than abachelor’s degree and 4% held amaster’s degree or higher. There werepronounced differences amongpublic schools and private schools.The data also showed that studentsin private schools had less access toqualified teachers. For example, 92%of public school teachers completed abachelors’ degree as opposed to 83%of private school teachers while 4%of public school teachers held lessthan bachelor’s degree as opposed to13% of private school teachers.Moreover, about 33% of publicsecondary school teachers held amaster’s degree or higher comparedwith 7% of private secondary-schoolteachers.

The data also revealed similarqualifications of teachers amongcommunity types. On the otherhand, there is no difference betweensuburban and urban schools in thepercentage of teachers with degrees.For example, about 92% of teachersin urban, suburban and rural areasheld a bachelor’s degree and about4% held a master’s degree or higher.These phenomena represent equalityin the qualifications of teachersamong 176 educational service areasin Thailand.

Furthermore, there are differencesin the qualifications of teachersbetween grade levels in publicschools. For example, about 33% ofsecondary school teachers havecompleted a master’s degree or higheras opposed to 4% of elementaryschool teachers.

Table 4PERCENTAGE of Secondary Grade Level Teachers in Thailand in the CoreAcademic Fields Without an Undergraduate or Graduate Major or Minor in theField, by Types of School, (Academic Year) 2004.6

Type of School NativeLanguage Math Science Social Foreign

studies/ Language(Thai) Religion/ ( English)

Culture

Total 21 24 13 24 16

Public Schools 22 24 14 25 16Community Type

Urban 21 23 13 24 16Suburban & Rural 22 23 14 25 17Other 27 28 16 26 15

Grade LevelLower Secondary 27 31 19 31 23Upper Secondary 7 6 5 10 4

Private Schools 16 24 8 16 16Grade Level

Lower Secondary 17 28 10 19 18Upper Secondary 12 13 4 8 11

Table 5PERCENTAGE of Secondary Grade Level Teachers in Thailand in the CoreAcademic Fields Without an Undergraduate or Graduate Major in the Field, byTypes of School, (Academic Year) 2004.7

Type of School NativeLanguage Math Science Social Foreign

studies/ Language(Thai) Religion/ ( English)

Culture

Total 24 26 15 26 20Public Schools 24 26 15 26 20

Community TypeUrban 24 26 14 26 19Suburban & Rural 24 26 15 27 20Other 29 31 16 28 18

Grade LevelLower Secondary 30 34 20 33 26Upper Secondary 9 8 7 13 7

Private Schools 20 26 10 18 17Grade Level

Lower Secondary 21 31 11 21 19Upper Secondary 15 15 8 11 11

6 Definitions: a. The data of public schools were collected from 64 percent of the Educational Service Area Office (175

offices).b. “Other” community type refers to the whole province in those small provinces with only one school district.c. The data of private schools were collected from 37 percent of the Educational Service Area Office (98

offices).

7 Definitions: a. The data of public schools were collected from 64 percent of the Educational Service Area Office (175

offices).b. “Other” community type refers to the whole province in those small provinces with only one school district.c. The data of private schools were collected from 37 percent of the Educational Service Area Office (98

offices).


The critical problem facing educationand teachers in Thailand is twofold:the lack of fit between teacherpreparation and class assignments,and the lack of teachers in core areas.This is the result of the practice ofout-of-field teaching – where teacherseducated and trained in one field ofstudy are assigned by schooladministrators to teach classes inanother field of study.

As mentioned earlier, the data inTable 4 and 5 show the measurementof the out-of-field teaching atsecondary level among the differenttypes of school; school sectors,community types, and grade levels.Table 4 shows the percentage ofteachers without an undergraduate orgraduate major or minor in the field.Table 5 shows percentage of teacherswithout an undergraduate orgraduate major in the field.

Each table indicates that there aremany teachers assigned to teachclasses in fields that do not matchtheir educational background. Thedata in Table 4 show that 24% ofteacher who teach mathematics andsocial studies classes have neither amajor nor a minor in mathematics orsocial studies, or related disciplines.These problems extend to otherclasses even Thai language classes,where about 21% of all thoseteaching Thai language classes haveneither a major nor a minor in Thai.

The data reveal less differencebetween community types. Forexample, 24% of secondary teacherswho teach social studies classes inurban schools have neither a majornor a minor in social studies opposedto 25% of those who teach socialstudies classes in suburban and ruralschools. In a piece of controversy,there is more difference among gradelevels, teachers who teach at thelower-secondary level have been

assigned to teach classes in fields thatdo not match their educationalbackground more than those whoteach at the upper-secondary level.For example, in public schools, 31%of teachers who teach mathematicsclasses at the lower- secondary levelhave neither a major nor a minor inmathematics or related disciplines, asopposed to 10% of teachers whoteach at the upper-secondary level.Finally, in private schools, 28% ofteachers who teach mathematicsclasses at the upper-secondary levelhave neither a major nor a minor inmathematics, or related disciplines asopposed to 13% of teachers whoteach at the upper-secondary level.

Concerning teachers who teachwithout an undergraduate orgraduate major in the field, there areincreasing percentages of teacherswho teach without an undergraduateor graduate major in the field. Thismeans that many teachers inThailand are assigned to teach out oftheir major. For example, 26% ofteachers teach social studies classesand mathematics classes without anundergraduate or graduate major inthe field..

One source of variation in out-of-field teaching is school type.Public schools have higher levels ofout-of-field teaching than do privateschools in the subjects of socialstudies, Thai language, sciences, andEnglish language, but there are notdifferences in mathematics.

Out-of-field teaching also variesby grade level, with both public andprivate schools having greatdifferences in out-of-field teachingbetween lower-secondary and upper-secondary levels. The percentages ofteachers who teach without anundergraduate or graduate major inthe field at lower-secondary level ishigher than those at the upper-secondary level. For example, inpublic schools, the data show 34% of

teachers who teach mathematics atthe lower-secondary level without anundergraduate or graduate major inmathematics, or related disciplines,compared with 8% in upper-secondary. Finally, in private schools,31% of teachers who teachmathematics classes at lower-secondary level as opposed to 15% ofthose who teach at upper- secondarylevel are without an undergraduate orgraduate major in mathematics, orrelated disciplines.


The implementation of educationalreform to promote quality involvesall sectors of society. In movingtowards the success of the reformalong the lines stipulated by the 1999National Education Act, the mosteffective strategies involve buildingpartnerships and networks andencouraging people’s participation.Through a lifelong process, the newculture of learning will lead to thedevelopment of learners in allaspects—physical, mental oremotional, social and intellectual,thus paving the way for thetransformation of Thai society into alearning one. Qualified teachers aremeaningful and necessary for theeducational reform to be successful.There are a lot of reasons whyunderqualified teachers pose the mostimportant problem needing asolution.

One possible source of theproblem is the standards themselves.The depth, breadth and rigor ofcollege or university teacherpreparation programs andcertification standards have long beenthe target of critics. In this case,remedies include reformation of statelicensing requirements andinstitutional preparation programs.

Another source of the problem is

the failure of teachers to meet thestandards because of deficits in theirpreparation or education. Fallinginto this category are those withoutcollege degrees and those withoutany teaching license.

Even another source ofunderqualified teaching arises in howteachers are utilized once on thejob—the problem of out-of-fieldteaching. Remedies to thesemismatches should include reformingthe way teachers are managed andassigned in schools.

Most researchers andcommentators assume that the sourceof the problem of underqualifiedteachers lies primarily in the first twoinadequacies, either in the standardsor in the credentials of the teachingcandidates. Consistent with thisperspective, the dominant policyresponses have been in attempting toupgrade the quality of teachersthrough more rigorous training andtesting and licensing requirements.In contrast, the data indicate that ofequal or greater importance is out-of-field teaching—a common practicewhereby qualified teachers areassigned by school administrators toteach classes in subjects that do notmatch their fields of training orcertification. The data show that thisis widespread in Thailand, especiallyin those schools servingdisadvantaged communities.

References Ministry of Education. (2006).Toward a learning society in Thailand:The education system in Thailand.Retrieved February 20, 2007, fromhttp://www.bic.moe.go.th/fileadmin/BIC_Document/book/MOEleaflet/Thai-ed-system.pdf

Office of the Basic EducationCommission. (2004). Statistical dataof basic education in Thailand 2004.Bangkok: Donmuang Printing.

Office of the National EducationCommission. (1999). NationalEducation Act of B.E. 2542 (1999).Bangkok: Seven Printing Group Co.,Ltd.

Office of the Education Council.(2004). Education in Thailand 2004.Bangkok: Office of the EducationCouncil.

Office of the Education Council.(2006). Education in Thailand2005/2006. Bangkok: Office of theEducation Council.

Professional Standards BureauSecretariat Office of the Teacher’sCouncil of Thailand. (2005).Educational professional standards.Bangkok: The Teacher’s Council ofThailand.

Secretariat Office of the Teacher’sCouncil of Thailand. (2006). Lawson teaching Profession (2). Bangkok:The Teacher’s Council of Thailand.

Siribanpitak, P. (2005). Challenges ofand opportunities for secondary schoolteachers in Thailand. Bangkok:Chulalongkorn University.

The Teachers’ Council of Thailand.(2003). Teacher and EducationalPersonnel Act B.E. 2546 (2003).Retrieved February 20, 2007, fromhttp://www.ksp.or.th/mainpage_en/index.php

Introduction

Few educational issues have receivedmore attention in recent times in theUnited States than the problem ofensuring that the nation’s elementaryand secondary classrooms are allstaffed with quality teachers. Thisconcern with the caliber of teachers isneither unique nor surprising.Elementary and secondary schoolingis mandatory in the United Statesand children are legally placed in thecare of teachers for a significantportion of their lives. The quality ofteachers and teaching areundoubtedly among the mostimportant factors shaping thelearning and growth of students.Moreover, the largest singlecomponent of the cost of educationis teacher compensation. Especiallysince the publication over twodecades ago of the seminal report ANation at Risk (NationalCommission on Excellence inEducation, 1983), a seeminglyendless stream of studies,commissions and national reports hastargeted teacher quality as one of thecentral problems facing schools inthe United States. Such critics haveblamed teacher performance not onlyfor the decline in student academicachievement but for numerous

societal ills—the erosion of Americaneconomic competitiveness andproductivity; teenage pregnancy;juvenile delinquency and crime; thecoarsening of everyday discourse andculture; a decline in morals; genderand racial discrimination, and so on.

In response, the federalgovernment in 2002 enacted themost significant educational reformin the United States in recent years—the No Child Left Behind Act. Inaddition to new standards for studentachievement, this legislation set anew and unprecedented goal—toensure that the nation’s publicelementary and secondary studentsall are taught by highly qualifiedteachers. The No Child Left BehindAct also introduced a new andunprecedented means to achieve thisgoal–accountability—to assess howwell public schools are doing inregard to the new standards and tosanction schools that do not meetthem. Behind this legislation, andcontemporary educational thought inthe United States, lie two popularviews as to the source of the staffingand teacher-quality problemsplaguing schools. The first focuses oninadequacies in the qualifications ofteachers; the second focuses oninadequacies in the quantity, orsupply, of teachers.

The first view holds that a majorsource of low-quality teachers andteaching is inadequate andinsufficient pre-employmentpreparation. Critics and reformerssubscribing to this view haveadvocated for more rigor in thecoursework requirements and entrystandards for the teachingoccupation. From this viewpoint, theway to upgrade the quality ofteaching is to alter the preparationrequired of new teachers.

There is, however, much debateover how to best define a “qualifiedteacher” and what adequate teachingqualifications entail. Although thereis almost universal agreement in theUnited States that teachers do matter,that student learning is affected bythe quality of teaching, and thatteachers ought to be qualified, thereis a great deal of controversy andmuch skepticism concerning whichkinds of courses, preparation andqualifications teachers ought to haveto be considered adequately qualified.

One of the key areas of differencein this debate concerns the relativevalue of teachers’ educationalpreparation and of their professionalpreparation. The former refers to thelevel of post-secondary education in afield—the degrees—required ofteaching candidates. The latter refersto the occupation-specific training

CHAPTER 8The Preparation and Qualifications of the Teaching Force in the United States Richard M. IngersollUniversity of Pennsylvania

required of those entering teaching.On one end of this continuum arethose who argue that academiccontent or subject knowledge—knowing what to teach—is ofprimary importance for one to be aqualified teacher. Advocates of thisview often hold that professionaldegrees in education are overloadedwith required courses in pedagogy tothe neglect of coursework inacademic subjects. Such critics alsotend to question the value ofgovernment-based entry regulationssuch as teaching certificates. At itsextreme, this viewpoint assumes thattraining in teaching methods isunnecessary and that having anacademic degree in a subject issufficient to be a qualified teacher inthat subject.

On the other end of thiscontinuum are those who argue thatprofessional, pedagogical andmethodological knowledge—knowing how to teach—is ofprimary importance to be a qualifiedteacher. In this view, in-depthknowledge of a subject is lessimportant than in-depth skill atteaching. At its extreme, thisviewpoint holds that “a good teachercan teach anything.”

For most occupations andprofessions in the United States, ittypically is taken as a given thatparticular credentials are necessary topractice particular kinds of work.However, for most occupations andprofessions there has been little, ifany, empirical research done assessingthe value added by practitionershaving a particular credential, licenseor certification (Kane, 1994;American Educational ResearchAssociation/American PsychologicalAssociation/National Council onMeasurement in Education, 1999).In this respect, teaching is unusual;there is an extensive body ofempirical research, going back

decades, devoted to assessing theeffects of various teacherqualifications on teacher and studentperformance. For measures ofqualifications, researchers typicallyexamine teachers’ test scores orteachers’ credentials, such as degrees,reflecting a variety of types ofeducation and training. A substantialnumber of studies have foundteacher education, preparation ortraining, of one sort or another, to besignificantly related to increases instudent achievement (e.g.,Greenwald, et al., 1996). Forexample, two recent analyses ofnational data found that eighth-gradestudents of mathematics whoseteachers had a regular teachingcertificate in mathematics or had acollege degree in mathematics or inmathematics education scoredsignificantly higher on eighth-grademath tests (Raudenbush, et al., 1999;Greenberg, et al., 2004).

These are telling findings giventhe widespread criticism from bothinsiders and outsiders that teachereducation is of low quality in theUnited States. But, the results fromthis empirical literature also are attimes contradictory, and there arealso some studies showing no positiveeffects of various measures of teacherqualifications. Moreover, there alsoare large gaps in this research (for arecent review, see Allen, 2003).Given the inherent difficulties inaccurately isolating and capturing theeffects of teacher’s qualifications ontheir students’ achievement and theweaknesses of much of the extantdata and empirical research, this isnot surprising. However, these dataand research limitations andinconsistencies also fuel the ongoingdebate over how best to define aqualified teacher.

A second popular explanation forthe staffing and teacher-qualityproblems plaguing schools in the

United States is teacher shortages. Inthis view, the main problem is thatthe supply of new teachers isinsufficient to keep up with thedemand. The root of this gap, it iswidely believed, is a dramatic increasein the demand for new teachersprimarily resulting from twoconverging demographic trends—increasing student enrollments andincreasing teacher retirements due toa “graying” teaching force. Shortfallsof teachers, this argument continues,have meant that many school systemshave not been able to find qualifiedcandidates to fill their openings,inevitably resulting in the hiring ofunderqualified teachers and,ultimately, lowering schoolperformance.

The prevailing policy prescriptionand response has been to attempt toincrease the supply of teachersthrough a wide range of recruitmentinitiatives. There are programs thataim to entice mid-career professionalsto become teachers. Some schoolshave instituted initiatives to recruitteaching candidates from overseasand from other nations. Financialincentives, such as signing bonuses,housing assistance, and collegetuition reimbursement, have all beenused to aid teacher recruitment(Hirsch, Koppich, & Knapp, 2001).

But there is growing criticismover the accuracy of thisconventional view of teachershortages and the effectiveness of thenew teacher recruitment reforms.Recent data analyses havedocumented that the main source ofschool staffing problems is not one ofshortages, in the sense of too fewnew teachers being produced(Ingersoll, 2001; 2003a). Rather thedata show the source of the problemlies in too many teachers departingtheir teaching jobs long beforeretirement. Most of the demand fornew teachers is driven not by student

enrollment or teacher retirementincreases but by pre-retirementteacher turnover. The data portray a“revolving door” occupation in whichthere are relatively large flows ofteachers in, through and out ofschools each year. Teaching also is anoccupation that loses many of itsnewly trained members very early intheir careers. The data indicate thatas many as half of those trained to beteachers never enter teaching, andanother 40-50% of those who doenter leave teaching altogether in thefirst five years. Moreover, the dataindicate that the overall volume ofturnover accounted for by retirementis relatively minor when comparedwith that resulting from other causes,such as teacher job dissatisfaction andteachers seeking better jobs or othercareers.

Such findings raise serious doubtsabout the ultimate success of currentteacher recruitment initiatives in theUnited States. In short, the dataindicate that recruiting more teacherswill not solve school staffingproblems if large numbers of suchteachers then leave in a few years. Asa result, an increasing number ofleading education-reform groups,such as the National Commission onTeaching and America’s Future(2003), have argued that the solutionto staffing and teacher-qualityproblems plaguing schools in theUnited States lies in improvedteacher retention.


These competing views as to thesources of, and solutions to, teacher-quality problems in the United Stateshave been shaped by the way theeducational system in the UnitedStates is organized. Historically, thecontrol and governance of

elementary and secondary schoolingdeveloped in an unusual manner inthe United States. In contrast to mostnations, publicly funded massschooling in the United States wasoriginally begun on a highly localizedand decentralized basis (Tyack,1974). The framers of the U.S.Constitution did not includeeducation or schooling among thefunctions of the national/federalgovernment and, hence, theprovision of schooling began as theresponsibility of the 50 individualstates. The states, in turn, delegatedsubstantial control to local,community-based educationalauthorities. From the earlydevelopment of public schooling inthe 19th century, the acceptedoperating principle was that theschooling of children should largelybe the responsibility of thecommunities and towns in which thestudents and their families resided.This doctrine of local control ofschooling continues to be adominant value in the United States.The resulting legacy is a currentsystem of about 14,500 individualpublic school districts, governed byschool boards who hold legalresponsibility for 45 million studentsin 84,000 publicly fundedelementary and secondary schoolsemploying almost 3 million teachers.Another 5 million students areenrolled in about 27,000 privateschools that are not operated, orprimarily funded, by local or othergovernment. These private schoolsemploy about 450,000 teachers.

The history of public schoolingin the United States also has been astory of the chronic erosion of thisfoundation of local and decentralizedcontrol. Particularly since the mid20th century, there has been adramatic increase in the control andinfluence over districts and schoolsexerted by higher levels of

government and by a wide array ofnongovernmental groups andorganizations. The 50 statesthemselves have increased theirscrutiny and regulation over a widerange of aspects of schooling.Especially in the past half century,the role of the national governmentalso also increased. As a result of thisgrowth in centralized and externalinfluence, schools and local schooldistricts in the United States clearlyare not the autonomous bodies theyonce were. But, despite thesechanges, the U.S. educational systemremains to a large extent far moredecentralized than in many othernations (OECD, 1995, 1998). Thatis, far more educational decisions aremade by districts and states than bythe national government. Inparticular, it is the responsibility ofthe 50 states to regulate entry intothe teaching occupation in theirrespective school systems. Entry,training, testing and licensingrequirements for teachers are largelyset and controlled by the 50individual states. The result is anoccupation with a diversity of entryroutes, requirements and standards.

In the United States, teaching asan occupation has an unusuallyambivalent character. Compared toother occupations and to professions,teaching is relatively complex work,but it also is an occupation withrelatively low pre-employment entryrequirements.

Among those who study work,organizations and occupations ingeneral, teaching traditionally hasbeen classified as a relatively complexform of work, characterized byuncertainty, intangibility andambiguity and requiring a high adegree of initiative, thought,judgment and skill to do well (e.g.,Bidwell, 1965; Lortie, 1975; see alsoCohen, Raudenbush, & Ball, 2003).For example, in a classic comparative

study of a number of occupations,Kohn and Schooler (p. 68, 1983)concluded that secondary teachinginvolved greater substantivecomplexity than the work ofaccountants, salespersons, machinists,managers and officials in serviceindustries and in the retail trade.

Despite its complexity, from across-occupational perspective,teaching has long been characterizedas an easy-entry occupation.Compared with other work andoccupations and, in particularcompared to high-status traditionalprofessionals, such as physicians,professors, attorneys, engineers,architects, accountants, and dentists,teaching has a relatively low entry“bar,” and a relatively wide entry“gate” (Etzioni, 1969; Lortie, 1975;Ingersoll, 2001). Historically,teaching had a number ofmechanisms that facilitated ease ofentry into the occupation. First,teacher training was made relativelyaccessible. Beginning in the early partof the 20th century, the states createdlarge numbers of low-cost, dispersed,and noncompetitive teacher-traininginstitutions. Currently there are1,206 teacher training schools orprograms in colleges and universitiesin the United States. Teaching alsohas a relatively wide “decisionrange”–individuals can decide tobecome teachers at any number ofpoints in their life span. Finally,most who desire to enter the teachingoccupation are free to doso–individuals choose theoccupation, not vice versa. Incontrast, the opposite prevails inmany occupations and in mosttraditional professions. Especially inthe latter, entry standards are veryselective and occupational“gatekeepers” have a large say inchoosing new members and not allwho desire to enter are allowed to doso.

As mentioned earlier, the federalgovernment in 2002 enacted a newand unprecedented mandate in theNo Child Left Behind Act to ensurethat all public elementary andsecondary students are taught byhighly qualified teachers. In general,the No Child Left Behind Actdefines a “highly qualified” teacher assomeone who has completed a four-year baccalaureate degree, who holdsa state-issued teaching certificate orlicense, and who has establishedcompetency in the academic subjectshe or she teaches. By design,however, it is the responsibility ofeach of the 50 states to interpret andimplement these general standards.

Teaching certificates usually areissued for a particular field, such asmathematics or English. Obtainingteaching certification usually requirescompletion of undergraduate-levelcoursework in the subject matter of aparticular field, and also inprofessional knowledge, such aspedagogy and teaching methods.Certification also usually entailspassage of written examinations inboth pedagogy and contentknowledge. Finally, certification alsousually requires completion of aprogram of practice or studentteaching

But, the depth, breadth and rigorof teacher certification requirementsvary dramatically among the states.In addition, in some statescertification expires after a setnumber of years and renewal requiresthe completion of additional college-level coursework; in other states,certification is permanent. Moreover,not all of those who enter theteaching occupation are required tohold a certificate. For instance, inmany states teachers in privateschools are not required to becertified. The same lack ofuniformity applies to the means bywhich candidates are allowed to

establish “competency” in a particularsubject or field. The states vary as towhether they require tests, as to thecontent of the tests, and where theyset the minimum cutoff scoresrequired of candidates to pass thetest.

There also are a growing numberof different routes for enteringteaching. Traditionally, most of thoseentering teaching did so after thecompletion of a four-year bachelor’sdegree in education, which includedcertification. A smaller number ofcollege graduates, who completed abachelor’s degree in a field other thaneducation, entered teaching byenrolling in what is called a “fifth-year program”—a post-baccalaureateone-year teacher preparation programleading to a teaching certificate. But,there are increasing numbers ofalternative entry routes wherebycollege graduates can postponeformal education preparation, obtaina less-than-full (e.g., temporary oralternative) teaching certificate, andbegin teaching immediately.

The next sections present data onthe proportions of the U.S.elementary and secondary teachingforce that has completed variousabove-described education, trainingand preparation requirements.

Data and Measures

The data presented in this chaptercome from the nationallyrepresentative Schools and StaffingSurvey (SASS) conducted by theNational Center for EducationStatistics, the statistical arm of theU.S. Department of Education. Thisis the largest and mostcomprehensive source of informationand data on teachers in the UnitedStates. The SASS data are collectedfrom random samples stratified bystate, sector, and school level. To

date, five independent cycles of SASShave been completed and released:1987-1988, 1990-1991, 1993-1994,1999-2000 and 2003-2004. Eachcycle of SASS includes several sets ofseparate, but linked, questionnairesfor school administrators and for arandom sample of teachers withineach school. The response rate hasbeen relatively high—about 85% forteachers and 95% for administrators.

SASS is a large survey; in eachcycle the sample sizes are about 5,000school districts, 11,000 schools and52,000 teachers. The teacher sampleincludes full-time, part-time andlong-term substitute teachers frompre-kindergarten to the 12th -gradelevel. The sample does not includeshort-term substitutes, teacher aides,practice or student teachers. SASSalso is a comprehensive survey; itprovides accurate data for all 50states (and Washington, DC) and alltypes of schools. Relevant to thisanalysis, SASS collects extensiveinformation on the education,training and certification and also thedaily course schedules from its verylarge nationally representative sampleof teachers. SASS does not collectdata on teachers’ exam or test scores.The data presented in the tablesbelow are from the two most recentcycles of SASS—the 1999-2000 andthe 2003-2004.

The data in the tables provide anational portrait of teachers’qualifications in the United Statesjust prior to the enactment of thefederal No Child Left Behind Act.There are a variety of reasons whyelementary and secondary classroomsare sometimes not staffed byqualified teachers. Some causes canbe traced to how candidates areprepared and licensed prior toteaching and some to how teachersare utilized once on the job. Thischapter presents data for severaldifferent measures. First, it presents

descriptive statistics on percentages ofteachers according to their highestcollege degree and according to theirtype of teaching certificate and theextent to which these levels varyamong different kinds of schools,according to their urbanicity, poverty,and grade level.

A second, and far lessunderstood, source of underqualifiedteaching is the problem of out-of-field teaching—teachers assigned toteach subjects that do not matchtheir fields of preparation. This is acrucial factor because highly qualifiedteachers may actually become highlyunqualified if they are assigned toteach subjects for which they havelittle background. Teachers trained,for example, in social studies may beunlikely to have a solidunderstanding of math or how toteach it. Hence, this chapter alsopresents data on levels of out-of-fieldteaching, and the extent to whichthese levels vary among differentkinds of schools.

Previous studies have used anumber of different measures of out-of-field teaching, representing a rangeof standards (Ingersoll, 1999;2003b). Some measures focus onwhether teachers have a teachingcertificate in the fields they teach;others focus on whether teachershave an undergraduate or graduatedegree. Measures of out-of-fieldteaching also vary according towhether they choose to focus on thenumbers of teachers doing it, or thenumbers of students exposed to it,according to which fields andsubjects are examined and alsoaccording to which grade levels areinvestigated.

This chapter presents threedifferent measures of out-of-fieldteaching, drawn from this previouswork: 1) percent teachers without anundergraduate or graduate major orminor in the field; 2) percent

teachers without an undergraduate orgraduate major in the field; and 3)percent teachers without a fullteaching certificate or license in thefield.

As defined here, the first twomeasures count as in-field bothacademic and education majors andminors (e.g., a mathematics teacherwith a minor or major in eithermathematics or in mathematicseducation). For all three measures Ifocus only on the four core academicfields: Mathematics; Science, SocialScience/Social Studies and English.Chart 1 shows which secondary-levelcourses are included in each of thefour fields, and which major/minorand certification fields count as in-field for each. Science and socialscience are both defined broadlyhere. In other words, anyone whoteaches any science course is definedas qualified or in-field if he or sheholds a credential, such as a major, inscience education or in any of thesciences, including chemistry,physics, geology, space science, andbiology. Likewise, anyone teachingany courses in social studies isdefined as qualified if he or she holdsa credential in any of the socialsciences or in social studieseducation. This is different from anarrow discipline-based definition offields, such as used in the HongKong chapter. In the latter case,someone with a major in chemistry isnot considered in-field or qualified inphysics or biology, and vice versa.

Each measure focuses solely onteachers at the secondary grade level(grades 7-12). Each measure onlyincludes departmentalized teachers—those who teach subject-mattercourses to several classes of differentstudents for all or most of the day.Excluded are those teaching self-contained classes, in other words,those teaching multiple subjects to

the same students for all or most ofthe day, as is the norm in elementaryschools.


The data indicate that most teachersin the United States have completedan undergraduate college educationand most also hold regular or full teaching certificates

(see Table 1). Ninety-nine percent ofelementary and secondary schoolteachers in public schools hold atleast a bachelors’ degree and almosthalf hold a master’s degree or higher.Moreover, about 91% of publicschool teachers hold a regular or fullteaching certificate in one field oranother. Another 7% hold a less-than-full certificate (e.g., temporary,emergency or provisional). Less than2% of public school teachers hold noteaching certificate of any type.

These latter data conflict withconventional wisdom in the UnitedStates. In recent years, muchattention has been focused on theplight of school districts—especiallythose serving low-income, urbancommunities—that have been forced,because of shortages, to hiresignificant numbers of uncertifiedteachers to fill vacancies. The datasuggest, however, that the numbersof teachers without a full certificateactually represent only a small

Chart 1Matching Teaching Fields With Preparation Fields

I. II. III. IV.Fields Teachers’ Course Assignment Fields Teachers’ Major or Minor Fields Teachers’ Certification Fields

English literature communications or journalism English or language artscomposition/journalism/creative writing English Journalismreading English education/language arts education Readingother English/language arts courses literature

reading education

Mathematics general mathematics engineering Mathematicsbusiness math mathematicsalgebra, elementary mathematics educationalgebra, intermediate physicsalgebra, advanced statisticsgeometry, plane/solidtrigonometryanalytical geometryprobability/statisticscalculusother mathematics

Social Studies social studies psychology social studies or social scienceshistory public administration historyworld civilization social studies/social sciences educationpolitical science/government economicsgeography historyeconomics political sciencecivics sociologysociology/social organization other social sciencesother social science other area or ethnic studiespsychology American Indian studies

Science general science science education general sciencebiology/life science biology/life science biology/life sciencechemistry chemistry chemistryphysics earth science/geology earth science/geologygeology/earth physics physicsscience/space science other natural sciences other natural sciencesother physical science emgineering physical scienceother natural science

proportion of the teachers in publicschools. Of the 3,250,000 teachers inpublic schools in the 2003-04 schoolyear, about 235,000 had only a less-than-full certificate, and another48,000 teachers had no certificate atall.

The data in Table 1 also revealsome distinct cross-school differencesin the qualifications of teachers.Students in schools with a highpoverty enrollment sometimes haveless access to qualified teachers. Forexample, teachers in high-povertyschools are less likely to havegraduate-level degrees and slightlyless likely to hold a full teachingcertificate than teachers in low-poverty schools. Teachers in private

schools are far less likely to hold acertificate because, as mentioned,many states do not require teachersin private schools to be certified.

While providing a useful portraitof the basic education and training ofthe teaching force in the UnitedStates, it also is important toacknowledge that these measures ofdegrees and certificates tell us little ofthe quality or these qualifications.We do not have analogous nationaldata on teachers’ exam or test scores.Hence, there may be inadequacies orinequities not revealed here.


The most glaring and prominentsource of inadequate access toqualified teachers in the UnitedStates is not a lack of basic educationor training of teachers, but rather alack of fit between teachers’preparation and teachers’ classassignments. This is a result of thepractice of out-of-field teaching—where teachers educated and trainedin one field are assigned by schooladministrators to teach classes inanother field.

As mentioned earlier, the data inTables 2, 3 and 4 show threedifferent measures of out-of-fieldteaching. Table 2 shows percent

Table 1PERCENTAGE of Elementary and Secondary School Teachers in the United States, by Highest Degree Earned, and by HighestType of Teaching Certification or License, by Type of School, 2003-2004.1

Educational Qualifications Professional Qualifications Both Bachelor’sLess than Bachelor’s Master’s No Less-than Full Degree and FullBachelor’s Degree Degree or Cerifiication Full Certification Certification

Degree Higher Certification

Total 2. 1 52. 9 45. 0 6. 5 6. 8 86. 6 85. 8Elementary 1. 3 54. 4 44. 4 4. 4 6. 4 89. 3 88. 8Secondary 2. 5 48. 7 48. 8 5. 0 8. 1 86. 9 85. 4

Public Schools 1. 1 52. 3 46. 6 1. 5 7. 2 91. 3 90. 6

Poverty LevelLow 1. 0 44. 4 54. 6 1. 0 6. 3 92. 7 92. 2High 1. 7 57. 6 40. 7 2. 0 10. 1 88. 0 87. 3

Community TypeRural 1. 4 58. 0 40. 6 1. 0 5. 4 93. 5 92. 6Suburban 0. 9 50. 2 48. 9 1. 4 6. 6 92. 0 91. 4Urban 1. 3 52. 3 46. 4 2. 0 9. 5 88. 5 87. 7

Grade LevelElementary 0. 4 58. 0 40. 6 1. 3 6. 5 92. 2 91. 9Secondary 2. 6 48. 7 48. 7 1. 7 8. 4 89. 9 88. 3

Private Schools 9. 4 57. 1 33. 4 41. 6 4. 0 54. 3 52. 9

1 Definitions: a. Less-than-Regular Certification - includes all those with emergency, temporary, alternative or provisional certification. b. Regular Certification - includes all those with probationary, regular, standard, full or advanced certification.

(Probationary - refers to initial license issued after satisfying all requirements except completion of an initial probationary period of teaching)c. Low poverty refers to schools where 10% or less of the students enrolled are from families below the official governmental poverty line. High poverty refers to schools where

over 80% are below the poverty line. d. Elementary grade levels refers to kindergarten to sixth grade; elementary does not include pre-kindergartene. Secondary grade levels refers to seventh to 12th gradesf. Private Schools refer to those that are not primarily funded or administered by local, state or federal government.

teachers without an undergraduate orgraduate major or minor in the field.Table 3 shows percent teacherswithout an undergraduate orgraduate major in the field. Table 4shows percent teachers without a fullteaching certificate or license in thefield taught.

Each table reveals that there aremany teachers assigned to teachclasses in fields that do not matchtheir educational background. Forexample, as shown in Table 2 aboutone third of all those who teachsecondary-school mathematics classeshave neither a major nor a minor inmathematics, mathematics education,or in related disciplines likeengineering, statistics or physics.About 28% of all those teachingsecondary-school English classes haveneither a major nor a minor inEnglish or related subjects such asliterature, communications, speech,journalism, English education, orreading education. In science, whichis defined as a broad field, slightlylower levels—about 22% of all thoseteaching secondary-school classes—do not have at least a college minorin any one of the sciences or inscience education. Finally, about22% of those teaching social studiesare without at least a minor in any ofthe social sciences, in public affairs,in social studies education, or inhistory. The data also show that levelsof out-of-field teaching are higher inthe seventh and eighth grades than inninth to 12th grades.

There are large cross-schooldifferences in out-of-field teaching.In most fields, teachers in high-poverty schools are more likely to beassigned to teach out of their fieldthan are those in more affluentschools. For example, 39% of thoseteaching math classes in high-povertyschools, as opposed to 26% in low-poverty schools, are out of field. Tobe sure, more affluent schools are not

free of out-of-field teaching. Manyteachers in these kinds of schools alsoteach out of their fields. Butmisassignment is clearly a majorfactor behind lack of access toqualified teachers in high-povertyschools. The poverty gaps for out-of-field teaching (in Table 2) aredistinctly wider than the poverty gapsfor teacher qualifications (in Table 1).In other words, although teachers inhigh-poverty schools are slightlymore likely to have fewerqualifications, they are far more likelyto be misassigned than are those inlow-poverty schools.

Another important source ofvariation for out-of-field teaching isschool sector. Private schools havehigher levels of out-of-field teachingin three of the four core academic

fields than do public schools. Inother analyses (not shown here), thedata also show large differencesamong private schools, according totheir size. Private schools appear tohave both the highest and lowestlevels of out-of-field teaching. On theone hand, large private schools haveunusually low overall levels of out-of-field teaching. On the other hand,small private schools have among thehighest overall levels of out-of-fieldteaching. This suggests there is alarge degree of diversity, at least inregard to teacher qualifications, inthe private sector—something oftenoverlooked in the ongoing debateover public versus private schoolingin the United States.

Finally, levels of out-of-fieldteaching depend upon how this

Table 2PERCENTAGE of Secondary Grade Level Teachers in the United States in theCore Academic Fields Without an Undergraduate or Graduate Major or a Minorin the Field, by Type of School, 1999-2000

Native Math Science SocialLanguage Science(English)

Total 28 32 22 22

Public Schools 27 30 21 22

Poverty EnrollmentLow 21 26 19 16High 41. 7 51. 4 32 24

Community TypeRural 28 32 24 25Suburban 26 29 20 20Urban 29 32 22 20

Grade LevelLower Secondary (7-8th grades) 42 47 32 28Upper Secondary (9-12th grades) 24 28 20 21

Private Schools 33 40 26 21

2 Definitions: a. Secondary school grade levels refer to those teaching grades 7-12th. It excludes those teaching subject-matter

courses at the 7-8th grade levels who are employed in middle and elementary schools. b. Low poverty refers to schools where 10% or less of the students enrolled are from families below the official

federal government poverty line. High poverty refers to schools where over 80% are below the poverty line. c. Private Schools refer to those that are neither primarily funded nor administered by local, state or federal gov-

ernment.

phenomenon is defined andmeasured. For example, as shown inTable 3, when the definition of anin-field teacher is raised to includeonly those with a full major in thefield, in contrast to a major or aminor as in Table 2, levels of out-of-field teaching increase dramatically.

Background analyses of the dataalso show that those teaching out offield are typically veterans with anaverage of 14 years of teachingexperience, and about 45% of out-of-field teachers hold graduatedegrees, but in disciplines other thanthe subjects in which they have beenassigned to teach. Hence, out-of-fieldteachers typically are experienced andqualified individuals who have beenassigned to teach in fields that do notmatch their training or education.

This is a widespread and chronicphenomenon in the United States.The data show that each year someout-of-field teaching takes place inwell over half of all U.S. secondaryschools and each year over one fifthof the public 7-12th grade teachingforce does some out-of-field teaching.

The key question thus becomes:why are so many teachersmisassigned? In answer, manycommentators assume that teachershortages are the source of theproblem. Shortfalls in numbers ofavailable teachers, this argumentholds, have forced many schools toassign teachers out of their fields(National Commission on Teachingand America’s Future, 1997).

School hiring difficulties are afactor in the degree of teacher

misassignment, but the data revealtwo important shortcomings withthis explanation. First, it cannotexplain high levels of out-of-fieldteaching in fields such as English andsocial studies, where there aresurpluses of qualified teachers.Second, the data show that abouthalf of all misassigned teachers workin schools that reported nodifficulties finding qualifiedcandidates for job openings that year(Ingersoll, 2003b).

The data point toward anotherexplanation: the manner in whichschools are organized and teachers aremanaged. School staffing decisionsusually follow a top-down commandmodel: these decisions are theprerogative of school administratorsand teachers typically have little sayover their assignments. Schooladministrators face the difficult taskof providing an increasingly broadarray of programs with limitedresources, time, budgets, andteaching staff. But, within thoseconstraints, administrators have anunusual degree of discretion, andthere is little centralized regulation ofhow teachers are utilized once theyare hired. In this context,administrators report that, from amanagerial perspective, they find thatassigning teachers to teach out oftheir fields is often more convenient,less expensive, and less time-consuming than the alternatives.

For example, rather than hire anew part-time science teacher for twosections of a newly state-mandatedscience curriculum, an administratormay find it simpler to assign twoEnglish or social-studies teachers tocover the science sections. Whenfaced with a tough choice betweenhiring an unqualified candidate for amathematics teacher position ordoubling the class size of one of thefully qualified mathematics teachers,an administrator might opt for the

Table 3PERCENTAGE of Secondary Grade Level Teachers in the United States in theCore Academic Fields Without an Undergraduate or Graduate Major in the Field,by Type of School, 1999-20003


Total 35 38 29 30


Poverty EnrollmentLow 28 31 23 23High 43 44 37 36







ernment.

former. If a full-time music teacher isunder contract, but studentenrollment is sufficient to fill onlythree music classes, the principal mayfind it both necessary and cost-effective in a given semester to assignthe music teacher to teach two classesin English, in addition to the threeclasses in music, in order to employthe teacher for a regular full-timecomplement of five classes persemester. If a school has three full-time social-studies teachers, butneeds to offer the equivalent of 3?full-time positions, and also has morethan enough full-time Englishteachers, one solution would be toassign one of the English teachers toteach both English courses and somesocial-studies courses.

From a managerial perspective,these choices may save time andmoney for the school, and ultimatelyfor the taxpayer. From an educationalperspective, they are not cost-free, asthey comprise one of the largestsources of underqualified teachers inschools in the United States.

Several points and limitationsmust be stressed concerning thesemeasures and data. First, there is nodoubt some of these out-of-fieldteachers may actually have beenqualified, despite not having a minor,major or certificate in the subject.Some might have been qualified byvirtue of knowledge gained throughprevious jobs, through lifeexperiences or through informaltraining. Others may have completedsubstantial college coursework in a

field, but not have gotten acredential.

Moreover, out-of-field teaching isnot the norm for most teachers andthe data show that almost none areteaching out of their fields for theirentire course load. Misassignmentstypically involve one or two classesout of a normal daily schedule of fiveclasses. Most 7-12th grade subject-area teachers have a main field or aprimary department in which theyteach, and the data show that mostdo have either a certificate or adegree in this main field. But manyof these teachers also are assigned toteach some classes each day in otherfields or departments. Mathematicsteachers, for example, may notsimply teach math; they also may beassigned to teach biology for part ofthe day. It is in these otherassignments that teachers most oftenhave little background.

Implications

If educational reform is to succeed insolving the problem ofunderqualified teachers, it mustaddress the major sources of theproblem. There are a variety ofpossible reasons why elementary andsecondary classrooms may sometimesnot be staffed by qualified teachersand these are sometimes confusedand confounded.

One possible source is thestandards themselves. The depth,breadth, and rigor of college oruniversity teacher-preparationprograms and state certificationstandards in the United States. havelong been the target of critics. Onecriticism is that in some statesprospective teachers have not beenrequired to have completed sufficientcoursework in the subject matter oftheir field. In this case, remediesmust look to reform of state licensing




ernment.

Table 4PERCENTAGE of Secondary Grade Level Teachers in the United States in theCore Academic Fields Without a Teaching Certificate or License in the Field, byType of School, 1999-20004


Total 29 32 29 30


Poverty EnrollmentLow 18 27 23 23High 32 30 38 28




requirements and institutionalpreparation programs.

Another source is the failure ofsome teachers to meet the standardsbecause of deficits in theirpreparation or education. Falling intothis category are those without afour-year college degree, thosewithout any teaching certificate, andthose who hold one of the manytypes of less-than-full teachercertificates issued by states—emergency, temporary, alternative,provisional, etc. The latter are issuedto those who need to completeadditional coursework or studentpractice teaching in order to obtain afull certificate, or to those who areparticipating in, but have not yetcompleted, an alternative trainingprogram. Typically, it is assumed thatshortages are a major factor behindthese inadequacies in teachers’qualifications. From this viewpoint,shortfalls in the numbers of availablequalified teachers have forced manyschools to hire teachers who are notqualified.

Even another source ofunderqualified teaching arises in howteachers are utilized once on thejob—the problem of out-of-fieldteaching. Remedies to thesemismatches must look to reform ofthe way teachers are managed andassigned in schools.

In the United States, mostresearchers and commentatorsassume the problem ofunderqualified teachers lies primarilyin the first two sources—inadequacies in either the standardsor the qualifications of the availablesupply of teaching candidates.Consistent with this perspective, thedominant policy responses, asdiscussed in the introduction of thischapter, have been to upgrade thequalifications of teachers throughmore rigorous education, training,testing and licensing requirements,

and to provide incentives to recruitmore candidates into teaching. Incontrast, the data indicate that ofequal or greater importance is theout-of-field teaching—a commonpractice whereby otherwise qualifiedteachers are assigned by schooladministrators to teach classes insubjects which do not match theirfields of training or certification. Thedata show this is widespread in theUnited States, especially in thoseschools serving disadvantagedcommunities.

Understanding the reasonsbehind out-of-field teachingassignments is important because ofthe implications for solving theproblem. In focusing on teacher-training requirements and teacherrecruitment, most contemporaryteacher-reform initiatives in theUnited States have overlooked theimpact of the organizational andoccupational contexts within whichteachers work. The data, however,indicate that solutions to theproblem of underqualified teachersalso must look to how schools aremanaged and how teachers areutilized once they are on the job. Inshort, recruiting thousands of newcandidates and providing them withrigorous preparation will not solvethe problem if large numbers ofteachers receive assignments forwhich they are not prepared.

ReferencesAllen, M. (2003). Eight questions onteacher preparation: What does theresearch say? Denver, CO: Educationof the States. Retrieved February 20,2007, from www.ecs.org/tpreport.

American Educational ResearchAssociation, American PsychologicalAssociation, National Council onMeasurement in Education. (1999).Standards for educational andpsychological testing. Washington,DC: Author.

Cohen, D., Raudenbush, S., & Ball,D. (2003). Resources, instructionand research. Educational Evaluationand Policy Analysis, 25(2), 119-142.

Etzioni, A. (Ed.) (1969). The semiprofessions and their organizations:Teachers, nurses and social workers.New York: Free Press.

Greenberg, E., Rhodes, D., Ye, X., &Stancavage, F. (2004). Prepared toteach: Teacher preparation and studentachievement in 8th grade mathematics.Paper presented at the AmericanEducational Research AssociationAnnual Meeting, San Diego.

Greenwald, R., Hedges, L., & Laine,R. (1996). The effect of schoolresources on student achievement.Review of Educational Research, 66,361-396.

Hirsch, E., Koppich, J., & Knapp,M. (2001). Revisiting what states aredoing to improve the quality ofteaching: An update on patterns andtrends. Center for the Study ofTeaching and Policy, University ofWashington.

Ingersoll, R. (1999). The problem ofunderqualified teachers in Americansecondary schools. EducationalResearcher, 28(2), 26-37.

Ingersoll, R. (2001a). The status ofteaching as a profession. In J.Ballantine and J. Spade (Eds.),Schools and Society: a SociologicalApproach to Education. Belmont, CA:Wadsworth Press.

Ingersoll, R. (2001b). Teacherturnover and teacher shortages: Anorganizational analysis. AmericanEducational Research Journal, 38(3),499-534.

Ingersoll, R. (2003a). Is there really ateacher shortage? Philadelphia:Consortium for Policy Research inEducation, University ofPennsylvania, and the Center for theStudy of Teaching and Policy,University of Washington.

Ingersoll, R. (2003b). Out-of-fieldteaching and the limits of teacherpolicy. Philadelphia: Consortium forPolicy Research in Education,University of Pennsylvania, and theCenter for the Study of Teaching andPolicy, University of Washington.

Kane, M. (1994). Validatinginterpretive arguments for licensureand certification examinations.Evaluation & The Health Professions,17(2), 133-159.

Lortie, D. (1975). School teacher.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

National Commission on Excellencein Education. (1983). A nation atrisk: The imperative for educationalreform. Washington, DC:Government Printing Office.

National Commission on Teachingand America’s Future. (1996). Whatmatters most: Teaching for America’sfuture. New York: NCTAF

National Commission on Teachingand America’s Future. (1997). Doingwhat matters most: Investing in qualityteaching. New York: NCTAF.

National Commission on Teachingand America’s Future. (2003). Nodream denied: A pledge to America’schildren. Washington, DC: NCTAF.

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Cultural Development(OECD). (1995). Decision-making in14 OECD education systems. Paris:OECD.

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Cultural Development(OECD). (1998). Education at aglance: OECD indicators. Paris:OECD.

Raudenbush, S., Fotiu, R., &Cheong, Y. (1999). Synthesizingresults from the trial state assessment.Journal of Educational and BehavioralStatistics. 24(4), 413-438.

Tyack, D. (1974). The one bestsystem. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.

a comparative study of teacher preparation and ... · a comparative study of teacher preparation...

Documents