tracy brisson- teacher quality since a nation at risk

8/7/2019 Tracy Brisson- Teacher Quality Since A Nation at Risk

1/21

Running Head: TEACHER QUALITY: PRE-EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

Teacher Quality: Discussion and Analysis of Pre-Employment Standards since A Nation at Risk

Tracy L. Brisson

New York University

August 2007


2/21

Teacher Quality: Pre Employment Standards

1

Abstract

This literature review identifies streams of literature since A Nation at Riskthat focus on

the concept of teacher quality as a pre-employment standard predict teacher excellence, as well

as serve as a gatekeeper to prevent individuals who are not qualified from entering the

profession. The review finds that scholars differ on how to measure teacher quality and whether

the exchange value oruse value of preparation is more important. Finally, in gatekeeping,

there may be a whole group of teachers, mostly people of color, who have been prevented from

entering the profession. Two questions for further research are whether there is a disconnect

between research based measures of teacher quality and principals preferences for hiring new

teachers, and whether those kept out of the profession in the context of teacher quality may be

false negatives.


3/21


2

Background

Since the 1980s, there has been a significant focus on improving the outcomes of the

American education system, especially student achievement as measured by standardized test

scores. In 1983, the National Commission on Excellence in Education released A Nation at Risk,

a report that outlined the deficits of the current state of public education (National Commission

on Excellence in Education, 1983). As part of its findings, the Commission concluded that

current teachers were ill-prepared for the profession and being recruited from the lowest

achieving high school graduates. The Commission ultimately called for reform from states and

teacher preparation programs to address this problem.

In the last 25-plus years, the findings of the Commission have influenced a number of

scholars and policymakers to focus on teacher quality. Since 1983, there have been a number

of reports by commissions, scholars and government officials that have addressed the teacher

quality concerns named in A Nation at Risk. Some major reports subsequently informed policy

implementation at the national, state and district level (Table 1). The first major reports post-A

Nation at Riskinclude the Carnegie Foundations A Nation Prepared, the Holmes Groups

Tomorrows Teachers, and the National Commission on Teaching & Americas Futures What

Matters Most. These reports were written by teacher educators and foundations who took a

progressive view of teacher quality and sought to professionalize teaching by refining a teacher

preparation model that would result in certification that was suitable for all schools and teachers

(Carnegie Foundation, 1986; Darling-Hammond, 2000; Holmes Group, 1986; National

Commission on Teaching & America's Future, 1996; Rotherham & Mead, 2004). What Matters


4/21


3

Mostwas highly influential, stimulating more than 1,500 news items based on the reports

recommendations (Darling-Hammond, 2000).

Subsequent reports on teacher quality, such as the Abell Foundations Certification

Reconsidered, were written by individuals outside academia and reflect neoconservative view on

teacher certification that emphasizes the introduction of new pathways to allow more smart and

able professionals into teaching and the need for competition in the preparation-provider market

(Abell Foundation, 2001; Finn, 2003; Rotherham & Mead, 2004; U. S. Department of Education,

2002). These reports praise programs such as Teach for America (TFA), one of the largest, oldest

and most prominent alternative certification programs in the United States. Its mission is to

recruit high achieving college graduates who would never have entered the teaching profession

and in its first 14 years, over 10,000 of its teachers had taught more than 1.5 million public

school students in urban centers and rural areas across the nation (Decker, Mayer, & Glazerman,

2004; Ness, 2004). These reports influenced the mandates of the No Child Left Behind Act of

2001 (NCLB) enacted by the Bush Administration. NCLB requires that every child has a highly

qualified teacher by 2006 and defines highly qualified as holding a bachelors degree, having

some form of certification, even if it only requires passing a state licensure exam, and

demonstrating competence in the subject being taught (Bush, 2001; Rotherham & Mead,

2004). NCLB attempts to satisfy the progressives by requiring certification, mostly still delivered

by university preparation programs, but encourages states to implement more innovative

preparation models and hire recruits from established alternative route programs such as TFA,

acknowledging the neoconservatives argument (U.S. Department of Education, 2002).


5/21


6/21


5

In the past, this literature has been typically portrayed a debate with only two sides-

teacher professionalism and competitive certification (Boyd et al., 2006; Rotherham &

Mead, 2004). However, there are other alternative frameworks, also from the field of economic

analysis, which can be used to analyze the tensions between those who take a more progressive

view of using absolute standards to define a quality new teacher and those of who lean towards

the neoconservative view that the market can provide that function by itself. In this analysis, the

current research context of how teacher quality is measured will be described and the concepts of

use value and exchange value will be applied to the debate of what system will bring the most

highly-qualified teacher. Finally, literature on who is being excluded from the teaching

profession as a result of the recommendations from the major reports and implementation of

NCLB will be discussed, as well as questions for further research.

Policy Context: Teacher Quality as a Measurable Variable

There are many inputs into the delivery of education and teachers are only one of them.

However, teacher salaries are the single largest expenditure by school districts and have

increased tremendously since A Nation at Risk(Finn, 2003; King Rice, 2003). For that reason,

narrowing the criteria for what makes a quality teacher has received great attention from both

educators and economists. In addition, there has been increased attention on the achievement

gap between poor and affluent children. While programs such as Title 1 have attempted to

narrow this gap by providing more financial resources to schools that serve poor children, low

achievement persists in these schools. One of the most quantifiable and observable differences

between schools who serve poor children and those who dont are their teachers. In areas where

small to miniscule numbers of students receive free or reduced lunch, teachers are more

experienced and often fully certified, where schools that serve mostly low-income children are


7/21


6

staffed by more inexperienced and uncertified teachers (Anyon, 1997; Boyd, Lankford, Loeb, &

Wyckoff, 2005; Boyd, Loeb, Wyckoff, Lankford, & Rockoff, 2007; Decker et al., 2004).

While economists have used production functions to determine what factors affect

student outcomes for well over four decades, there has been a gradual shift from defining teacher

quality as a dependent variable to one that is an independent variable that affects student

achievement. What Matters Most, arguably the most influential report on teacher quality in the

1990s defined quality as an outcome, specifically a caring and competent teacher (National

Commission on Teaching & America's Future, 1996, p. 32). In the NCLB era, the definition of

teacher quality has been shifted to represent a set of attributes that serve as an independent

variable influencing student achievement as the outcome (Abell Foundation, 2001; Goldhaber,

2004; King Rice, 2003; Rivkin, Hanushek, & Kain, 2005; Young & Delli, 2002). This shift has

been caused by three trends: (1) a focus on accountability via standardized test results for

students, (2) an increased ability to obtain data for analysis from rich sources, and (3) a focus on

identifying a list of refined personal teacher characteristics and analyzing how each discreet

indicator influences student achievement. In Certification Reconsidered, Kate Walsh, writing for

the Abell Foundation (2001), found many studies that supported the need for certification

provided evidence that performance on pre-employment tests correlated with student outcomes;

however, testing is just one component of teacher certification. Other studies also found that

other variables were often misrepresented as a proxy for certification in research (Ballou &

Podgursky, 2000). This research methods issue concerning certification was also discussed in a

rejoinder to the report by Linda Darling-Hammond and another response by Walsh (Darling-

Hammond, 2002; Walsh & Podgursky, 2001).


8/21


7

Economists have heavily influenced the change where we define teacher quality as a

measurable independent variable instead of an outcome. These studies are based on the theory

that teacher quality can be identified through examining student performance and observable

teacher characteristics (Boyd et al., 2006; Rivkin et al., 2005). The following are findings from

some of the more recent inquiries in this area.

King Rice (2003) reviewed empirical studies on teacher quality from the last three

decades and found that only verbal ability, selectivity of institutions attended and content

knowledge were consistently reported as having positive affects on student achievement.

A study by Decker, Mayer and Glazerman for Mathematica Policy Research (2004)

reviewed the effects of Teach for America teachers on student achievement by comparing

the results of their students to those of novice teachers from other certification pathways

who taught the same grades in the same schools in 40% of the sites where Teach for

America places corps members. Results found that on average, compared to the control

group, students of Teach for America teachers achieved at higher rates on math

assessments, but that reading achievement was the same.

Boyd, et. al., (2007) found that after prohibiting the hiring of uncertified teachers and

placing alternative certification candidates in high-poverty schools in New York City, the

measurable characteristics of teachers (p. 2) such as SAT scores and certification

scores are far less unequal between high and low poverty schools and that this accounted

for a modest increase in overall student achievement and slightly narrowed the

achievement gap between high and low poverty students.

As scholars and practitioners become more convinced that they can create a reliable and

effective standard for employing teachers by correlating outcomes with rich pre-employment


9/21


8

data on teachers and their characteristics, the debate on how to best define a real pre-employment

standard of teacher quality will become more prominent.

Exchange Value, Use Value and Constraints of the Teacher Labor Market

In addition to differing perspectives on how teacher quality is measured, there are

continuing debates on how to achieve quality and how the economic market helps or can be

adjusted to achieve desired outcomes. In his bookThe Trouble with Ed Schools, David Labaree

(2004) discusses the preparation and resulting certification that teachers earn. Labaree (2004)

defines a market as a social arena in which individuals and organizational actors competitively

pursue private gain through the exchange of commodities (the buying and selling of goods and

services) (p.18). This market force affects an individuals decision to become a teacher based on

how she or he values a state teaching certificate through the theory ofexchange value. Exchange

value represents the value of a teaching certificate in the market. Under this theory, many people

choose a career or educational path due to social mobility. Individuals see education and work as

a way to increase their social position. For the highly educated, a teaching certificate would not

provide much exchange value or social mobility compared to other options such as science,

business, medicine or law. Compared to those occupations, teaching is considered a marginal

profession by American society because of its low salary, its status as a union job, and that it is a

feminine profession- 84% of all teachers are women (Belfield, 2005). As more historically

disadvantaged groups of Americans attend college and have access to more career options,

teaching is seen as an occupation that is neither unique or nor requires hard skills- it offers

modest pay compared to middle class standards and little room for advancement, professionally

or socially (Labaree, 2004).


10/21


11/21


10

quality is an independent variable, an influx of high achieving individuals should improve

student achievement, regardless of preparation model. However, critics point out that because we

employ millions of teachers in all pockets of the country, and only .2% of American teachers

come through Teacher for America, using this type of model to define the exchange value of the

entire profession is impossible (Ravitch, 2007). Also, while admitting that they would not have

entered teaching without TFA as a vehicle, teachers who finish the program do not see it as an

ideal model for entry to teaching and hope that one day, Teach for America will not be needed

because there are enough high quality traditional recruits to the profession (Ness, 2004). This

participant view also questions the legitimacy of alternative certifications power to raise the

exchange value of teaching.

Empirical studies of the teacher labor market have also addressed exchange value.

Studies on the female labor market show that when measured as a group, the quality of female

college graduates who have entered teaching has not declined. However, among all female

graduates, the most high-achieving are not becoming teachers because they find the opportunity

costs high and the exchange value low (Corcoran, Evans, & Schwab, 2004). At the district level,

the exchange value of teaching is complicated by constraints of the local teacher labor market. In

New York State, 85% of teachers started their teaching career within 40 miles of where they

grew up, regardless of where they attended college (Boyd, Lankford, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2004;

Boyd et al., 2005). Urban districts generally produce fewer high school and college graduates,

necessitating external recruitment, unlike suburban districts. Urban districts also have more jobs

than suburban districts. The anticipated cost of moving to a new location to teach adds more

complexity to a persons assessment of the exchange value of a teaching certificate. Finally,

within districts where NCLB requires increased emphasis on testing, more creative and


12/21


11

experienced teachers will be dissuaded from teaching and go to more affluent, high-performing

schools (Ryan, 2004).

In comparison to exchange value, use value measures how applicable something is in the

market (Labaree, 2004). While a teaching certificate may have high or low exchange value

depending on the perspective of the holder or others in society, use value would be measured by

how helpful and practical the knowledge gained from teacher education is in the classroom.

Progressives feel that the use value of teacher preparation is high, which is why prospective

teachers need more of it. Neoconservatives believe the use value is low as teaching can be

learned by experience if the person has the pre-employment characteristics that research has

identified as predictors of quality teacher. They also believe that the use value of teacher

education is low as a direct result of the control universities have on teacher preparation, calling

todays future teachers a captive market (Ballou & Podgursky, 2000, p. 25). In their minds, use

value would increase through market competition. Teach for America, with its short training

period, was designed not only to increase the exchange value of teaching for young college

graduates, but because of the belief that the use value of traditional teacher education is low.

However, while principals report TFA corps members are as well prepared as other new

teachers, most corps members disclose that they would have liked a longer training period before

entering the classroom (Ness, 2004).

Gatekeeping in Teacher Quality Policy: Who is Left Out

The focus of the teacher quality debate has focused on who meets the pre-employment

standards of teacher quality and how it is measured. However, by using quality as a measure to

gatekeep the profession, some scholars worry that standards implemented by both the

progressive and neoconservatives have resulted in too many false negatives, including many


13/21


12

people of color (Goldhaber, 2004). While the population of students of color has grown over the

last twenty years, the teacher population has stayed the same- mostly White and female (Belfield,

2005; Guarino et al., 2006; Stevens, 1994).

History has demonstrated that for many groups, a teacher certificate has high exchange

value based on their family background and life experience. For children of recent immigrants

and working class whose parents are employed in blue-collar positions, teaching offered great

social mobility because it has been an easy and accessible way to join the middle class via a

respected profession. As the entry standards for teaching preparation schools were relatively low,

it allowed individuals a new entryway into the university system that history only afforded to the

upper middle class. Education was away to escape the struggles of farming or poverty, and

teaching was a way to finance further education (Ogren, 2005). Likewise, Jewish American

female teachers saw teaching as an avenue of upward mobility (Markowitz, 1993). Pursuing

higher education and becoming a teacher was inseparable for many women from the working

class, making the exchange value of a teaching certificate high. Recent qualitative research on

teachers of color has focused on Latino and African American teachers and their attitudes toward

teaching. In general, the Latino culture places a high exchange value on teaching as a profession

because of its association with mobility for immigrants, while African Americans do not because

of their own negative experiences with teachers when they were students (Gordon, 2000).

Some contemporary analysis on this subject has focused on the high number of African

American and Latino teachers who fail entry-level tests for certification (Bennett, McWhorter, &

Kuykendall, 2006; Guarino et al., 2006; Selwyn, 2007; Wakefield, 2003). Selwyn (2007) cites

that 62% of African Americans and 67% of Latino students passed the certification exam in

Washington, DC, compared to 90% of Whites. Bennett, McWhorter, and Kuykendall (2007) call


14/21


13

the testing system. a story of indirect oppression when these poorly prepared students cannot

keep with their prepared peers and do not qualify on tests such as Praxis I, even though schools

of education are eager to recruit ethnic-minority, first-generation college, and low-income

students (p. 532). Despite that large percentages of people of color are being screened out of the

profession, neither the U.S. Department of Education nor the states have relaxed testing

requirements for becoming a teacher. One analysis of the NCLB requirements through a critical

race theory lens found that NCLB has prevented minority residents of urban areas access to

teaching not only because of testing, but because state-mandated student teaching requirements

require free labor, something many urban minority residents cant afford. These barriers

contribute to selection criteria that are racially skewed (Epstein, 2006).

While recent analyses have demonstrated how alternative certification has increased the

quality of teachers in Washington, DC and New York City based on selectivity of colleges

attended and exam scores, these analyses do not comment on how teacher demographics may

have changed (Boyd et al., 2007; Rotherham & Sullivan, 2006). The Mathematica study on

Teach for America corps members showed that over 50% of the novice teachers in the sampled

schools in six urban areas who were not TFA were working on emergency or temporary

certificates. Of those teachers, 83% were people of color and less than 4% of the control novice

groups had attended a selective or highly selective college (Decker et al., 2004). As the study

was about Teach for America participants, it did not provide information about why these

teachers were working on emergency or temporary certificates and why they were

disproportionately people of color compared to other groups of teachers.


15/21


14

Conclusion

The various streams of research on pre-employment standards for teachers by progressive

and neoconservative scholars, policymakers and economists are critical as they are defining

national and state policy and having a material impact on who can become a teacher and how

that person is prepared. The available research shows that there are further questions for inquiry.

1. Is there a disconnect between the arguments set forth on teacher quality and what

actually happens in local district and school hiring decisions? When there is an excess

supply of teachers for a labor market, in theory, the entry standards can be raised to meet

the demand (Guarino et al., 2006; Rotherham & Mead, 2004). NCLB allows states to

create their own regulations under the highly qualified mandate and data shows that state

developed requirements vary widely and are implemented unevenly at the district and

school level (Center on Education Policy, 2007; Ohio Department of Education, 2004;

Plash & Piotrowski, 2006; Useem, Offenberg, & Farley, 2007). Principals may feel that

candidates who do not meet the teacher quality requirements set by the state are better

than those who do because teachers that posses certain attitudes not measured through

certification are better-suited for the profession. (Baker & Cooper, 2005; Ballou &

Podgursky, 1998; Center on Education Policy, 2007; Young & Delli, 2002). A recent

report found that over half of states and two-thirds of school districts did not believe the

NCLB teacher quality measures had resulted in higher student achievement in their

jurisdiction (Center on Education Policy, 2007). Scholars and policy analysts should

consider this data.

2. Is there significant reason to research false negatives being dropped from the

profession? Current economic production analyses on teacher quality and student


16/21


15

achievement are almost universally focused on finding what characteristics predict great

teachers. As a result, false positives in the hiring process are also identified, so teacher

applicants with those characteristics will not be selected in the future (Goldhaber, 2004).

However, based on the limited research on teachers of color who have been either

replaced due to NCLB standards, or prevented from qualifying for teaching positions at

all, false negatives may be an important line of inquiry. Assuming schools value

diversity, scholars should investigate the points in the teacher preparation, certification,

and selection process where people of color are being eliminated and determine if there

are appropriate interventions, such as test preparation or other policy recommendations.

Despite 25-plus years of reform, teacher quality is still an issue. In 1983, the National

Commission for Excellence in Education was concerned that teachers were being recruited from

low achieving college graduates. In 2002, the U.S. Department of Education reported that only

14% of new teachers who majored in education were in the top quartile of SAT and ACT takers

(U. S. Department of Education, 2002). The only change is that through the use of alternative

pathways, it is likely that a slightly larger percentage of our new teachers are coming from

outside the education major, though the impact on the national level is minuscule. If one believed

that we were at risk when the Commission wrote its report, we are still in danger based on data

such as this.


17/21


16

References

Abell Foundation (2001). Teacher certification reconsidered: stumbling for quality. Baltimore,

MD: The Abell Foundation.

Anyon, J. (1997). Ghetto schools: A political economy of urban educational reform. New York:

Teacher's College Press.

Baker, B., & Cooper, B. (2005). Do principals with stronger academic backgrounds hire better

teachers? Policy implications for improving high-poverty schools. Educational

Administration Quarterly, 41(3), 449-479.

Ballou, D., & Podgursky, M. (1998). The case against teacher certification. Public Interest,

132(17-29).

Ballou, D., & Podgursky, M. (2000). Reforming teacher preparation and licensing: what is the

evidence? Teachers College Record, 102(1), 5-27.

Belfield, C. (2005). The teacher labour market in the US: challenges and reforms. Educational

Review, 57(2), 175-191.

Bennett, C., McWhorter, J., & Kuykendall, J. (2006). Will I ever teach? Latino and African-

American students' perspectives on Praxis I. American Educational Research Journal,

43(3), 531-575.

Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., Michelli, N., & Wyckoff, J. (2006). Complex by

design: investigating pathways into teaching in New York City schools. Journal of

Teacher Education, 57(2), 155-166.

Boyd, D., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2004). The preparation and recruitment of

teachers. A labor market framework. In F. Hess, A. Rotherham & K. Walsh (Eds.), A


18/21


17

qualified teacher in every classroom? Appraising old answers and new ideas.

Cambridge: Harvard Education Press.

Boyd, D., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2005). The draw of home: How teachers'

preferences for proximity disadvantage urban students. Journal of Policy Analysis and

Management, 24(1), 113-132.

Boyd, D., Loeb, S., Wyckoff, J., Lankford, H., & Rockoff, J. (2007). The narrowing gap in New

York City teacher qualifications and its implications for student achievement in high-

poverty schools. Unpublished manuscript. Retrieved from

http://www.teacherpolicyresearch.org/ResearchPapers/tabid/103/Default.aspx.

Bush. (2001). The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.

Carnegie Foundation. (1986). A nation prepared. Teachers for the 21st

century.

Center on Education Policy. (2007). Implementing the No Child Left Behind Teacher

requirements.

Corcoran, S., Evans, W., & Schwab, R. (2004). Women, the labor market, and the declining

relative quality of teachers. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 23(3), 449-470.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teaching for America's future: National commissions and vested

interests in an almost profession. Educational Policy, 14(1), 162-183.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2002). Research and rhetoric on teacher certification: a response to

Teacher Certification Reconsidered. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(36).

Decker, P., Mayer, D., & Glazerman, S. (2004). The Effects of Teach for America on Students:

Findings from a National Evaluation: Institute for Research on Poverty.

Epstein, K. (2006). A different view of urban schools: civil rights, critical race theory, and

unexplored realities. New York: Peter Lang.


19/21


18

Finn, C. (2003). Teacher reform gone astray. In P. Peterson (Ed.), Our schools & our future. Are

we still at risk? San Francisco: Hoover Institution Press.

Goldhaber, D. (2004). Why do we license teachers? In F. Hess, A. Rotherham & K. Walsh

(Eds.), A qualified teacher in every classroom? Appraising old answers and new ideas.

Cambridge: Harvard Education Press.

Gordon, J. (2000). The color of teaching. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.

Guarino, C., Santibanez, L., & Daley, G. (2006). Teacher recruitment and retention: A review of

the recent empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 76(2), 173-208.

Holmes Group. (1986). Tomorrow's teachers: a report of the Holmes Group. East Lansing, MI.

King Rice, J. (2003). Teacher quality: understanding the effectiveness of teacher attributes.

Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.

Labaree, D. (2004). The trouble with ed schools. New Haven, CT: Yale University.

Markowitz, R. (1993). My daughter the teacher: Jewish teachers in New York City . New

Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

National Commission for Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for

educational reform.

National Commission on Teaching & America's Future (1996). What matters most: Teaching for

America's future.

Ness, M. (2004). Lessons to learn: voices from the front lines of Teach for America . New York:

RoutledgeFalmer.

Ogren, C. (2005). The American state normal school: an instrument of great good. New York:

Palgrave Macmillan.

Ohio Department of Education. (2004). Condition of teacher supply and demand in Ohio 2004.


20/21


19

Plash, S., & Piotrowski, C. (2006). Impact of the No Child Left Behind Act in Alabama. A

review. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 33(3), 223-227.

Ravitch, D. (2007). Challenges to Teacher Education. Journal of Teacher Education, 58(4), 269-

273.

Rivkin, S., Hanushek, E., & Kain, J. (2005). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement.

Econometrica, 73(2), 417-458.

Rotherham, A., & Mead, S. (2004). Back to the future: the history and politics of state teacher

licensure and certification. In F. Hess, A. Rotherham & K. Walsh (Eds.), A qualified

teacher in every classroom? Appraising old answers and new ideas. Cambridge: Harvard

Education Press.

Rotherham, A., & Sullivan, M. (2006). DC's new teacher demographics. Washington, DC:

Education Sector. Retrieved from

http://www.educationsector.org/analysis/analysis_show.htm?doc_id=401267.

Ryan, J. (2004). The perverse incentives of the No Child Left Behind Act. New York University

Law Review, 932-989.

Selwyn, D. (2007). Highly quantified teachers: NCLB and teacher education. Journal of Teacher

Education, 58(2), 124-137.

Stevens, N. (1994). Texas teacher diversity and recruitment. Teacher supply, demand, and

quality policy research project. Austin, TX: Texas Education Agency.

U.S. Department of Education. (2002). Meeting the highly qualified teachers challenge. The

secretary's annual report on teacher quality. Washington, D.C.


21/21


Useem, E., Offenberg, R., & Farley, E. (2007). Closing the teacher quality gap in Philadelphia:

new hope and old hurdles. Philadelphia: Research for Action.

Wakefield, D. (2003). Screening teacher candidates: problems with high stakes testing. The

Educational Forum, 67, 380-388.

Walsh, K., & Podgursky, M. (2001). Teacher certification reconsidered: stumbling for quality. A

rejoinder. Baltimore, MD: The Abell Foundation.

Young, I., & Delli, D. (2002). The validity of teachers perceiver interview for predicting

performance of classroom teachers. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(5), 586-

612.

tracy brisson- teacher quality since a nation at risk

Documents