Last week, the Ohio Education Research Center (OERC) hosted a terrific conference at Ohio State University which brought together the state’s education research and practitioner communities. The focus of the one-day conference was teacher quality—why it matters, and how Ohio’s teacher-quality initiatives are playing out in the field.
In his keynote address, Eric Hanushek of Stanford University set the table, zeroing in on the economic value of a high-quality teacher. He showed that students who are fortunate enough to have high-quality teachers are more likely to have higher lifetime earnings than those less fortunate. The implication was easily understood: It cannot be left to chance as to whether students get a high-quality educator.
But here’s the rub: Less clear is what policies help to ensure that every Buckeye student is taught by a great teacher from Kindergarten through high-school graduation. Hanushek pointed out that several variables commonly used to measure teacher quality—including Master’s degrees, experience after a few years of teaching, and participation in professional-development programs—only weakly correlate to actual effectiveness.
A panel discussion wrestled with the ambiguity and complexity involved in raising teacher quality. (The slide decks are available here.) The panel, moderated by Rebecca Watts of the Ohio Board of Regents, included Christopher Burrows, superintendent of Georgetown Exempted Village (a district an hour east of Cincinnati), Lawrence Johnson of the University of Cincinnati, and Belinda Gimbert of Ohio State University. The panelists raised some of the prickly issues that face practitioners when it comes to boosting teacher quality, including:
- Teacher-preparation programs: How can they better identify students with a strong likelihood of becoming a high-quality teacher, while sorting out those who are less likely to excel?
- Student teaching: How can teacher-prep programs provide all their students with good student-teaching opportunities? What are the logistical hurdles; for instance, does Ohio’s new evaluation system discourage effective teachers from taking student teachers?
- Licensure and certification: What barriers do the licensure requirements create for leaders who need flexibility in deploying teachers? For example, do arbitrary “licensure bands” create unnecessary headaches? Why should a third-grade teacher, with a PK to third-grade license, be prevented from teaching fourth grade if called upon?
- Assessment literacy and technological competency: How can teacher-prep programs and school leaders help educators better understand assessments (“formative” and “summative”)—and the results from them—to improve practice? How can educators leverage technology to benefit their students?
Some of the issues cited above seem to be ripe for rigorous inquiry. And, as the state’s data becomes stronger and more robust, top-notch researchers should be encouraged to dive in and explore. (The U.S. Chamber of Commerce recently awarded the Buckeye State an “A” for “data quality.”) Ohio’s legislators can help too, by promoting high-quality research—and investing in the information systems that support such research.
As I’ve written before, we need to better marry research, policy, and practice in K-12 education. So hats off to the OERC for providing a much-needed venue, so that researchers and practitioners can raise up key questions that, if credibly answered, could help to lift achievement in the Buckeye State.
