Out-of-Field Teaching and the Limits of Teacher Policy

The failure to ensure that the nation's classrooms are all staffed with qualified teachers is one of the most important problems in contemporary American education. Over the past decade, many panels, commissions, and studies have focused attention on this problem and, in turn, numerous reforms have been initiated to upgrade the quality and quantity of the teaching force. This report focuses on the problem of underqualified teachers in the core academic fields at the 7-12th grade level. Using data from the nationally representative Schools and Staffing Survey, conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics, this analysis examined how many classes are not staffed by minimally qualified teachers, and to what extent these levels have changed in recent years. The data show that while almost all teachers hold at least basic qualifications, there are high levels of out-of-field teaching teachers assigned to teach subjects that do not match their training or education. Moreover, the data show that out-of-field teaching has gotten slightly worse in recent years, despite a plethora of reforms targeted to improving teacher quality. The report discusses possible reasons for the failure of these reform efforts. My thesis is that, despite the unprecedented interest in and awareness of this problem, there remains little understanding of a key issue the reasons for the prevalence of underqualified teaching in American schools resulting thus far in a failure of teacher policy and reform. I conclude by drawing out the lessons and implications of these failures for the prospects of the No Child Left Behind Act to successfully address the problem of underqualified teachers in classrooms in the coming years. Comments Suggested Citation: Ingersoll, R. (2003). Out-of-Field Teaching and the Limits of Teacher Policy. Report of The Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy and The Consortium for Policy Research in Education 32 pages. Publisher URL: http://depts.washington. edu/ctpmail/PDFs/LimitsPolicy-RI-09-2003.pdf This technical report is available at ScholarlyCommons: http://repository.upenn. edu/gse_pubs/143 ctp Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy U N I V E R S I T Y O F W A S H I N G T O N Out-of-Field Teaching and the Limits of Teacher Policy A Research Report co-sponsored by Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy and The Consortium for Policy Research in Education by Richard M. Ingersoll University of Pennsylvania September 2003 (Document R-03-5) ctp Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy A National Research Consortium U N I V E R S I T Y O F W A S H I N G T O N (lead institution) S T A N F O R D U N I V E R S I T Y T E A C H E R S C O L L E G E / C O L U M B I A U N I V E R S I T Y U N I V E R S I T Y O F M I C H I G A N U N I V E R S I T Y O F P E N N S Y L V A N I A Other active participants in CTP’s research and dissemination program include researchers affiliated with Indiana University, Michigan State University, Pennsylvania State University, the University of California at Santa Barbara, the University of North Carolina, and Education Matters, Inc. CTP studies the way policies and conditions in schools, districts, states, and teacher education institutions shape the quality of teaching and learning in the nation’s elementary and secondary schools. The Center pays particular attention to the ways these policies and conditions interact with each other to influence the teaching profession and its practice. The Center’s program of research is carried out in collaboration with various other research organizations, among them other OERI-funded research centers, including the Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE), the Center for Research on Education, Diversity, and Excellence (CREDE), and the Center on English Learning & Achievement (CELA). The Center is affiliated with a variety of professional and advocacy organizations that represent teachers, teacher educators, state and local policymakers, disciplinary groups, and educational reform interests. This research was supported by a grant from the Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy under the Educational Research and Development Centers Program, PR/Award R308B970003, as administered by the National Institute on Educational Governance, Finance, Policymaking and Management, Office and Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education. Opinions reflect those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the granting agencies. Thanks are due to David Perda for help with the policy review; to Gema Barkanic for help with the data analysis; and to Mary Kennedy and Susanna Loeb for particularly helpful comments on an earlier draft.