By CYNTHIA PETERS

Teacher performance: one arena of education reform

The debate is underway, and changes have already been proposed for the improvement of teaching in Illinois public schools. It is a complex issue demanding that every facet be aired candidly until consensus is reached.

IT OFTEN appears to outsiders that the American educational system is like a ship that is slowly sinking while passengers and crew members run for the lifejackets and argue about who is in charge of repairs. Functional illiteracy among both teachers and students, violence in the schools, dropping test scores and inflated grades are the signals of trouble in a once proud system. To date, efforts to reform education have amounted to "rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic," Richard H. Hersh, associate dean for teacher education at the University of Oregon, was quoted as saying in a Time magazine article.

And the lone figure at the helm of the classroom — the public school teacher — is bearing the brunt of the blame. Teachers point out the host of problems, both inside and outside of the classroom, which have weighed down the public schools. They point out the ever-increasing, sometimes conflicting demands placed on education. In Illinois and other states, schools are expected to fill a variety of socialization roles in addition to providing an education. Schools are expected to provide parenting, health care and sex education; to teach children to brush their teeth, tie their shoes and drive a car, and still find time to teach reading, writing and arithmetic. Almost every year state legislatures hand down new responsibilities in the form of mandates — often without fully funding them. At a time when demands upon education are increasing, support for schools from parents and taxpayers is dwindling. The population is changing, and a large majority of taxpayers who do not have children in the public schools are showing an unwillingness to fund the present education system. And the decline of the family, the influence of television on student attention span, the disruption created by desegregation and mainstreaming, and a policy of keeping more students in school longer have placed additional burdens on the classroom. Even the way in which the teaching profession itself is regarded has changed; once admired for their knowledge and devotion, teachers now often find themselves scapegoats for the ills of the entire system. It's easier for the public to blame the teaching crew when waters are rough than it is to examine their own attitudes and responsibilities toward the situation.

But the public's criticism of teachers is not entirely unjustified. Horror stories of functionally illiterate teachers abound, and samples of notes written by teachers containing a plethora of grammatical errors are circulated. The fact that these stories are becoming public knowledge at a time when teachers, via unions, are becoming more militant in their demands for increased salaries hardly improves the public's image of the teaching profession.

This article examines general problems and proposals concerning teacher performance which have been reported in a wide variety of national articles and reports. Within the framework of those reports, this article sketches in a general picture of the concerns over teaching quality in Illinois with information from various state reports and surveys of educational leaders.

As these issues become more widely known and more hotly debated, Illinois, like other states, has begun to demand reform to improve teacher performance in the state's classrooms. The very complexity and interdependence of the problems make them difficult to discuss, let alone solve. Change in one area usually affects other steps in the process of training and retaining excellent teachers. But debate usually centers on four major areas of teacher performance: (1) the academic quality of students being admitted to university teacher education programs; (2) the quality of those programs; (3) the way in which university graduates are certified to teach; and (4) the performance of teachers in the classroom, as well as salaries and working conditions.

Changing admission standards and teacher education programs usually involve long-range reforms to alter the beginning steps of the training process — that is, ensuring quality students and quality programs to provide school districts with good teachers initially. Changing certification procedures involves hard decisions on ways to keep unqualified teachers out of school districts. Improving the performance of teachers already in the classroom and providing incentives to keep qualified teachers in the system also require difficult decisions.

Training and retaining excellent teachers involves several interrelated steps; changes to improve one step may throw off the rhythm of others. For instance, many reformers propose a tightening of admissions standards for teacher education programs to improve

22/June 1984/Illinois Issues

quality. But as overall university enrollments decline, tighter admissions could reduce enrollments in teacher preparatory programs and gradually contribute to a shift in funds toward other programs which are more in demand — a shift in funds which could adversely affect the quality of teacher education programs.

Admission standards

Nevertheless, concern over the declining quality of students being admitted into teacher education programs has led to a tightening of admission standards — regardless of the effect on enrollments. U.S. News and World Report reported that in 1982, scores from the Scholastic Aptitude Test given to college-bound students were ranked nationally according to students' planned majors. Of 29 rankings, those planning to enter education ranked 26th; only those planning to major in home economics, ethnic studies and trade or vocations scored lower. (Those students entering education also were below the national average in combined math and verbal test scores for college-bound seniors.) In Illinois, universities primarily rely on ACT (American College Test) scores, but the state does not rank scores according to intended major, said Sally Pancrazio, who compiles research and statistics at the State Board of Education. In addition, such rankings may be deceptive because they are administered in high school and a student's choice of major may change between the test and actual admission into a university program, said John W. Huther, deputy director of policy studies at the Illinois Board of Higher Education (IBHE). Huther said several studies by individual Illinois universities compared the test scores of those actually in teacher education programs with those of students in other programs and found the scores were similar. But, he said, educators continue to be puzzled as to why those who score low on the tests are disproportionately attracted to teaching while still in high school.

Little is being done to attract better students into teaching in Illinois, according to 1983 reports by the Illinois Association of School Boards' (IASB) Committee on Teaching as a Career and a State Board of Education study on the "Quality of the Preparation and Performance of Illinois Educational Personnel." Studies throughout the country indicate that universities themselves often don't use rigorous standards to admit students to teacher preparatory programs. In Illinois the IASB study reported that lax standards allow low-achieving students to enter and graduate from Illinois programs. At the time of the reports, a typical standard for admission into the state's teacher preparation programs was a C or C-plus grade average, and only about one-third of Illinois universities required demonstration of writing proficiency, only 20 percent a demonstration of reading proficiency and less than 20 percent required proficiency in mathematics, according to the study. Even then, the IASB report said that "standards typically imposed range from eighth to twelfth grade levels of achievement."

In January 1984, the IBHE did direct Illinois public universities to designate subjects which should be completed in high school, and to include these specific subjects in their minimum admission standards. In addition, the IBHE has recommended that high school students intending to enter college complete four years of English, social studies, mathematics and science, plus two years of a foreign language. As a 1984 IBHE report on a "Review of Problems Related to the Quality of Educational Personnel" said: "The quality of students who enter education programs is part of the larger problem involving both high school graduation requirements and public university admission requirements. For example, it is theoretically possible for a certified elementary school teacher to have graduated from high school in Illinois without a course in science, be admitted to some public universities, and graduated from a teacher preparation program with only seven hours of course work in science."

In Illinois, some work is being done to raise admission standards, and recent test scores and grades for education majors have reflected the changes. Of the state's 12 public universities, seven have raised admission standards by requiring either higher grade-point averages, higher scores on college entrance exams or demonstration of proficiency in basic academic skills. The others are considering implementing one or more of these measures, according to a May 1984 IBHE report on "Institutional Initiatives to Improve the Quality of Educational Personnel."

Why the decline in the quality of students entering the teaching profession? Part of the explanation lies in changes in the public's attitude toward education. In the late 1950s the Soviet Union launched Sputnik and suddenly American education no longer seemed competitive with other countries. Programs and funding were stepped up, while at the same time public school enrollments were rising, according to Ken Drum of the Illinois Federation of Teachers (IFT). Pressure was put on the nation's universities to turn out first class teachers, while at the same time turning them out faster. Colleges couldn't supply teachers fast enough, but they tried — often by relaxing entrance requirements to teacher education programs to fill the demand, critics charge. Others, like Drum, disagree, saying this period attracted many bright, capable students into teaching. The upheaval of the 1960s has also left its mark on education. Somehow, competition and excellence took on elitist overtones, grades seemed undemocratic, and promotion based on merit and accomplishment was condemned as a way to discriminate against minorities. Standards continued to erode in the 1970s when many people began viewing schools as institutions which destroyed individuality and failed to provide for the cultural differences of children. There was a general trend toward making the curriculum "more relevant," Drum said, adding that society "expected less and that's what we got." In addition, the last two decades have seen opportunities in other fields open up to women — once a captive labor force for teaching.

As the rewards and status of teaching have declined, many bright capable students who might have become teachers are choosing other careers. While tightening admission standards may help to ensure better quality, it may do little good if bright students are not attracted to teaching, educators warn. While the previously cited 1983 study by the State Board of Education indicates that Illinois has more than enough candidates enrolling in and graduating from teacher colleges to fill

June 1984/Illinois Issues/23

the state's classrooms, critics say there is a difference between enough candidates and enough bright candidates. The State Board of Education's report also notes that there is no comprehensive and explicit state-level program to identify and recruit bright students into teacher education. And, with overall university enrollments dropping, there is competition among college programs for bright students to fill classes taught by tenured faculty who have jobs to protect.

Teacher preparation

But even if the quality of students entering teacher colleges were to improve, the teaching programs themselves would continue to be criticized. Some say they stress clinical courses on how to teach instead of academic courses in what to teach, while others say the programs stress theory courses too much and neglect training in classroom situations. "We pigeon-hole learning," said John Wargo of the Illinois Association of School Administrators. Teacher preparatory programs often teach students to be scientists rather than teachers of science, he said.

Regardless of how the programs are structured, critics say that grades given in both academic and clinical courses are inflated so much as to be virtually meaningless. In Illinois universities, 75 percent of all students received an A in student teaching and 20 percent received Bs, according to reports in the November-December 1983 Illinois School Board Journal. The number of students who receive failing grades has remained at about 1 percent or less since 1968, and 60 percent of universities accept a D in student teaching for graduation, according to the Journal. The Illinois State Board of Education study on the quality of teaching preparation and performance reported that "available evidence indicates that Illinois teacher education institutions have not, as a group, acted decisively to demand excellence in both academic and practical performance of candidates through establishing rigorous requirements for admission into and retention in preparation programs."

Teacher education programs have also been criticized for not requiring enough course work in a teacher's discipline. For instance, the general education course requirements for the elementary certificate in Illinois total 78 hours, according to the previously cited IBHE report on the quality of educational personnel. But of those 78, only 39 are specified. Given these requirements, "it is possible to be certified to teach at the elementary school level with as little as 9 hours in language arts or 7 hours in science or 5 hours in mathematics. Given the elementary school teachers' responsibility to provide instruction in all subjects areas, the adequacy of such minimum requirements should be reexamined," the report said.

Many of the state's universities are reviewing their teacher education curriculums, and some have already made changes requiring additional courses or course revisions, according to the May 1984 report by the IBHE. The State Board of Education's study on teacher preparation and performance recommends establishment of tougher and more uniform standards for admission and retention in all teacher education programs leading to certification. It also recommends that the State Teacher Certification Board devise specific policies to assess a student's knowledge of content and practical performance in all programs leading to certification, according to Susan Bentz of the State Board of Education.

As for grade inflation there are critics who say the problem is largely the result of the funding structure for higher education. Funds for the nation's public universities and their departments are allocated by the individual states according to formulas in which enrollment is a factor. To a certain extent, funds are shifted toward areas of student interest and demand, according to an IBHE study on "Educational and Economic Ramifications of Shifts in Student Demand." Within this funding structure, departments may be tempted to relax standards to garner more students and to justify current levels of expenditures, critics say. Huther said such an analysis of the funding structure is an "oversimplification, if not outright erroneous." While enrollments — which have been shifting to programs such as business and engineering — are a factor, funding decisions are more complex, he said. In Illinois, a department will receive a certain level of funding to maintain its present programs and faculty salaries, although it may not get large amounts of new money if its programs are not in high demand, he said.

As for the dispute over clinical versus academic courses, critics often blame the educational theorists who argue over the best way to teach teachers to teach and thus keep educational programs in constant flux.

Many critics say that real reform of university education programs would require a massive overhaul of the system. This, they say, would require either revolutionary changes within the universities — something they regard as highly unlikely — or reform from outside the institutions.

Teacher certification

In the absence of broad program reforms, some states are moving to toughen certification procedures for graduates of university teacher education programs — some by requiring teachers to pass competency tests. Illinois does not require competency testing for certification, although the concept has been debated on and off for the past several years. In Illinois, certification is based on completion of an approved teacher education program. Many say that the quality of preparatory programs is essential since completing the program is the basis for certification. (The certification process is different in Chicago, which does use tests to license and certify its teachers.)

Of those states which do require competency testing, some administer them only to new teachers applying for state certification for the first time, often with depressing results. In Louisiana only 53 percent of new applicants passed the test in 1978, and 63 percent passed in 1979. In other states, like Texas, the Dallas Independent School District required new teachers to take the test, while also requiring some 535 first-year teachers already employed by the district to take a competency test; half of those teachers fell below the score considered acceptable by the district.

Competency testing to certify a teacher has become one of the most politicized issues of teacher reform. The furor over such testing concerns how well a paper and pencil test can determine a teacher's ability in the

24/June 1984/Illinois Issues

classroom. Opponents of the testing argue that qualities which make good teachers can't be objectively identified or measured. But proponents say that even if such tests can't identify people who would be good teachers, at least they can eliminate those who are deficient in basic academic skills.

Teacher unions figure prominently in this issue. The National Education Association (NEA) and its affiliate the Illinois Education Association (IEA) oppose competency testing, saying it is not an adequate measure of a teacher's ability. Some people take tests well, while others who may be marvelous teachers don't. Instead of testing, the NEA-IEA supports higher standards for admission and retention in college teacher education programs. A teacher's skills should be reviewed in evaluations which give the person a chance to remedy problem areas, according to Harry Van Houdnos of the IEA. But officials of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) have said they may be willing to support competency tests prior to certification. Ken Drum of the Illinois Federation of Teachers agreed, saying "if you can't pass a test on your major subject area, you don't belong in a classroom." Proponents of this kind of testing stress that it should be but one part of an ongoing evaluation procedure throughout teacher preparation at the college level. Done at this level, students would have a chance to improve in weak areas before they graduate.

Teacher salaries

If you were to ask teachers themselves what single measure would most likely improve teacher performance, they would probably say higher teacher salaries, with more recognition and better working conditions thrown in for good measure. Teachers have been lamenting low pay for years and have shown an increasing willingness to strike. Union officials and some education leaders point out that the teaching profession cannot expect to attract bright, capable students with the present pay scales. The "brightest and best," particularly those interested in math and science, would earn about $13,000 as a starting teacher, but those same students could earn nearly twice as much as a beginning engineer. In addition, while teachers receive incremental increases during the first years they teach, they reach their peak salary within a few years. After that, their earning power remains virtually static, barely keeping pace with inflation. Only those who move into administration, which is the only real promotional opportunity, can expect to receive higher salaries than the maximum for teachers.

While teachers and unions are calling for across-the-board raises, many government leaders are focusing on incentive programs, especially merit pay, which financially rewards accomplished teachers. Another suggested approach provides career ladders for teachers to recognize and reward various levels of

But reforms do not come easily in a system as large and complex as education

experience and ability and provide an avenue for promotion within teaching. There are also proposals for programs which recognize highly skilled teachers as "master teachers," and Illinois has such a program offering salary bonuses and time off from classes to share knowledge and skills with other teachers. Gov. James R. Thompson's master teacher program was implemented in the 1983-1984 school year with a budget of $637,000. Those named as master teachers received a $1,000 pay bonus and three days of release time from classes to share their knowledge with other teachers. In the last year 500 teachers have been so recognized. For the 1984-1985 school year, a proposed expansion of the program would call for a $5 million budget and selection of 1,200 teachers who would receive a larger salary supplement and more release time. But some educators have criticized the selection process — teachers must nominate themselves as master teachers. Others point out that the program affects relatively few teachers and doesn't provide enough release time for these teachers to share their skills with others. With funding for schools in such short supply, some argue that the money would be better spent in general state aid funding to schools.

Unions generally object to the concept of merit pay, saying it sets up an elitist system which rewards the few at the cost of many. They point out that merit pay has been tried in the past and has been abandoned because it created too many difficulties. The IEA is against merit pay unless it is based on some kind of work load differential; that is, people who do different types of work get different levels of pay, according to Van Houdnos. The IFT's position is summed up by President Robert M. Healey's recent comments in the union's publication: "True education reform must start with adequate salary levels for all education workers. The starting point cannot be a merit pay system which will benefit a select few. However, we must keep an open mind and be willing to look at career ladders and incentive programs, and where they seem equitable and feasible, give them serious consideration."

Many reformers assert that nothing short of across-the-board salary raises for all teachers will make a difference. Higher salaries would boost esteem and would offer incentives for bright students to enter teaching and for experienced teachers to stay in the classroom. But such increases would cost millions — as would many of the other reform proposals — and the state simply doesn't have the money. (See " 'Educational excellence' decreed in governor's budget," May 1984.) In his March budget message, the governor said he won't hand over massive amounts of new money without reform by the education system, and many legislators have agreed that reforms are necessary. But reforms do not come easily in a system as large and complex as education. Educators are divided as to what specific measures should be taken, and each segment of the education community jealously guards its own turf. This makes consensus difficult, specific proposals scarce — and the public impatient.

While the education community is implementing some reforms of its own, the legislature is also considering reform proposals to improve teacher performance. Although a variety of bills have been introduced, as of April 25 few had progressed past committee and

June 1984/Illinois Issues/25

legislators have said it is unlikely that significant reforms will pass both chambers of the General Assembly during this session. (See "Madigan's conference on education reform," May 1984.)

Various groups are using the time to try to form coalitions from previously divided groups in hopes of building the consensus needed for successful reform. Some of the groups are headed by legislators, others are being formed by independent groups. For instance, in a March series of conferences, House Speaker Michael J. Madigan brought together educators, legislators, business leaders and concerned citizens to discuss issues and propose solutions. More recently two independent organizations, the Roosevelt Center for American Policy Studies and Chicago United (a consortium of business leaders) launched a 15-month, $300,000 reform project headed by former state Supt. of Public Instruction Michael J. Bakalis. The goals of the project are to spell out policy options and costs for reform, to strengthen taxpayer commitment to education, to reassemble Illinois' fragmented educational coalition and finally to bridge the gap between policy and politics with some workable legislation.

There is some evidence of a developing cohesiveness among the traditional education factions which in the past have shouted with separate voices. Other voices are also being heard as business leaders, parents, students and even teachers become more vocal in their concerns over the general quality of education in Illinois.

A new awareness of the need for action is evidencing itself at the local level too, as individual school districts look at steps they can take to improve their schools and meet their own needs — independent of action by the General Assembly or the state boards.

Such activity by grass-roots organizations — named and unnamed, formal and informal — preceded successful reform programs in states like California and Tennessee. Many reformers insist that if Illinois is to chart a different and better course for its schools and its teachers, everyone — education administrators, union, interest groups, legislators, taxpayers, parents and teachers — must learn to steer under a joint flagship.

26/June 1984/Iltinois Issues