Boyd Donald, Goldhaber Daniel, Lankford Hamilton, Wyckoff James
Center for Policy Research, University at Albany, SUNY, USA.
Future Child. 2007 Spring;17(1):45-68. doi: 10.1353/foc.2007.0000.
To improve the quality of the teacher workforce, some states have tightened teacher preparation and certification requirements while others have eased requirements and introduced "alternative" ways of being certified to attract more people to teaching. Donald Boyd, Daniel Goldhaber, Hamilton Lankford, and James Wyckoff evaluate these seemingly contradictory strategies by examining how preparation and certification requirements affect student achivement. If strong requirements improve student outcomes and deter relatively few potential teachers, the authors say, then they may well be good policy. But if they have little effect on student achievement, if they seriously deter potential teachers, or if schools are able to identify applicants who will produce good student outcomes, then easing requirements becomes a more attractive policy. In reviewing research on these issues, the authors find that evidence is often insufficient to draw conclusions. They do find that highly selective alternative route programs can produce effective teachers who perform about the same as teachers from traditional routes after two years on the job. And they find that teachers who score well on certification exams can improve student outcomes somewhat. Limited evidence suggests that certification requirements can diminish the pool of applicants, but there is no evidence on how they affect student outcomes. And the authors find that schools have a limited ability to identify attributes in prospective teachers that allow them to improve student achievement. The authors conclude that the research evidence is simply too thin to have serious implications for policy. Given the enormous investment in teacher preparation and certification and given the possibility that these requirements may worsen student outcomes, the lack of convincing evidence is disturbing. The authors urge researchers and policymakers to work together to move to a more informed position where good resource decisions can be made.
为提高教师队伍质量,一些州收紧了教师培养和认证要求,而另一些州则放宽了要求并引入“替代”认证方式以吸引更多人投身教育事业。唐纳德·博伊德、丹尼尔·戈德哈伯、汉密尔顿·兰克福德和詹姆斯·怀科夫通过考察培养和认证要求如何影响学生成绩来评估这些看似矛盾的策略。作者们表示,如果严格的要求能提高学生成绩且劝退的潜在教师相对较少,那么它们很可能是好政策。但如果这些要求对学生成绩影响甚微,严重劝退潜在教师,或者学校能够识别出能让学生取得好成绩的申请者,那么放宽要求就会成为更具吸引力的政策。在回顾关于这些问题的研究时,作者们发现往往缺乏足够证据得出结论。他们确实发现,高度选择性的替代途径项目能够培养出高效教师,这些教师在工作两年后的表现与传统途径培养的教师大致相同。而且他们发现,在认证考试中成绩优异的教师能在一定程度上提高学生成绩。有限的证据表明,认证要求会减少申请者数量,但没有证据表明其对学生成绩有何影响。作者们还发现,学校识别未来教师中能提高学生成绩的特质的能力有限。作者们得出结论,研究证据太过薄弱,无法对政策产生重大影响。鉴于在教师培养和认证方面投入巨大,且这些要求可能会使学生成绩变差,缺乏令人信服的证据令人不安。作者们敦促研究人员和政策制定者共同努力,以达到更明智的状态,从而做出合理的资源决策。