Towards Questioning Standard-Based Measurement of Teacher Quality

Towards Questioning Standard-Based Measurement of Teacher Quality:

The Immeasurable Attributes of Teacher Quality and Its challenges to  

Teaching Standards

Introduction

Teaching might be regarded as a public service in terms of general educational policy. It is because firstly, it is identified as a profession which has social functions embedded in a society (Kreber 2002). Secondly, this professional service facilitating the provision of general education is provided due to state budget. In fact, the expenditure for providing general education comprises less than 20 percent of the whole annual state budget in Mongolia (The Constitution of Mongolia 1992).The majority of such expenditure is allocated for maintaining school environment and hiring teachers. Therefore, teaching as part of educational service is identified as public service and therefore, it must be governed by the general nature of public service.

As a public service, it is often judged by fundamental principles in social justice and economics, namely, a fair distribution of good and service; equal access for opportunity, opportunity for participation and cost effectiveness (Skovsmose 1994, p.28). In fact, the judgment of justice, equality, effectiveness and the accessibility in provision of education often centers round the nature of teaching quality. In response to such judgment, most governmental agencies in charge of education draw strong attention on enhancing the quality of teaching and make a great deal of effort to take appropriate measure on it. One of the prevailing efforts among them at present time is an approach that attempts to measure, assure the quality of teaching through standards.  Albeit numerous argumentations and suggestions to advocate this approach, it is, however, arguable whether teaching standards can function to measure the quality of teaching that is, in fact, contingent upon the quality of teacher. It prompts us again to raise a question of to what extent teaching standards are consistent with teacher quality. Accordingly, in this paper, it is evidently argued that teaching standards bears some degree of the inconsistencies with teacher quality because they ignore the immeasurable attributes of teacher quality.

In seeking the premises for this thesis expressed above, this paper will respond to such questions as follows:

Why is teacher quality important?

What constitutes teacher quality? Does it bear immeasurableness in itself?

What factors affect teacher quality? Do they contribute to the degree of its immeasurableness?

Why is teacher quality measurement necessary? How complex is it?

How reliably and valuably is teacher quality measured in practice?

To what extent is teacher quality judged by teaching standards?

An Overview of Quality

Quality is an elusive term. Its elusiveness is manifested itself in its diverse definitions emanated from various insights and perspectives. In terms of management, quality is regarded as excellence (Peter & Waterman, cited in Chen &Tam 1997); value (Feigenbaum, cited in Chen &Tam 1997); fitness for use  (Juran & Gryna, cited in Chen &Tam 1997); conformance to specifications (Gilmore, cited in Chen &Tam 1997);  conformance to requirement (Crosb, cited in Chen &Tam 1997); defect avoidance (Crosby, cited in Chen &Tam 1997); meeting and/or exceeding consumers expectations (Parasuranma et al., cited in Chen &Tam 1997). It comprises the characters of the set of elements in the inputs, process and outputs of a system that provides relevant users with complete satisfaction services (Cheng & Tam 1997).  

As far as the quality of education is concerned, Cheng & Tam (1997) proposed seven models of education quality, namely, a goal-specification model, a resource input model, a process model, a satisfaction model, a legitimacy model, an absence of problem model and an organizational learning model. In fact, those are produced through the interpretations of the models of organizational effectiveness and school effectiveness into educational service (Cameron & Whetten and Cheng, cited in Chen &Tam 1997). 

Why Is the Teacher Quality Important?

Teacher is a vital subject who delivers teaching that is, in turn, regarded as a piece of public service in terms of educational policy. It is true that there are no outcomes and outputs resulted in educational services unless teaching is delivered. Thus, any piece of educational policy will take into consideration the role of teacher and even his or her subjectivities.  However, several terms have already been appeared in the literature in association with educational policy that bears signs to separate the nature of teaching from that of teacher in decision making. Take, for example, a term, teaching standards that is considered as a set of norms or criteria that are supposed to govern the nature of teaching, In fact, there is no quality teaching in reality without a particular quality teacher who bears both particular subjective and objective or personal and professional attributes. Thus, this part of the paper aims to ascertain why teacher quality is vital and how much its importance is agreed upon by international agencies and scholars.

The importance of teacher quality for providing quality education has been scholarly recognized and internationally emphasized for the last two decades. Teacher quality is identified as one of the most important inputs in an education production function that affects strongly educational effectiveness (Juerges, Richter Schneider 2004). Moreover, it is also regarded as a key determinant of the experiences of students and outcomes of schooling (Rowe 2003) whereas the difference of teacher effectiveness produces a great deal of differences in student learning (Darling-Hammond 2000, cited in …IIEP Understanding teacher effectiveness). In addition, teacher quality and school effectiveness are regarded as underpinnings on which economic and industrial issues arouse at the present time when the important of school education is plausibly accepted as essential element of both micro and macro economic reform  and in meeting the continuously changing demands of modern places (OECD, 1986, 1989, 1993 cited in ). What is more, the OECD study that covered 23 case studies of innovation in science, mathematics and technology in 23 countries, highlighted that teachers were also regarded as agents of change whereas the role of teachers was identified as one of six themes that has strong impacts on the innovation of education and (Atkin 1998). The programme named as”EFA Flagship on Teachers and the Quality of Education” and launched by international organizations such International Labor Office (ILO), UNESCO, Educational International (EI), World Confederation of Teachers (WCT)  claims  that “…enriching the quality of teacher education reform in sub-regions in which several ministries of education or higher education are engaged in fundamental reform of teacher-education programmes to help meet Dakar goals” is identified as a strategy to achieve to quality education for all learners (ILO, UNESCO, EI and WCT 2001, cited in Fredricksson 2004).   Thus, it is strongly agreed upon that there is the internationally-agreed and scholarly –argued consensus on the importance of teacher quality for providing quality education for all that, in turn, leads us to deal with global and local demands to penetrate into its nature.

As a whole, it can be seen that teacher quality is an important factor that has considerable impacts on enhancing educational effectiveness and qualifying schooling outcomes. It is, in fact, recognized as a key determinant of school effectiveness and student experiences whereas it is also regarded as one of basic underpinnings from which the issues of modern educational reform, change and innovation arise. This importance of teacher quality in educational development, in turn, leads to needs and demands to recognize the constituencies of teacher quality and their intrinsic relationships.

What Constitutes Teacher Quality?

Does it bear immeasurableness in itself?

Teacher quality is an underlying concept that encompasses comprehensive and dynamic characters and attributes of both teaching that is, in turn,  referred as a piece of public service and a teacher who is regarded as a vital figure to deliver such public service effectively, accessibly and fairly in terms of educational policy. The nature of comprehensiveness is manifested itself in diverse insights, attempts and understandings proposed by different scholars and agencies, each of which aims, to some extent, to recognize the constituencies of teacher quality. Taken together the various ideas and perspectives on teacher quality appeared in recent papers, it is likely to propose that the quality of teacher comprises multiple and dynamic constituencies that bears attributes that is never isolated from contextual reality. By the same token, it is reasonably claimed that the multiple and dynamic constituencies of teacher quality tends to be categorized into two groups, namely, personal qualities and professional qualities. What is more, the professional qualities in teacher quality tend to be measurable whereas personal qualities are unlikely to be immeasurable in terms of standard- based measurement.

Teacher quality encompasses multiple characteristics that are intrinsically interrelated each other.  Some characteristics tend to belong to teachers’ personal qualities whereas others are likely to pertain to their professional ones. According to Hargreaves (1988, cited in Meg 1991), teaching quality is the blend of personality attributes, sound pedagogy and a secure subject match. At the same time, Lamn (1972, 2000, cited in Arnons & Reichel 2007) proposes four aspects of work of good teacher such acculturation, socialization, individualization and disciplinary expertise. Hence, it is referentially ascertained that a term, teacher quality embraces personal and cultural attributes in a broad sense.

Specifically speaking, a comparative study of policies in ten countries that aimed at improving teacher quality highlighted that teacher quality bears six key characteristics, namely, commitment, love of children, mastery of subject didactics and multiple models of teaching, ability to collaborate with teachers and a capacity of reflection (Hopkin & Stren 1996).  According Hopkin and Stren (1996) ‘commitment’ is the most important characters of teacher quality because it makes all others possible whereas regarding the characteristic, named as ‘love of children’, they noted that:

Feelings of affection and reciprocity between teacher and pupils create a positive attitude towards learning. Good teacher try to communicate warmth, even if pupils do not reciprocate (Hopkin & Stren 1996, p.504)

Moreover, with reference to the OECD report of Quality in Teaching (1994, cited in Fredriksson 2004), teacher quality has five dimensions such as knowledge of substantive areas and content, pedagogic skills, reflection, empathy and managerial competence.  In addition, Arnons & Reichel (2007) categorized the qualities of ideal teacher into two main categories: teacher personality and professional knowledge. Referring to the authors, teacher personality covers teacher general personal qualities such as having a sense of humor, being kind-hearted, calm, fair, optimistic, humane, stubborn and principled and empathetic and loving children whereas professional knowledge consists of subject knowledge, didactic knowledge about both educational methodology and individual pupil.  Hence, it is referentially ascertained that teacher attributes such as loving children, empathy, humor, being kind-hearted and commitment comprises particular constituencies of teacher quality which, are, apparently more subjective rather than objective. What is more, because of their subjectivities, such sort of characteristics or attributes of teacher quality are highly likely to be immeasurable. 

In brief, reflecting on the characteristics of teacher quality mentioned in recent literature, it can be seen that teacher quality embodies multi-characteristics that are broadly categorized into two groups, namely, personal qualities and professional qualities. The professional qualities of teacher quality tend to be measureable whereas the personal qualities of teacher quality such as loving of children, empathy and commitment as well tend to be immeasurable in terms of standardization because of their subjectivities. Thus, it is sensitized out that a term, teacher quality embraces some degree of immeasurableness in terms of standard-based measurement.

Which factors affect teacher quality?

Do they contribute to increasing the degree of its immeasurableness?

Teacher quality, as a term that bears multiple and dynamic attributes, it is affected by diverse factors that are, however, logically, divided into two categories in terms of system’s thinking: internal and external.  As its name suggests, the internal factors are determined by the intrinsic relationships among the inner attributes of teacher quality whereas the external ones are identified by its extrinsic relationships.  In this term, the internal factors might cover the key characteristics of teacher quality while the external ones are likely to be determined beyond its inner nature.  Accordingly, this piece of writing is designated to ascertain the internal and external factor of teacher quality through reviewing literature.  

Internal Factors Influencing Teacher Quality

As far as the internal factors of teacher quality are concerned, it can be seen that both the personal and professional qualities of teachers have considerable impacts on teaching quality.    Regarding the impacts of teacher’s personal qualities, Fredriksson (2004) pointed out that teachers themselves can improve teaching quality through increasing quality awareness and self-evaluation, enjoying professional freedom and pursuing professional ethics. Specifically speaking, teachers can improve owing teaching quality by continuous self-reflection and self–evaluation whereby producing new methods and alternative ways to contribute in enhancing teaching effectiveness and efficiency whereas by enjoying professional freedom, they can contribute to making appropriate decisions to create optimal-learning situation, to select proper teaching and learning aids and methods for pupils (Fredriksson 2004, pp.8-11). Speaking about professional ethics of teachers, UNESCO recommended that:

The codes of ethics or conduct should be established by the teachers’ organizations since such codes greatly contribute to ensuring the prestige of the profession and exercise of professional duties in accordance with agreed principles (The ILO/UNESCO recommendation concerning the Status of Teachers, paragraph 73, cited in Fredricksson 2004, p.11)

By exercising professional ethics of teaching, teacher can create professional attitudes to meet the agreed ethical principles, undertakings and obligations and to protecting child rights that are in turn affect teaching quality. Thus, teachers themselves can improve their own teaching quality by constant self-reflection and self-evaluation, enjoying professional freedom and exercising professional ethics. 

With regard to the impacts of the professional qualities to teacher quality, it can be remarkably referred that as a  profession, teaching comprises professional identity or status, professional practice, professional development and professionalism and a clear linkage between intrinsic responsibilities of individual members of a profession (Millerton 1964, Lindop1982,  Hoyle 1985, cited in Warrior 2002). Thus, it can be, implicitly, predicted that all such attributes of teaching profession might affect, at least, to some extent, teacher quality. Accordingly, it is examined to what extent such attributes of teaching profession affect teacher quality.

Professional identity, according to Bucher & Stelling (1997 cited in Warrior 2002), refers to the perception of oneself as a professional and is associated with the knowledge, skills and works that one has and significant things related one’s work.  As is described above, the professional identity is associated with teacher individual responsibilities or effort to be professional in teaching.  Hence, teachers’ efforts and responsibilities for remaining professional one in teaching are likely to be identified as a specific factor that contributes to teacher quality.

Professional development as Hoyle (1985, cited in Warrior 2002) described, is a process thus enhancing practitioners’ competencies. Implicitly speaking, due to this process, both professional knowledge and skills of both in-services and pre-service teachers re-developed and advanced.  In practice, this process are maintained and developed by an agency in education sector that is in charge of providing teachers’ professional development at national and local levels.    Apparently, teachers’ professional development plays an important role in maintaining and improving teacher quality. Therefore, it is argued that professional development might be regarded as a factor that affects teacher quality.

As being part in the whole, the rest of three attributes of teaching profession, namely, professional practice, professionalism and a clear linkage between intrinsic responsibilities of individual members of a profession might have some effects on teacher quality in terms of systems’ thinking and holistic thoughts. Nonetheless, a thorough examination or a careful reference will be needed to find out the premise on which their affects on teacher quality are determined.

External Factors Influencing Teacher Quality

With regard to the external factors of teacher quality, it can be contended that school condition and policy level incentives are regarded as factors. The reason behind it is that a teacher, as an essential agent who delivers teaching is engaged in school condition on the one hand, and is also subjected to educational policy on the other hand. Hopkins and Stern (1996) described school level conditions that influence teacher quality. As a matter of fact, they proposed that there were six characteristics of school conditions that indicated higher degree of teacher quality, namely, vision and values, organization of teaching and learning, management arrangements, leadership, staff development and relationships with community and district.  Specifically speaking, schools which have vision and an agreement on shared values display higher level of teacher quality. The reason behind is that vision established by shared value base,  functions as guiding framework for school as a whole. Accordingly, it leads to organize teaching and learning in line with the vision and values; arrange school management so that it can guide actions of all who take part in school, clarify roles and responsibilities and promoting ways in which people involved, can work together successfully; developing staff so that teacher quality is maintained and developed; making leadership as a function and establishing the relationships with external communities and generating their core values from the communities (Hopkins& Stern 1996, pp.508-511).  Thus, it is reasonably to suggest that school condition is regarded as a factor that contributes to teacher quality.

Policy level incentives aiming to maintain and enhance teacher quality are diverse. Logically, it might be categorized into two groups: pecuniary and non-pecuniary. Pecuniary group consists of salary and reward whereas non-pecuniary one comprises teacher mobility, reputation and status.  According to the case studied conducted by Voluntary Service Oversea  (VSO 2002, p.2, cited in Juerges, Richter, and Schneider 2004)  it can be seen that the degree of the salaries of teachers influence teachers’ motivation which, in turn, affects teacher quality. Moreover, non-pecuniary job attributes in schools are important determinants to quit jobs for teachers in centralized wage settings (Strom&Falsh 2004). Hence, it is to some degree evidenced that policy level incentives, both pecuniary and non-pecuniary incentives at policy level respectively represented by salary and teacher mobility have considerable impacts on teacher quality of a particular school. Respectfully, it is envisaged that list of both pecuniary and non-pecuniary incentives that influence teacher quality directly and in-directly is likely to be extended. However, we need a thorough analysis to justify other possible incentives affecting teacher quality.

As a whole, it is evidently summarized that teacher quality has been affected by numerous factors that are categorized into two groups: internal and external. In essence, the internal factors characterized by the intrinsic relationships among the constituencies of teacher quality might cover personal qualities and professional qualities of teachers whereas the external factors are likely determined by the systematic connections among teacher, school and policy.  According to recent relevant literature, it can be remarkably noted that the internal factors affecting teacher quality comprises teacher’s quality awareness and self-evaluation, professional freedom and professional ethics, professional identity or status, professional practice, professional development and professionalism and a clear linkage between intrinsic responsibilities of individual members of a profession in terms of the recent and relevant literature. By the same token, the external factors influencing teacher quality involve six characteristics of school conditions, namely, vision and values, organization of teaching and learning, management arrangements, leadership, staff development and relationships with community and district and also policy level incentives such as teacher salary and teacher mobility. In addition, it is almost certain to remark that the enumeration list of factors contributing to teacher quality might be extended due further research. However, a real challenge arising from this literature review is not to extend the enumeration list of such factors, instead, it moves toward ordering the factors in terms of their weights affecting teacher quality and then,  measuring it appropriately so that all most influencing factors are taken into account.

Teacher Quality Measurement and Its Necessity and Complexity

As discussed in the previous parts of this paper, teacher quality encompasses multiple attributes and characteristics on the one hand. On the other hand, it embraces constructive, phenomenological and administrative aspects (Darlin-Hammond 2000, cited in Neck 2007; Meg 1991). Thus, it can be argued that a task to measure teacher quality is inevitable in an administrative sense; however, to measure it reliably and valuably is always complicated because of its phenomenological and constructive attributes.

As a public service, education is often judged by the quality of its outcomes and outputs in terms of ‘cost-effectiveness’ principle in public sector. In fact, the effectiveness of educational services and its quality are dependent upon diverse variables including input and process factors. As for an input factor, teacher quality itself has considerable impacts on distributing educational service fairly, accessibly and effectively in a broad sense. Specifically speaking, it has tremendous impact on students’ performance and educational outcomes which might be, in turn, regarded as indicators to measure the degree of the conformity of educational service to customers’ or learners’ needs and demands in terms of effectiveness principle of any public service. 

In fact, there are scholars to advocate that teacher quality is not isolated from student achievement no matter whether it is measured by content knowledge, experience, training credentials; general intellectual skills; or classroom effectiveness (Darling-Hammond, Berry & Thorenson 2001; Nye, Konstantopoulos & Hedges 2004,; Rivkin Hanushek & Kain 2000; Sander & Horn 1998, cited in Neck 2007; Bennet 1978; Edmonds 1979; Hattie 1992; Carron,G &Chau,T,N 1996, cited in Rowe 2003;Neck 2007). Moreover, there are diverse policy documents which bear recommendations that teacher quality and its measurement are vitally important in terms of increasing the quality of education, school effectiveness (ILO, UNESCO, EI and WCT 2001, OECD 1994; VOS 2002; UNESCO 1996).  Hence, it can be noted that the inevitableness of the measurement of teacher quality is scholarly and internationally agreed upon because of its enormous effects on students’ performance and educational effectiveness. Therefore, it necessitates to judge teacher quality as precisely as possible.

Referring to the previous parts of this paper, teacher quality is regarded as a construct embodied by multiple constituencies and also affected by numerous factors.  On the other hand, it can be considered as a complex phenomenon that challenges us much in terms of what it is and how it is measured (Darlin-Hammond 2000; Goldhaber 2000; Mc Caffrey et., 2003; Neck 2009; Stodolsky 1996, cited in Neck 2007).  Moreover, Meg (1991) contended that any attempt to measure a construct as complex as quality is highly complicated because of its dependence on subjectivity, conceptuality and contextualization. In other words, measuring teacher quality leads to measure subjectivity, conceptuality and context that vary from case to case; from subject to subject. Thus, a task to measure teacher quality reliably and valuably is indeed complicated because of its complex attributes that are simultaneously embodied as a construct with multiple constituencies and a phenomenon with conceptual, contextual and subjective properties.    

As a whole, it is summed up that teacher quality measurement is inevitable in an administrative sense; however, it bears complex and complicated qualities in itself because of its phenomenological and constructive attributes that are dependent upon subjectivity, conceptuality and contextualization. However, we have witnessed that teacher quality are measure, assessed and evaluated by different tools based on different concepts in a practice. Logically, it is, straightforwardly, asked how reliable and valuable those tools measure teacher quality in practice?

Questioning Practical Attempts to Measure Teacher Quality In Terms of Reliability and Validity

Referring to recent and relevant literature, it is known that there are two main rationales in teacher quality measurement: One is that student outcome is a measure to measure teacher quality while second is that teacher quality as a whole is professional and therefore, it is measured by professional standards.  In fact, both of them have been used in practice. However, it is undoubtedly questioned to what extent they measure teacher quality and how reliable and valuable they measure it. 

A rationale behind student outcome-oriented measurement of teacher quality is that teacher quality is not isolated from student achievement (Darlin-Hammond 2000, cited in Neck 2007);

 Quality of the school’s teaching staff as an organizational property that varies across schools is related to observable differences in students’ achievement and growth (i.e., measures of schools effectives) (Neck 2007)

And, therefore, student achievement is an only measurable measure to measure teacher quality. Accordingly, testing and its results tend to be tools to measure teacher quality. However, this conceptualization of measuring teacher quality has been criticized that it often leads to use students’ scores on nationally standardized tests and examinations to assess the performance of teachers. Besides, it is questioned that student score-based assessments function to differentiate between students, not teachers with regard to their primary purposes (Ingvarson & Rowe 2007). Thus, it is scholarly agreed upon that student outcome-based measurement of teacher quality is no reliable and valuable albeit that it has been used so far in practice.  

The concept governing the standard-based measurement of teacher quality is underlined by following ideas:

Quality is subjective and slippery construct which will be differently defined by groups and constituents, perhaps, the only common assumption is that some kind of quality is desirable (Meg 1991)

Quality is synonymous with meeting professional standards through a system of supervision, inspection and control. In practical and more specific sense, being professional is certain quality traits whereas in pure descriptive sense, the quality equates to the mental and moral characteristic associated with being a teacher. … when the word (quality) is related to a degree of excellence or attributes that are regarded as something vitally important, it bears normative meaning. Thus, as he proposed, quality in teaching as a whole is about values that are intrinsically associated with the professional (Carr 1989, cited in Warrior 2002).

With reference to the Quality Assurance Agency (2001), teaching quality characterizes two dimensions:

The first is the appropriateness of a set of standards by an institution and effectiveness of teaching and the second is the effectiveness of teaching and learning support in providing opportunities for students to achieve those standards (QAA, 2001, cited in Warrior 2002)

Referring Wise & Leibbrand (2000), there are two different views on improving teacher quality. One is that teachers are well specialized in both what they teach and how they teach whereas second is that teachers need only subject matter knowledge so that they teach well. Both tend to have considerable contributions towards measuring teacher quality. ???

………..

Taken together aforementioned ideas in quotations and references, the rationale is stated that teaching quality as whole is manifested itself in ‘being professional’. Accordingly, teaching standards are used as tools to measure teacher quality. In fact, this attempt tends to be used prevailingly at the present time. In accordance with the rationale, teaching standards tend to function well to measure teachers’ professional qualities. In this term, standard-based measurement is likely to be reliable and valuable. However, in terms of measuring personal qualities of teacher quality along with the degree of factor influence, it is highly likely to bear some degree of inconsistencies.  Accordingly, we can raise questions of whether teaching standards are well designed so that they can function to measure both the personal qualities of teacher quality such as loving children and empathy and its contextual affects triggered by factor influence.  

In brief, it is summed that the student outcome-oriented measurement of teacher quality is not consistent with teacher quality because it does not function well to discriminate reliably between teachers and also measure teachers’ performance valuably whereas standard based measurement of teacher quality tends to function well to measure professional qualities of teacher rather than one’s personal qualities. Regardless of its irreliability and invalidity, the student outcome oriented measurement approach has been used so far in practice while other one tends to be prevailing approach. However, it is needed to re-examine the degree of reliability and validity of the standard-based measurement of teacher quality in terms of the extent to which the personal qualities of teacher quality are measured.

To what extent is teacher quality judged by teaching standards?

As a piece of public service, teaching is essentially regarded as a profession that, is, in turn, referred as an occupation with an important social function which requires a high degree of skill and drawing on a systematic body of knowledge (Sockett, 1985, cited in Warrior 2002).  Thus, as a public service with a particular social function, teaching must be identified as a professional service (Apple, W, Michael 2001) that must be performed by professionals with demanded professional knowledge and skills and, therefore, its performance ought to be governed or guided by standards reflecting societal and individual demands and needs in association with free market and ‘cost effectiveness’ principle in public sector. It is a rationale that leads to standardize teaching and thus, measure its quality by the established standards. As discussed in the previous part, standard-based measurement of teacher quality is a prevailing approach that has been tested in many countries’ educational practices involving the United States of America, Japan and Mongolia.  At the same time, this approach has, however, faced with diverse criticism (Apple 2001, Davis, ?) that often raises a question of how consistent it is with the nature of teacher quality in terms of measurement.  Accordingly, in this part, it will be argued that teaching standards tend to dismiss the immeasurable attributes of teacher qualities such as loving children, being empathetic, having a sense of humor and being ethical that, indeed, affect it tremendously.

Loving children, empathy, having a sense of humor and being kind-hearted, calm,  are identified as personal qualities of a teacher that contribute considerably to teacher quality (Hopkin & Stren 1996; Arnons & Reichel 2007; OECD report of Quality in Teaching 1994, cited in Fredriksson 2004). As a matter of fact, it is almost agreeable that the degree of loving children, being empathic, having a sense of humor and being calm varies from a teacher to a teacher. Consequently, their effects on teacher qualities are heterogeneous from a case to a case.  At the end, it can be inferentially noted that teacher quality varies from teacher to teacher, and thus, it ought to be measured differently from a case to a case.  In other words, it can be seen that the nature of teacher quality is heterogeneous rather than homogenous in terms of measuring the influences of personal qualities of teachers on it.

Another challenge to teaching standards is that teacher quality is contextual (Hopkins & Stern 1996; Meg 1991) and, thus, its measurement ought to be sensitive to contextual differences. The authors can advocate that school conditions essentially affect teacher quality. In fact, it is almost agreed upon that school conditions vary from a location to a location and from a staff to a staff. As a consequence, it can be implicitly proposed that teacher quality ought to be measured differently from school to school because of the diversity of school conditions’ effects on it.  Hence, it can be contended that the heterogeneousness of the nature of teacher quality is again observed in dealing with the effects of school conditions on it.

In brief, it is summed up that the heterogeneousness in the nature of teacher quality that is often observed in its subjectivity and contextualization challenges teaching standards because they dimensionate its homogenous part that comprises professional qualities such as professional knowledge, professional skills and, thus, function to measure it in terms of teachers’ only professional qualities. Specifically speaking, the measurement of  the personal qualities or attributes of teacher quality such as loving children, empathy, having a sense of humor and being kind-hearted and calm that vary from a subject to a subject is likely to be a challenge to teaching standards.  Moreover, teaching standards are likely to be challenged to measure the effects of school conditions on teacher quality that, in fact, vary from school to school. Hence, it can be seen that teaching standards can judge teacher quality to an extent to which its only professional qualities or homogeneous parts, not heterogeneous ones, are dimensionated.

Summary of Findings

Teacher quality is an elusive term that bears comprehensive and multiple attributes. On the one hand, it is an underlying concept that encompasses comprehensive and dynamic characters and attributes of both teaching that is, in turn,  referred as a piece of public service and a teacher who is regarded as a vital figure to deliver such public service effectively, accessibly and fairly in terms of educational policy. On the other hand, it is also regarded a construct that is composed of multi-attributes and also affected by numerous factors.  What is more, it is also identified as phenomenology that depends upon subjectivity, conceptuality and contextualization. In addition, it is also recognized as a public service in the context of general educational policy.

As a comprehensive concept, it has diverse insights, attempts and understandings proposed by different scholars and agencies, each of which aims, to some extent, to recognize the constituencies of teacher quality. In fact, it is recognized as a key determinant of school effectiveness and student experiences whereas it is also regarded as one of basic underpinnings from which the issues of modern educational reform, change and innovation arise.

As a phenomenological construct, it is composed of multi-attributes and also affected by numerous factors on the one hand. It embodies multi-characteristics that are broadly categorized into two groups, namely, personal qualities and professional qualities. The professional qualities of teacher quality tend to be measureable whereas the personal qualities of teacher quality such as loving of children, empathy and commitment as well tend to be immeasurable in terms of standardization because of their subjectivities.

Teacher quality is also affected by numerous factors that are categorized into two groups: internal and external. The internal factors affecting teacher quality comprises teacher’s quality awareness and self-evaluation, professional freedom and professional ethics, professional identity or status, professional practice, professional development and professionalism and a clear linkage between intrinsic responsibilities of individual members of a profession whereas  the external factors influencing teacher quality involve six characteristics of school conditions, namely, vision and values, organization of teaching and learning, management arrangements, leadership, staff development and relationships with community and district and also policy level incentives such as teacher salary and teacher mobility.

Teacher quality measurement is inevitable in an administrative sense; however, it bears complex and complicated qualities in itself because of its phenomenological and constructive attributes that are dependent upon subjectivity, conceptuality and contextualization. In fact,  the student outcome oriented measurement of teacher quality is not consistent with teacher quality because it does not function well to discriminate reliably between teachers and also measure teachers’ performance valuably whereas standard based measurement of teacher quality tends to function well to measure professional qualities of teacher rather than one’s personal qualities.

Teaching standards can judge teacher quality to such an extent that its only professional qualities or homogeneous parts, not heterogeneous ones. In fact, they dismiss the effects of both the personal qualities or attributes of teacher quality such as loving children, empathy, having a sense of humor and being kind-hearted and school conditions on it.

The afore-mentioned findings addressing the nature of teacher quality prompts us raise questions as follows:

How well is teacher quality measured?

What ways are consistent with teacher quality in terms of measuring both personal and professional qualities?

How can we take into account its immeasurable attributes when measuring teacher quality?

In order to respond to such questions, further research is needed to enhance the degree of the sensitiveness of teacher quality measurement.

References

Apple, W, Michael 2001,’Market, Standards, Teaching and Teacher Education’, Journal of Teacher education, vol.52, no.3 May

Arnons, S & Reichel, N 2007, ‘Who is the ideal teacher? Am I? Similarity and difference in perception of students of education regarding the qualities of a good teacher and of their own qualities as teachers’, Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, vol.13, no.5 October 2007, pp.441-464.

Atkin, M, J 1998, ‘The OECD study of innovation in science, mathematics and technology’, Curriculum studies, 1998, vol. 30, no.6, pp 647-60.

Cheng, Y.C. & Tam, W.M 1997, Multi-models of quality in education, Quality Assurance in Education, vol.5, no.1, pp.22-31.

Davis, A …?  Effective Teaching: Some contemporary mythologies, University of Durham

…IIEP Understanding teacher effectiveness

Juerges, H, Richter, F, W, Schneider, K 2004, ‘Teacher quality and incentives: Theoretical and empirical effects of standards on teacher quality’, CESifo Working paper, no. 1296, presented at CESifo area conference on public sector economics, May 2004, available for downloading from CESifo website: www.CESifo.de.

Fredricksson,U 2004,  ‘Quality Education: The key role of Teachers’,  Education International Working Paper, no.14, September 2004. 

Hopkins, D & Stern, D 1996, ‘Quality teachers, quality schools: International perspectives and policy implications’, Teaching & Teacher Education, vol.12, pp.501-517, 1996.

Ingvarson & Rowe 2007, ‘Conceptualizing and Evaluating Teacher Quality‘, Economics of Teacher Quality, ANU:5, February 2007.

ILO, UNESCO, EI and WCT 2001 EFA Flagship on Teachers and Quality of Education, Memorandum of Understanding between Partners, Paris, UNESCO

Neck 2007, Teacher Quality and Student Assessment, Educational Administration Quarterly, vol.13, no.4, October 2007, available at website: http://eaq.sagepub.com, Ebsco Electronic Journal Service.

Kreber, C 2002,’Teaching Excellence, Teaching Expertise, and the Scholarship of Teaching’, Innovative Higher Education, vol.27, no.1, Fall 2002.

Meg, M 1991, ‘Quality in teacher education’, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, vol.16, no.1, April 1991

OECD 1994, Quality in Teaching, OECD, Paris

Rowe, K 2003, ‘The importance of teacher quality as a key determinant of students’ experiences and outcomes of schooling’, Background paper to keynote address presented at the ACER Research Conference 2003, Carlton Crest Hotel, Melbourne,  19-21 October 2003.

Skovsmose, O 1994, Towards philosophy of critical mathematics education, Klumer Academic Publisher, p.28.

The Government of Mongolia, The constitution of Mongolia 1992, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia

VSO 2002 What makes teachers tick? A policy research report on teacher’s motivation in developing countries, London Voluntary Service Overseas (VSO).

UNESCO 1996, Recommendation concerning the Status of Teachers, Paris: UNESCO.

Warrior, B 2002, ‘Reflection of an Education professional’, Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport &Tourism Education, vol.1,no.2, available in website: www.hist.itsn.ac.uk/johlste.