Center for Policy Alternatives
CPA - Header Photo

Teachers for At-Risk Schools

Millions of schoolchildren in at-risk schools are taught by less-qualified, less-experienced teachers.
By any measure, schools in high-poverty areas employ fewer well-qualified teachers than schools in more affluent areas.1 For example, only 19 percent of National Board Certified Teachers (NBCT) work at schools in the bottom third of performance for their state and only 12 percent of NBCTs work in schools where more than 75 percent of students receive free or reduced-price lunches.2 “Overwhelmingly, the teachers in at-risk schools tend to have temporary or emergency certification, teach in fields for which they lack strong subject-matter preparation (‘out-of-field’), or are in their first year or two of their teaching careers,” according to the National Partnership for Teaching in At-Risk Schools.3
At-risk schools have a hard time attracting and retaining well-qualified teachers.
Although there are many excellent teachers at schools in high-poverty areas, the best teachers tend to go elsewhere. Many of the most promising teachers who begin their careers in at-risk schools burn out and transfer after a few years.4 The most common reasons for these transfers are desire for a higher salary, smaller class sizes, better student discipline, and greater faculty authority—all available in more affluent areas.5
The No Child Left Behind Act does not solve the problem.
The federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) declared that by the end of the 2005-06 school year, 100 percent of teachers of core academic classes must be “highly qualified” in their content area. Not a single state met that deadline. Instead, the federal Department of Education is requiring each state to submit a plan that explains how it will supply “highly qualified” teachers to every classroom. But experts have roundly criticized NCLB’s definition of “highly qualified.” The major organizations that study teacher quality—including the Education Trust, Education Commission of the States, the Center on Education Policy and the National Center on Teacher Quality—report that state rules are so full of loopholes that the NCLB standard is meaningless.6
Without effective teachers, the 13 million children who grow up in poverty will be left behind.
NCLB is based upon the conceit that better teachers can help all low-income children to become high-performing students. Children who grow up in poverty suffer from poor nutrition, substandard housing, inadequate health and dental care, danger from drugs and violence, limited adult support and few opportunities for cultural enrichment.7 NCLB cannot overcome—and does not attempt to address—the non-school factors that keep poor children from achieving academic success.8 Yet there is no doubt that teachers can make an enormous difference in children’s lives, and that the best teachers are most needed to meet the enormous challenges in at-risk schools. If we don’t improve the quality of teaching in at-risk schools, few of those children will be able to escape a life of poverty.
Financial incentives can help attract well-qualified teachers to at-risk schools.
While school districts in at-risk areas can improve recruitment, training and mentoring programs to attract and retain teachers, states can make the biggest difference in one area: funding. There is no doubt that financial incentives bring high-quality teachers to high-poverty areas—where they are most needed.9
Americans strongly support financial incentives to bring well-qualified teachers to at-risk schools.
Seventy-six percent of Americans and 77 percent of public school teachers support offering higher salaries to teachers who are willing to work in high-poverty schools, according to recent surveys by Hart Research and Harris Interactive.10
States are using financial incentives to attract and retain well-qualified teachers.
California, Hawaii, Maryland, Nevada, North Carolina and North Dakota offer signing bonuses to teachers who excelled in college, or provide mortgage assistance to teachers who buy homes in high-risk areas. Fourteen other states (AR, CO, CT, DE, GA, LA, MI, MS, NM, OR, PA, TX, VA, WV) provide some type of financial incentive to bring well-qualified teachers to hard-to-staff schools.11
Endnotes
  1. The Teaching Commission, “Teaching at Risk: A Call to Action,” 2004.
  2. Barnett Berry and Tammy King, “Recruiting and Retaining National Board Certified Teachers for Hard-to-Staff, Low-Performing Schools,” Southeast Center for Teaching Quality, 2005.
  3. National Partnership for Teaching in At-Risk Schools, “Qualified Teachers for At-Risk Schools: A National Imperative,” 2005.
  4. Ibid.
  5. Richard Ingersoll, “Why Do High-Poverty Schools Have Difficulty Staffing Their Classrooms with Qualified Teachers?” Renewing Our Schools, Securing Our Future: A National Task Force on Public Education, Center for American Progress and Institute for America’s Future, November 2004.
  6. Kati Haycock, Director of The Education Trust, Testimony before the U.S. House Education and Workforce Committee, September 29, 2005.
  7. “Qualified Teachers for At-Risk Schools.”
  8. Richard Rothstein, Class and Schools, 2004.
  9. Richard Rothstein, “Teacher shortages vanish when the price is right,” New York Times, September 25, 2002.
  10. The Teaching Commission, “Poll Shows Strong Support for Combining Better Teacher Pay with Market Incentives, Rewards for Achievement Gains, New Accountability,” April 6, 2005.
  11. Education Commission of the States, “Recruitment and Retention: State Policy,” 2005.
Updates