Article PDF | | 
View on Single Page
Conclusion
Improving student learning, especially in high-need, low-income schools, requires increasing the professional capacity of schools. This is an organizational challenge that calls for a well-designed organizational response. Staffing weak and dysfunctional schools with a steady stream of talented and motivated individuals may serve some students in the short run, but it will not strengthen their schools in the long run. Recognizing that reality, however, does not mean that policy-makers or administrators should ignore the potential of individuals or fail to hold them to account for their performance. Rather, it means that we must come to better understand the experiences of individuals within schools and the potential of those schools to support and enhance the work of the teachers who staff them. With better evidence and insight, we can design and adopt policies and practices that promote teacher quality and serve students as they should be served.
——————————————
References
Abelmann, C., and R. F. Elmore. 1999. When Accountability Knocks, Will Anyone Answer? CPRE Research Report Series RR-42. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
Archer, J. 1999. “Sanders 101,” Education Week 18, no. 34:26–29.
Birkeland, S. E., and R. Curtis. 2006. Ensuring the Support and Development of New Teachers in the Boston Public Schools: A Proposal to Improve Teacher Quality and Retention. Boston, MA: Boston Public Schools.
Bryk A., and B. Schneider. 2002. Trust in Schools: A Core Resource for Improvement. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Corcoran, S. P., W. N. Evans, and R. M. Schwab. 2004. “Women, the Labor Market, and the Declining Relative Quality of Teachers,” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 23, no. 3:449–70.
Decker, P. T., D. P. Mayer, and S. Glazerman. 2004. The Effects of Teach for America on Students: Findings from a National Evaluation. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research.
Isenberg, E., S. Glazerman, M. Bleeker, A. Johnson, J. Lugo-Gil, M. Grider, and S. Dolfin. 2009. Impacts of Comprehensive Teacher Induction: Results from the Second Year of a Randomized Controlled Study. NCEE 2009-4072. Washington, DC: National Center for Educational and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Jackson, C. K., and E. Bruegmann. 2009. “Teaching Students and Teaching Each Other: The Importance of Peer Learning for Teachers.” Working Paper No. 15202. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Johnson, S. M., and the Project on the Next Generation of Teachers. 2004. Finders and Keepers: Helping New Teachers Survive and Thrive in Our Schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kapadia, K., V. Coca, and J. Easton. 2007. Keeping New Teachers: A First Look at the Influences of Induction in the Chicago Public Schools. Chicago, IL: Chicago Consortium for School Research.
Kardos, S. M., S. M. Johnson, H. G. Peske, D. Kauffman, and E. Liu. 2001. “Counting on Colleagues: New Teachers Encounter the Professional Cultures of Their Schools,” Educational Administration Quarterly 37, no. 2:250–90.
Liu, E. 2005. “Hiring, Job Satisfaction, and the Fit between New Teachers and Their Schools.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada (April).
Louis, K. S., H. M. Marks, and S. Kruse. 1996. “School-Wide Professional Community.” In Authentic Achievement: Restructuring Schools for Intellectual Quality, edited by F. M. Newmann. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
McCaffrey, D. F., J. R. Lockwood, D. M. Koretz, and L. S. Hamilton. 2003. Evaluating Value-Added Models for Teacher Accountability. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Newmann, F. M., B. Smith, E. Allensworth, and A. S. Bryk. 2001. “Instructional Program Coherence: What It Is and Why It Should Guide School Improvement,” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 23, no. 4:297–321.
Olson, L. 2004. “Researchers Debate Merits of ‘Value-Added’ Measures,” Education Week 24, no. 12:14–15.
Rivkin, S. G., E. A. Hanushek, and J. F. Kain. 2005. “Teachers, Schools, and Academic Achievement,” Econometrica 73, no. 2:417–58.
Rockoff, J. E. 2004. “The Impact of Individual Teachers on Student Achievement: Evidence from Panel Data,” American Economic Review 94, no. 2:247–52.
Rowan, B., R. Correnti, and R. J. Miller. 2002. What Large-Scale Survey Research Tells Us about Teacher Effects on Student Achievement: Insights from the Prospects Study of Elementary Schools. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania, Center for Policy Research on Education.
Tyler, J. H., E. Taylor, T. J. Kane, and A. Wooten. 2009. “Using Student Performance Data to Identify Effective Classroom Practices.” Draft Working Paper. Providence, RI: Brown University, and Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Wright, S. P., S. P. Horn, and W. L. Sanders. 1997. “Teacher and Classroom Context Effects on Student Achievement: Implications for Teacher Evaluation,” Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, pp. 57–67.
Pingback: The Tory Boy