Changing Expectations
for the K–12 Teacher
Workforce
Policies, Preservice Education,
Professional Development, and
the Workplace
Committee on Understanding the Changing Structure
of the K–12 Teacher Workforce
Robert Floden, Amy Stephens, Layne Scherer, Editors
Policy and Global Affairs
Board on Higher Education and Workforce
Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education
Board on Science Education
A Consensus Study Report of
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington, DC
www.nap.edu
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001
This activity was supported by contracts between the National Academy of Sciences and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation (2018-7446). Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of any organization or agency that provided support for the project.
International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-49903-3
International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-49903-8
Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.17226/25603
Library of Congress Control Number: 2020934597
Additional copies of this publication are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313; http://www.nap.edu.
Copyright 2020 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
Suggested citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2020). Changing Expectations for the K–12 Teacher Workforce: Policies, Preservice Education, Professional Development, and the Workplace. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25603.
The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. John L. Anderson is president.
The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.
The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.
Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org.
Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine document the evidence-based consensus on the study’s statement of task by an authoring committee of experts. Reports typically include findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information gathered by the committee and the committee’s deliberations. Each report has been subjected to a rigorous and independent peer-review process and it represents the position of the National Academies on the statement of task.
Proceedings published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine chronicle the presentations and discussions at a workshop, symposium, or other event convened by the National Academies. The statements and opinions contained in proceedings are those of the participants and are not endorsed by other participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies.
For information about other products and activities of the National Academies, please visit www.nationalacademies.org/about/whatwedo.
COMMITTEE ON UNDERSTANDING THE CHANGING STRUCTURE OF THE K–12 TEACHER WORKFORCE
ROBERT E. FLODEN (Chair), Michigan State University, East Lansing
ANNE MARIE BERGEN, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
MALCOLM BUTLER, University of Central Florida, Orlando
MARCY GARZA DAVIS, John F. Kennedy Elementary School, Corpus Christi, TX
DAN GOLDHABER, American Institutes for Research and University of Washington, Seattle
SUSAN GOMEZ-ZWIEP, California State University, Long Beach
JASON GRISSOM, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN
ANNE-LISE HALVORSEN, Michigan State University, East Lansing
KARA JACKSON, University of Washington, Seattle
BRUCE JOHNSON, University of Arizona, Tucson
DEENA KHALIL, Howard University, Washington, DC
JUDITH WARREN LITTLE, University of California, Berkeley
TIFFANY NEILL, Oklahoma State Department of Education, Oklahoma City
LAYNE SCHERER, Costudy Director, Board on Higher Education and Workforce
AMY STEPHENS, Costudy Director, Board on Science Education
KENNE DIBNER, Senior Program Officer, Board on Science Education
AUSTEN APPLEGATE, Research Associate, Board on Higher Education and Workforce
JOHN VERAS, Senior Program Assistant, Board on Higher Education and Workforce (since January 2019)
THOMAS RUDIN, Director, Board on Higher Education and Workforce
HEIDI SCHWEINGRUBER, Director, Board on Science Education
BOARD ON HIGHER EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE
KUMBLE R. SUBBASWAMY (Chair), University of Massachusetts, Amherst
ANGELA BYARS-WINSTON, University of Wisconsin–Madison
JAIME CURTIS-FISK, The Dow Chemical Company, Midland, MI
MARIELENA DESANCTIS, Broward College, Fort Lauderdale, FL
APRILLE J. ERICSSON, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD
JOAN FERRINI-MUNDY, University of Maine, Orono
GABRIELA GONZALEZ, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge
TASHA R. INNISS, Spelman College, Atlanta, GA
SALLY F. MASON, University of Iowa, Iowa City
DOUGLAS S. MASSEY, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ
RICHARD K. MILLER, Olin College of Engineering, Needham, MA
KATE STOLL, MIT Washington DC Office
MEGHNA TARE, University of Texas at Arlington
MARY WOOLLEY, Research! America, Arlington, VA
THOMAS RUDIN, Director
BOARD ON SCIENCE EDUCATION
ADAM GAMORAN (Chair), William T. Grant Foundation, New York, NY
MEGAN BANG, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL
VICKI L. CHANDLER, Minerva Schools at Keck Graduate Institute, San Francisco, CA
SUNITA V. COOKE, MiraCosta College, San Diego, CA
RUSH HOLT, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, DC
CATHY MANDUCA, Carleton College, Northfield, MN
JOHN MATHER, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD
TONYA MATTHEWS, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI
WILLIAM PENUEL, School of Education, University of Colorado Boulder
STEPHEN L. PRUITT, Southern Regional Education Board, Atlanta, GA
K. RENAE PULLEN, Caddo Parish Schools, Shreveport, LA
K. ANN RENNINGER, Swarthmore College, Swarthmore, PA
MARCY H. TOWNS, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN
HEIDI SCHWEINGRUBER, Director
This page intentionally left blank.
Acknowledgments
This report would not have been possible without the many individuals who provided their expertise, including those who served on the committee as well as those who participated in discussions with the committee. We recognize their invaluable contributions to our work. The first thanks are to the committee members, for their passion, deep knowledge, and contributions to the study.
This report was made possible with support from the Hewlett Foundation. We particularly thank Kent McGuire (program director, Education) and Charmaine Mercer (program officer, Education).
Members of the committee benefited from discussion and presentation by many individuals who participated in our fact-finding meetings.
- At the first meeting, we had the opportunity to talk with our contacts at the Hewlett Foundation, Kent McGuire and Charmaine Mercer, to get further clarity on the statement of task. We also heard from Chad Alderman (Bellweather Education Partners), Heather Hill (Harvard Graduate School of Education), and Elena Silva (New America Foundation) who spoke to the varied perspectives on the K–12 teacher and school leader workforce.
- At the second meeting, the following topics were explored:
- Overview of the Landscape by States Focused on Licensure, Mobility, and Reciprocity. Presenters included Stephanie Aragon (Education Commission of the States) and Elizabeth Ross (National Council on Teacher Quality).
-
- Preparing Teachers in Light of Changing Expectations. Presenters included Keffrelyn Brown (University of Texas at Austin), Marybeth Gasman (University of Pennsylvania), and Cassandra Herring (Branch Alliance for Educator Diversity).
- Workforce Trends in the Professionalization of Teaching. Presenters included Mary Dilworth (Editor, Millennial Teachers of Color) and James Wyckoff (University of Virginia).
- The third meeting included two panels:
- Panel 1 discussed Innovation in Teacher Education, including Charles Hughes (University of Central Florida) and Elizabeth van Es (University of California, Irvine).
- Panel 2 described New Models and Evaluation. Panelists included Dan Coleman (Woodrow Wilson Academy of Teaching and Learning) and Kevin Bastian (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill).
- At the last face-to-face meeting, the committee spoke with Marilyn Cochran-Smith (Boston College) and Leslie Fenwick (Howard University).
The committee is grateful for additional discussions with experts to include Richard Ingersoll (University of Pennsylvania), Lisa Dieker (University of Central Florida), and Peter Laipson (Woodrow Wilson Graduate School of Teaching & Learning). The committee is also appreciative of the efforts of Rebecca Morgan, senior librarian for the Resource Center at the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, who assisted the committee in pulling together the relevant bodies of literature for review.
This Consensus Study Report was reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the National Academies in making each published report as sound as possible and to ensure that it meets the institutional standards for quality, objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process.
We thank the following individuals for their review of this report: Deborah Lowenberg Ball, School of Education, University of Michigan; Robert Q. Berry, Department of Mathematics, University of Virginia; Lisa Dieker, TeachLivE™ and Lockheed Martin Mathematics and Science Academy/University of Central Florida; Dessynie Edwards, Department of Educational Leadership, Curriculum and Instruction, Texas A&M University, Corpus Christi; Michael J. Feuer, Graduate School of Education and Human Development, The George Washington University; Susan Moore Johnson, Graduate School of Education, Harvard University; Sarah S. Kavanagh,
Teaching, Learning, and Leadership Division, University of Pennsylvania; David Monk, College of Education, The Pennsylvania State University; and Kenneth Ziechner, Teacher Education (emeritus), University of Washington.
Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations of this report nor did they see the final draft before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Alan M. Lesgold, School of Education, University of Pittsburgh, and Bruce Alberts, Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics, University of California, San Francisco. They were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with the standards of the National Academies and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the National Academies.
Thanks are also due to the project staff. Kenne Dibner, senior program officer, Board on Science Education (BOSE), provided expert guidance throughout the study. Alison Berger, senior program assistant, Board on Higher Education and Workforce (BHEW), managed the administrative tasks associated with getting the project started, as well as the first meeting’s logistical and administrative needs. John Veras, senior program assistant with BHEW, managed the rest of the study’s logistical and administrative needs, along with helping to see the report through publication. Tom Rudin, director, BHEW, and Heidi Schweingruber, director, BOSE, provided thoughtful advice and many helpful suggestions throughout the entire study.
Staff of the Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education also provided help: Laura Elisabeth Yoder substantially improved the readability of the report; Kirsten Sampson Snyder expertly guided the report through the report review process; and Yvonne Wise masterfully guided the report through production.
This page intentionally left blank.
3 CHANGING EXPECTATIONS FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING
Increasing Emphasis on Deeper Learning
Progression of Science Practices
Progression of Mathematical Practices
Progression of Literacy Practices
Progression of Social Studies Practices
Lack of Aligned Instructional Materials for Deeper Learning
Increasing Emphasis on the Role of Culture in Learning
Advances in Technology and Family Communication
4 TRENDS AND DEVELOPMENTS IN THE TEACHER LABOR MARKET
Teacher Supply and Demand and Long-Standing Labor Market Misalignment
Evidence of Changes to Prospective Teacher Labor Supply Over Time
Factors That Contribute to Staffing Challenges
Pathways into the Profession and the Localness of Teacher Labor Markets
Teacher Supply and Traditional and Alternative Routes
The Localness of Teacher Labor Markets
Variation in Teacher Turnover by School Type
Variation in Teacher Turnover by Teacher Characteristics
Equity of Teacher Distribution
5 PREPARING TEACHERS TO MEET NEW EXPECTATIONS: PRESERVICE TEACHER EDUCATION
The Scale and Variability of Preservice Teacher Education
The Visions of Teaching and Teachers Conveyed by Programs
Program Coherence and Integration
Characteristics of Teacher Candidates
Preparing Teachers to Engage Students in Deeper Learning
Practice-Based Teacher Education
Innovations in Teacher Preparation
Preparing Teacher Candidates to Work with Diverse Populations
Mechanisms for Influencing Preservice Teacher Education
6 OPPORTUNITIES FOR LEARNING THROUGH INSERVICE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
The Growth of Professional Development Opportunities
Patterns of Teacher Participation
Mathematics, Science, and Computer Science Teachers’ Participation in PD
Emerging Forms of Professional Development
Learning in and from Practice Through Artifacts of Teaching and Learning
Video-Based Collaborative Professional Development
7 OPPORTUNITIES FOR TEACHER LEARNING IN THE WORKPLACE
Job-Embedded Professional Learning Opportunities in the Workplace
Induction and Mentoring for Beginning Teachers
Opportunities for Learning with and from Colleagues
Building the Capacity of Teachers and Schools to Respond to New Expectations
Synergies Between the Workplace and Structured Professional Development
The Significance of the School System
8 CONCLUSIONS, HIGH-PRIORITY ISSUES REQUIRING IMMEDIATE ACTION, AND RESEARCH AGENDA
Today’s Classrooms and Expectations for Teachers
Teacher Education in Response to Changing Expectations
High-Priority Issues Requiring Immediate Action, 191
Preparing Teachers to Meet Changing Expectations, 192
Diversifying the Teacher Workforce
Ensuring the Equitable Distribution of Teachers
