(NCES 96-040) Ordering information
This analysis focuses on the extent to which secondary level students in the core academic subjects (mathematics, English, social studies, science) are taught by teachers without at least a minor in the field; that is, what proportion of students receive out-of-field teaching?
1. What proportion of the nation's public secondary students are
taught core academic subjects by out-of-field teachers?
2. Are students in public secondary schools that serve predominantly
poverty-level or minority student populations more likely to be
taught by out-of-field teachers than students in public secondary
schools that serve predominantly more affluent or white students?
3. Are students in low-achievement-level, low-track, lower grade-level,
or predominantly minority classes more likely to be taught by
out-of-field teachers than students in high-achievement-level,
high-track, higher grade-level, or predominantly white classes?
What proportion of the nation's public secondary students are taught core academic subjects by out-of-field teachers?
Given the above premise, this analysis indicates that in 1990-91, many students in public schools in grades 7-12 were taught core academic subjects by teachers without adequate educational qualifications in the fields they were assigned to teach (see table 1 and figure 1). This out-of-field teaching was not, however, due to a lack of basic education or training on the part of teachers. Indeed, almost all public secondary school teachers held bachelor's degrees, about half had graduate degrees, and over 90 percent were certified (Choy et al. 1993; Ingersoll 1995a; Blank and Gruebel 1993; National Science Foundation 1992). The source of out-of-field teaching lay in the lack of fit between teachers' fields of training and their teaching assignments. Many teachers were assigned to teach courses in fields that did not match their formal background preparation.
For example:
Are students in public secondary schools that serve predominantly poverty-level or minority student populations more likely to be taught by out-of-field teachers than students in public secondary schools that serve predominantly more affluent or white students?
Numerous education critics have argued that students from poor, minority, and disadvantaged communities do not have equal access to qualified teachers in the United States (e.g., California Commission on the Teaching Profession 1985; Darling-Hammond1987; Kopp 1992; Kozol 1991; Oakes 1990). Consistent with this view, this analysis shows that there were distinct inequalities in the extent of out-of-field teaching in the United States. But, this analysis also suggests that it is unwise to broadly generalize about the extent of these inequalities. In some cases there were differences, but in other cases there were not.
The data show that differences in the extent of out-of-field teaching in public secondary schools in the United States in 1990-91 depended on the type of school and the field examined (see table 1). Low-income schools had higher levels of out-of-field teaching in several of the core academic fields than did more affluent schools (see figure 2). In contrast, schools serving predominantly minority student populations did not have higher levels of out-of-field teaching than did schools serving predominantly white students. Again, it should be noted that this out-of field teaching was not due to a lack of basic education or training on the part of teachers. Regardless of the poverty level of schools, almost all public secondary school teachers had a college education. The source of out-of-field teaching lay in the lack of fit between teachers' fields of training and their teaching assignments. In several fields, teachers in low-income schools were more often assigned to teach courses in fields that did not match their formal background preparation.
Are students in low-achievement-level, low-track, lower grade-level, or predominantly minority classes more likely to be taught by out-of-field teachers than students in high-achievement-level, high-track, higher grade-level, or predominantly white classes?
Numerous education critics have also argued that minority and poor students are disproportionately placed in lower track and lower achievement courses in schools, which, these critics further claim, are often taught by the least qualified teachers (e.g., California Commission on the Teaching Profession 1985; Darling-Hammond 1987; Kopp 1992; Kozol 1991; Oakes 1990). Consistent with this view, this analysis shows that there were distinct variations across different kinds of classrooms in schools in the extent of out-of-field teaching. But again, this analysis suggests it is unwise to broadly generalize about the extent of inequalities. In some cases there were differences, and in other cases there were not.
In several core academic fields, students in both low-track and low-achievement-level classes were more often taught by out-of-field teachers than were students in high-track and high-achievement-level classes (see figures 3 and 4). This was not true, however, for high-minority classes. Predominantly minority classes did not have higher levels of out-of- field teaching than did classes enrolling predominantly white students (see table 2).
Among the greatest variations in out-of-field teaching were the age/grade level of students. In many fields, students in 7th and 8th grade classes were more often taught by out-of-field teachers than were senior high students (see figure 5).
This report is concerned with assessing levels of out-of-field teaching and whether there are differences in access to qualified teachers across different types of students and different types of classrooms within schools. This analysis does not, however, investigate either the causes or the consequences of out-of-field teaching. The reasons for out-of-field teaching, why some schools have more of it than others, and the consequences of out-of-field teaching for students and teachers are all important issues and deserve further investigation. This report closes by suggesting some of the implications of out-of-field teaching for education research and policy.
Download/view the full report in a PDF file.
For more information about this report, contact Kerry Gruber at Kerry.Gruber@ed.gov.
