Search

This report examines the pervasive and longstanding failure to recognize and respond to variations in the effectiveness of teachers. At the heart of the matter are teacher evaluation systems, which in theory should serve as the primary mechanism for assessing such variations, but in practice tell everyone little about how one teacher differs from any other, except teachers whose performance is so egregiously poor as to warrant dismissal. The failure of evaluation systems to provide accurate and credible information about individual teachers' instructional performance sustains and reinforces a phenomenon that people have come to call the "Widget Effect". The "Widget Effect" describes the tendency of school districts to assume classroom effectiveness is the same from teacher to teacher. This decades-old fallacy fosters an environment in which teachers cease to be understood as individual professionals, but rather as interchangeable parts. In its denial of individual strengths and weaknesses, it is deeply disrespectful to teachers; in its indifference to instructional effectiveness, it gambles with the lives of students. (Contains 17 figures and 64 notes.) [Additional funding for this paper was provided by the Robertson Foundation, and the Laura and John Arnold Foundation. For the executive summary, see ED515659.]

This report examines the pervasive and longstanding failure to recognize and respond to variations in the effectiveness of teachers. At the heart of the matter are teacher evaluation systems, which in theory should serve as the primary mechanism for assessing such variations, but in practice tell everyone little about how one teacher differs from any other, except teachers whose performance is so egregiously poor as to warrant dismissal. The failure of evaluation systems to provide accurate and credible information about individual teachers' instructional performance sustains and reinforces a phenomenon that people have come to call the "Widget Effect". The "Widget Effect" describes the tendency of school districts to assume classroom effectiveness is the same from teacher to teacher. This decades-old fallacy fosters an environment in which teachers cease to be understood as individual professionals, but rather as interchangeable parts. In its denial of individual strengths and weaknesses, it is deeply disrespectful to teachers; in its indifference to instructional effectiveness, it gambles with the lives of students. [For the main report, see ED515656.]

This report--based on an exploratory empirical study of state certification and licensure policies, 10 states' employment databases, a survey of teachers with interstate mobility experience, and focus groups of American Association for Employment in Education members and Troops-to-Teachers state directors--focuses on the certification and licensure aspect of the facilitators and barriers to teacher interstate mobility. It also includes an exploration of the unique mobility experiences of participants in the Troops-to-Teachers program. The analysis described in this report indicates that states have much common ground in their policies toward teacher licensure and reciprocity, yet differences remain. Motivated state directors of teacher education and certification must address these obstacles while maintaining high levels of quality. Continuing widespread teacher shortages in certain fields and the dim prospects that these shortages will disappear anytime soon provide a clear impetus for change. Based on the findings of this study, the need to build better infrastructure--including better data systems and communication channels--is clear. The challenges of the 21st century demand that the problems of interstate teacher mobility be addressed. Appended are: (1) Project Design; and (2) State Extant Teacher Data Tables. (Contains 2 tables, 3 figures and 1 footnote.)