Get serious about ensuring teacher quality in WA

Editor’s note: This is part of an occasional series of editorials looking at Washington’s public education system and how it can be improved to ensure all public school students get a quality education.

On the subject of education, almost every assertion becomes politicized. But anyone who has been a student agrees on at least one thing: A good teacher can make the difference between coming to class eager to learn, or merely marking time.

So, while this editorial board has examined various factors that drive student outcomes — including equitable funding and quality preschools — any serious look at improving education in Washington demands a frank discussion about cultivating effective teachers.

In the last five years, this state has made major changes to its accreditation requirements, removing tests seen as barriers to diversifying a largely white teaching corps. This is a good idea for many reasons, not least, research showing that students of color may engage better when learning from teachers of color.

Assuming, of course, that those teachers have a solid grasp of the material. Is there reason to worry about that? Maybe. No longer must prospective educators pass tests of their basic reading, writing and math skills. And while they do take subject-matter exams — in World Languages or Humanities, for example — candidates who fail can either test again or show their knowledge by presenting a portfolio of work instead. Since 2020, more than 1,280 Washington teachers who failed subject matter exams have earned their licenses this way.

“Our state is not afraid to do things that haven’t been done before,” says Erica Hernandez-Scott, executive director of the Professional Educator Standards Board, who is excited about the changes. “We’re letting go of old measures that don’t tell us much, to focus on what’s essential.”

It’s too early to tell whether increased teacher diversity is improving student outcomes. Washington’s educators are still 85% white. But clearly, the old way of screening classroom teachers for hire — with test scores — forecast little about their ability to get students excited about learning.

What about the gold standard of teaching, National Board Certification? Washington spends about $70 million annually encouraging pursuit of this status with salary-boosting incentives. Yet Dan Goldhaber, a professor at the University of Washington and one of the country’s preeminent researchers on teacher quality, found that board certification results in only modest gains to student learning — about five weeks’ acceleration in middle school math, at best.

Bottom line: It is almost impossible to predict good teachers until they are standing in front of a roomful of kids. And once employed, it is difficult to remove those who are ineffective. Washington’s teacher-evaluation tool, which includes classroom observations and student growth, rates virtually every educator as “Proficient” or “Distinguished.”

Student outcomes suggest otherwise. With only 39% of all kids at grade level in math, and 51% able to read or write appropriately, state educators have work to do.

Teacher-qualification reforms here have focused on boosting diversity, but other regions are making very different choices. Goldhaber points to Washington, D.C., as a particularly dramatic example.

In the early 2000s, public schools in the nation’s capital were exemplars of little more than turmoil. D.C. students had the lowest scores of kids in any major urban district, and enrollment was plummeting. Then-Deputy Chancellor Kaya Henderson says the system was “in a death spiral.”

Many parents in Seattle fear the same thing could happen here.

Yet over 12 years, with some highly controversial reforms, performance in D.C. schools steadily improved. The biggest change was the district’s approach to teacher evaluation. Under mayoral control, D.C. schools eliminated tenure and seniority, instead tying teacher pay to student outcomes.

This is a third-rail discussion in education, and it’s important to note that D.C. is no miracle. Performance gaps between white students and those of color persist, and teacher turnover is high.

But staff also get robust coaching to up their game, and reading scores among low-income students have climbed — even with post-pandemic backsliding. In math, they were up by at least 10 points between 2009 and 2019. Improvement like this commands notice. It’s at least worth a conversation.

Another promising approach, taking root in Ohio, introduces young teachers to classroom work gradually, apprentice-style, granting them full certification only after they’ve demonstrated their talents.

The point is not to follow any one district’s prescription. Teaching is an art, as well as a science. And in that spirit, some experimentation is welcome — as long as its focus remains locked on student achievement, not adult politics.