Receive stories similar to these directly in your email.
The 74 has teamed up with Stanford University’s Hoover Institution to honor the 40th anniversary of the ‘A Nation At Risk’ report. Hoover’s showcases insights and evaluations from specialists, educators, and policymakers on the broader impact of 40 years of education reform and the evolution of America’s school system since the groundbreaking 1983 report. Here is a snippet from the project’s chapter on . ( )
The release of A Nation at Risk (ANAR) in 1983 marked the pivotal point of the “first wave” of education reform. It articulated enduring insights that continue to shape education policy and discussions today. ANAR emphasized the disparity between the aspirational vision of a “Learning Society” and the prevailing educational standards characterized by minimal requirements, such as the low expectations reflected in high schools’ minimum competency tests and fragmented curricula. A key recommendation of ANAR was the implementation of high school graduation criteria based on a “New Basics” curriculum comprising four years of English; three years of science, math, and social studies; a half year of computer science; and, for college-bound students, two years of foreign language instruction.
Additionally, ANAR addressed various aspects of the U.S. education system, including the status of the teaching profession. It highlighted concerns such as the recruitment of teachers from the lower academic quartiles of high school and college graduates, insufficient subject-specific training for teachers, inadequate compensation, limited influence of teachers on crucial professional decisions (e.g., textbooks), and targeted teacher shortages. These observations and the seven specific recommendations ANAR made regarding teaching have been central to education research, discourse, and policymaking.
Below, I present a concise summary of significant insights stemming from the research and policy developments following these recommendations. The focus is on advancements relevant to in-service teachers, while the critical issues related to recruitment, induction, and mentorship in the teaching profession are covered separately by Michael Hansen . ANAR put forth four specific recommendations pertinent to in-service teachers. One suggestion was to ensure that teacher salaries are competitive, responsive to market dynamics, and performance-based, tied to an effective evaluation system that rewards effective teachers and supports underperforming ones in improving or exiting. Another recommendation advocated for the creation of collectively designed “career ladder” distinctions for novice, experienced, and expert teachers. The remaining two recommendations aimed at in-service teachers focused on facilitating teacher enhancement through allocated time for professional growth.
Theories of Action
ANAR’s recommendations for in-service teachers implicitly embody two overarching and complementary theories of action to enhance teacher effectiveness and student outcomes. One approach centers on enhancing the effectiveness of existing teachers through professional development activities and the implementation of well-structured financial and professional incentives. The goal is to foster an understanding of high-quality teaching practices and their consistent application. The second theory focuses on selection, emphasizing performance assessment systems to retain and elevate highly effective teachers while ensuring the exit of consistently ineffective teachers. These policy suggestions contrast with conventional methods that promote teacher effectiveness through across-the-board salary increases or reducing class sizes by hiring more teachers.
The rationale behind ANAR’s theories of action is supported by several key facts about teachers that have become increasingly established since its publication. Notably, evidence indicates significant variability in teacher effectiveness, with a one-standard deviation improvement in teacher effectiveness correlating with notable gains in student performance on standardized tests. However, the current methods of evaluating teachers, primarily informal and superficial assessments, fail to capture this variability, leading to most teachers being rated as satisfactory and minimal attrition of low-performing teachers.
Another crucial aspect is the challenge school leaders face in identifying effective teachers during the hiring process. While teachers vary in their impact, this impact becomes more apparent after several years in the classroom, underscoring the necessity for broader access to the teaching profession coupled with discerning assessment systems to guide subsequent personnel decisions. Decisions such as granting tenure rather than dismissing the least effective teachers can have significant implications given the longevity of teaching careers.
In recent years, substantial efforts have been made to enhance the effectiveness of the teacher workforce through performance-based assessment systems. Research has also provided credible evidence of direct initiatives aimed at improving the performance of in-service teachers through professional development. These initiatives are discussed below.
Enhancing Teacher Effectiveness
ANAR recommended extending teachers’ contracts to eleven months to allow for more professional development and additional support for students with special needs. While the adoption of eleven-month contracts has not been widespread, broader initiatives to enhance the performance of in-service teachers through direct training and support require significant time and financial investment. However, accurately quantifying the extent of these investments poses challenges due to the complexities of categorizing such activities and their impact on both teachers and non-teaching staff. For instance, a study by Alexander and Jang in 2019 examined expenditure reports from Minnesota school districts and found that 1% of operational expenses in 2013–14 were allocated to activities defined as staff development by the state. In contrast, a 2015 study by the New Teacher Project revealed that teacher improvement expenses in 2013–14 accounted for an average of 8% of district budgets, encompassing direct expenditures on teacher improvement like professional development, coaching, and support for new teachers, as well as related indirect expenses such as management and operational costs for these improvement efforts.
Specifically focusing on professional development, a 2014 study commissioned by the Gates Foundation revealed that the average teacher spent sixty-eight hours per year engaged in district-directed professional learning, or eighty-nine hours when self-guided learning and courses were included. The majority of this time was spent in workshops and professional learning communities led by district staff. The estimated cost of this professional development in 2014 was $18 billion annually. However, teacher perceptions of the quality of these investments have generally been lukewarm, with unclear links to teacher performance or improvement. The Gates report also highlighted the predominant use of district staff over external providers for professional development, as well as limited teacher autonomy in selecting their training.
Despite the substantial investment and emphasis on teacher professional development, credible research on the impact of these investments has been limited for much of the period since ANAR’s release. For instance, a review by Yoon et al. identified only nine studies meeting evidence standards set by the federal What Works Clearinghouse out of over 1,300 potentially relevant studies on the impact of teacher professional development on student learning. These studies revealed that teachers who underwent significant professional development could enhance the achievement of the average student in the control group by 21 percentile points. However, the challenges of consistently implementing effective professional development initiatives at scale are evident. Studies like that of Jacob and Lefgren on teacher training in Chicago Public Schools found no significant impact on math or reading achievement among elementary students, indicating the complexities of achieving consistent positive outcomes through professional development.
In recent years, experimental studies on teacher professional development have proliferated, offering mixed evidence on the impact of such investments. While some studies found positive effects on teacher knowledge and practice, others failed to clearly improve student achievement. Meta-analytic summaries of these studies suggest varying effects based on program design, with some programs showing positive impacts on student learning while others had minimal effects. The effectiveness of professional development programs seems to hinge on their ability to address key challenges in teaching, such as content delivery, behavior management, student engagement, and assessing student understanding. Understanding these nuances is crucial for designing impactful professional development initiatives that can positively influence student outcomes.
Overall, the evidence underscores the importance of ongoing training for in-service teachers as highlighted by ANAR. While such training has the potential to significantly impact student learning, realizing this potential on a large scale is a complex endeavor that requires translating research findings into effective practices across educational settings.
Teacher Evaluation and Performance-Based Incentives
ANAR also advocated for substantial changes in how public school teachers are compensated and evaluated. Presently, the prevailing compensation model relies on single-salary schedules that rigidly tie pay to years of experience and observed qualifications, often failing to accurately predict teacher effectiveness. This approach, rooted in historical efforts to eliminate discrimination in teacher pay, has been critiqued for leading to stagnant and undifferentiated salaries that do little to attract, retain, and motivate effective teachers while failing to address underperforming teachers, especially in challenging school environments and critical subjects. Moreover, the current evaluation system involves low-stakes assessments that inadequately capture teacher performance variation and offer limited guidance for professional growth.
ANAR envisioned an alternative model where teacher compensation would be significantly higher but contingent on performance, aiming to support persistently underperforming teachers in improving or exiting the profession. Post-ANAR, several states and districts experimented with providing extra pay and career advancements for teachers based on demonstrated merit, though the practice of dismissing chronically underperforming teachers was not widespread. These reforms, despite showing promise, were often short-lived. The challenges in sustaining these reforms have been attributed to various factors, including opposition from teachers’ unions and the intricate nature of teachers’ professional roles.
The past two decades have witnessed diverse efforts, often supported by philanthropic and federal initiatives, to measure teacher performance and link it to improvement incentives such as financial rewards, career advancements, and performance-based assessments. While these reforms hold promise, they also highlight the significant challenges in design, implementation, and political acceptance that hinder consistent progress. For instance, initiatives like the Obama administration’s Race to the Top (RttT) initiative aimed to promote teacher effectiveness through state policy changes but faced obstacles in translating policy commitments into effective practices. The implementation of performance-based teacher incentives has yielded mixed results, with some studies indicating limited impact on teacher practices and student outcomes.
Critics of teacher incentives argue that these initiatives may inadvertently undermine intrinsic motivation and fail to align with teachers’ professional ethos. However, the design features of these programs, such as the short-term nature of incentives and the focus on student achievement as a metric, also play a role in shaping their effectiveness. Studies on teacher incentives underscore the importance of designing incentives that are perceived as meaningful, sustainable, and aligned with teachers’ professional goals to drive positive changes in teaching practices and student outcomes.
In conclusion, ANAR’s recommendations regarding teacher effectiveness have paved the way for significant education policy innovations over the past four decades. While these innovations have offered valuable insights and proof of concept, large-scale, enduring changes in teacher evaluation, training, and compensation have yet to materialize. Overcoming the entrenched challenges in implementing meaningful reforms requires a multi-faceted approach that addresses knowledge gaps in reform design, operational complexities in scaling up initiatives, and political resistance to change. By building political consensus around incremental reforms that incorporate elements of ANAR’s proposals, education stakeholders can pave the way for evidence-based, sustainable changes in teacher assessment, training, and compensation practices.
To explore the complete Hoover Institution initiative, visit: .