Despite this evidence, many schools of education do not select their students with an aggressive eye toward this broadly defined literacy. For example, one study of the graduates of the State University of New York system found that, on standardized aptitude tests, elementary and secondary teachers were more likely to score on the lower end of the distribution than their non-teaching peers, and less likely to score at the higher end. National data reflect the same trends: Fewer than 7 percent of public school teachers, for instance, graduated from "selective" colleges. Of course, test scores and college selectivity are not the only indicators of effective teaching; a range of factors leads to excellence in the classroom. However, research suggests that there is a real connection between effectiveness in the classroom and "literacy" that could be more fully addressed in how current teacher preparation programs select candidates.

While higher selectivity is important, imparting the most salient teaching skills is vital. Yet, in many cases, these skills are not being addressed in as robust a manner as possible. For instance, a recent NCTQ study of elementary education programs found that only 15 percent actually teach the five components of effective reading instruction identified by the National Reading Panel as essential to reading instruction. Another study, by David Steiner, the dean of the School of Education at Hunter College, and Susan Rozen, the director of reading and literacy for the Bedford, Massachusetts, public school system, examined the syllabi from education programs across the country and concluded: "Most schools of education we reviewed risk . . . not providing their students with a thoughtful and academically rich background in the fundamentals of what it means to be an outstanding educator."

In addition to what they teach, education schools can also influence teacher effectiveness by using actual performance data about each prospective graduate (gleaned from student practicum experiences) to set exit standards. However, where robust practicum experiences are required, students are infrequently held accountable for their performance. Further complicating matters, there is little appetite among many policymakers to hold teacher-preparation programs themselves accountable for the performance of their graduates. In fact, only a handful of states actually track teacher-performance data with the explicit purpose of gauging the effectiveness of preparation programs.

What about alternative paths to the teaching profession? Do they fare any better than their traditional counterparts? This is a difficult question to answer because such programs vary so widely in design, and many mirror traditional programs in their basic structure and content. In practice, what seems to matter most is not the program’s classification–traditional or alternative–but rather the extent to which it pays attention to the levers of quality: high admissions standards with a focus on literacy levels, rigorous and relevant coursework, and high graduation standards based in large part on student teaching performance.

Programs that do these things typically get results. Take for instance the best known, Teach for America (TFA), which recruits top college students to teach in high-poverty communities for at least two years. It has very high admissions standards (only one in eight applicants to the program was admitted in 2006); requires streamlined, but rigorous, coursework the summer before TFA corps members begin teaching; and provides intensive ongoing support and training. And while many TFA teachers would agree with the program’s critics who say that additional training beyond the summer institute would have been useful, randomized trials indicate that these educators are, on average, as effective, and in some cases more effective, than traditionally prepared teachers. Obviously, scale dictates that TFA and similar programs (such as the non-profit New Teacher Project, which works with urban districts to recruit, train, and place teachers) are not "the answer" to the human capital crisis in education. But by taking teacher selection and recruiting so seriously, these and other initiatives do offer broader lessons for the American public education system.

Induction, Mentoring, and Professional Development
After they are hired, teachers typically receive limited ongoing support from their school systems. The American Federation of Teachers (AFT), which for years has championed better induction and mentoring for teachers, has found that while states frequently have induction and mentoring programs on the books, they often lack funding, rigor, and sustained district support.

Mentoring programs can be an incredibly important support for novice teachers. Such programs, where they exist, however, are frequently ineffective, for two reasons. First, in many school systems, there are simply not enough quality mentors to go around. This is particularly true in high-poverty districts that struggle to retain their highest-performing teachers in the first place. As a result, mentors often have only limited opportunities to connect with the new teachers in their charge. Furthermore, because of the scarcity of quality mentors, it is not uncommon for a school system to pair two educators who teach different subjects and different grade levels. Of course, some elements of pedagogy are universally transferable. But, if two colleagues are to wrestle deeply with their instructional methods, it certainly helps if they teach the same subject and roughly the same grade. Second, many mentoring programs are ineffective because they rarely offer quality training to the mentors themselves. Without formal training, it can be difficult for a teacher–even a highly successful one–to help a colleague effectively reflect upon and improve his or her practice.

Professional development throughout the school year–for new and veteran teachers alike–is equally inadequate. In fact, most school districts dedicate less than 1 percent of their annual budgets to the training and support of the teachers within their systems. And these funds are often spent on programs that are characterized by a lack of both rigor and relevance. A 2005 analysis by the Finance Project, a non-profit research and training organization, concluded that, in terms of quality, professional development in education was of a significantly lower caliber than that offered in other professions. Not surprisingly, educators are often neither satisfied with, nor challenged by, their professional development. Teachers want to improve their practice, and they know they are being cheated of meaningful opportunities to grow professionally.

It does not have to be this way. Promising professional development models do exist. One example is the Education Trust’s Standards in Practice (SIP), a six-step process through which teachers collaboratively examine their own instruction in an effort to ensure that all students participate in rigorous, grade-level work. A similar effort being implemented nationally is the Teacher Advancement Program, which, in addition to creating new career paths and compensation schemes for public educators, places greater emphasis on teacher-led professional development by encouraging professional collaboration in the workplace.

Evaluation and Compensation
Unfortunately, teachers are also evaluated and compensated in perfunctory ways that are neither aligned with the goal of significant student learning nor respectful of the difficult work that educators do. Take those teachers who are struggling to achieve in the classroom, but who desperately want to improve. The logical response is to give them the tools and resources they need. In our current system, though, these individuals often do not receive the necessary support. This is both unfair and unwise. Considering the mathematics of the teacher workforce, this vast pool of "educator potential" must be tapped if we are to supply an excellent teacher to every child.

What about the individuals who have, over many years, inadequately served the children in their charge? It does not denigrate the teaching profession to admit that such low-performing educators exist and that low-performers hurt the educational chances of children. Every field and profession has some members who are not performing at an acceptable level. But, in education, it is often the case that teacher contracts, state laws, and cumbersome and weak evaluation systems make transitioning out consistently low-performing teachers unreasonably difficult. For instance, Common Good, a non-partisan legal-reform organization, documented 83 specific steps administrators must take to remove a low-performing teacher in the New York City public school system. Not surprisingly, relatively few teachers are removed for cause. New York is not anomalous; the same issues exist around the country. Transitioning out such educators is crucial to retaining more effective ones. After all, ambitious, results-driven individuals, in any field, typically desire to be surrounded by likeminded colleagues. When poor performance is seen as acceptable, it is not uncommon for high-quality people to become demoralized and exit the profession.