When teachers teach classes for which they are not licensed, they are teaching out of field (TOOF) (du Plessis, 2015; Ingersoll, 1998; 2019). Out of field teaching is not a characteristic of the teacher but a description of the misalignment of a teacher’s qualifications and the subject they teach. Thus, it should be noted that out-of-field teaching is not due to a lack of basic education (ie bachelor’s degree) or training on the part of teachers but instead represents a mismatch between teachers’ fields of training and their teaching assignments.

When students take classes from teachers TOOF, they show less academic growth and are less successful (Clotfelter, Ladd & Vigdor, 2010; Lankford, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2002). The likelihood of being taught by a teacher teaching out of field is higher for students of color and Emergent Bilinguals as well as students in urban and rural schools (Beswick, Fraser, & Crowley, 2016; Nixon et al, 2017). In the USA, TOOF has been a concern for decades, but rates have increased dramatically since the federal Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) became law in 2015 (Author, 2020). While one goal of ESSA was to provide schools with greater local control by providing more flexibility on teacher qualifications, the result has been more teachers teaching outside of their areas of expertise. TOOF matters because when students take classes from teachers who are not licensed and trained to teach that subject matter, there is a growing body of evidence that students are less successful and show less academic growth (Author, 2022; Chaney, 1995; Goldhaber & Brewer, 2000; Ingersoll, 1998).

This phenomena of teaching out of field is not new and impacts a wide range of students and subjects. In a report from 1998, Ingersoll (1998) found that one-fifth of all students in English, grades 7-12 were taught by a teacher who did not have at least a minor in English or English related field and one-quarter of all students had teachers out of field in Mathematics. In addition, while many think Math and Science are the fields primarily impacted by teachers who teach out of field, more English classes in Texas are taught by teachers TOOF than other subjects (Author, 2020), indicating the issue is more widespread than sometimes recognized.

Most prior studies of the impact of TOOF on student academic growth have been limited because they used either national assessment data that are not linked directly to the curriculum teachers were teaching, or state assessment data with small samples. Author (2022) overcame this limitation by using statewide Math assessment data that were linked directly to the curricula that teachers were required to teach. They found significantly lower academic growth in all Math grades/subjects examined for students taught out-of-field compared to students taught by teachers who were fully-trained and licensed to teach Math. This study builds on this prior work in Math by analyzing English Language Arts assessment data and teaching out of field to determine the effect on student learning. We asked the research question, do students who are taught in Grade 9 English I in field versus out of field experience similar levels of growth accounting for differences among students, teachers and schools?

This study takes place in Texas, USA, an ideal location for conducting research on TOOF because of several factors. The state education agency has collected rich data on a large number of student, teacher, and school variables in education since 1991 and these data are contained in the Texas Longitudinal Data System (TLDS) . Not only does the TLDS house millions of data points regarding education, the state also has the second largest student enrollment in public education in the USA and is demographically diverse, making this context a rich and unique site for this kind of research. Teaching out of field is also clearly defined in Texas with over 90 pages of rules for what teaching license is required to teach each class. For this study, we expand on prior work, and examine the impacts of TOOF on secondary students’ academic growth in English Language Arts by using scores for the state’s end-of-course assessment, English I. Using three-level hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) with students at level one, teachers at level two, and schools at level three, we estimated the impacts of TOOF on student academic growth compared to teaching in-field using data for 1.7 million unique secondary students in English I. The dependent variable is the normalized scaled score for the English I state assessment. The student-level predictor variables include the prior year’s normalized scaled score on the state assessment in English/Reading, gender, race/ethnicity, economic status, English learner status, and special education status. Teacher-level variables include a binary flag for whether the class was taught out of field, a grand-mean deviated variable for years of teaching experience, and academic degree held at the time the class was taught. Teaching out of field was determined for each student enrolled in the Grade 9 English class, and the license held by each teacher was examined. If the license was listed as valid for this class in Texas Administrative Code, Chapter 231, then the teacher was classified as teaching in-field, otherwise they were classified as teaching out of field. School-level binary variables were included for school locale (e.g., urban, suburban, rural). The intraclass correlation shows that 35% of variation in student scores is at the teacher level and 8% is at the campus level, indicating that HLM is warranted (Snijders & Bosker, 2012).

The results show that secondary students taught by teachers teaching out of field learned significantly less in English Language Arts I compared to similar students taught in-field (17.4% of a standard deviation, SD, lower). Being taught out of field has negative consequences for students. There are also substantial differences across school- and student-level characteristics that will be reported, including that students in suburban schools score highest in the state exam after accounting for wealth, gender, and ethnicity. Female students scored 20% of a SD higher than similar male students. The academic growth experienced by emergent bilinguals is 18.3% SD lower than native English speakers, indicating that the impact of being taught by a teacher TOOF is almost equivalent to English being your second language. The magnitude of the relationship between TOOF and student academic growth is twice the magnitude between student poverty and student growth. In other words, eliminating poverty in Texas would improve student learning by only half the rate of making sure all teachers were teaching within their fields of expertise. With increased teacher shortages, pressures on educator preparation programs to churn out more teachers, and for schools to hire anyone who is willing to teach, the TOOF rates are likely to increase. The results of our study strongly indicate that TOOF is not a healthy or viable option for providing a high quality, equitable education to students. Given that Author (2020) showed Black students, male students, students in special education, from low-income families, and emergent bilinguals are significantly more likely to be taught by a teacher TOOF than their peers, all else being equal, the current findings are not consistent with the stated goals of ESSA and may result in less equitable educational opportunities for students across the USA.

Author, 2020 Author, 2022 Beswick, K., Fraser, S., & Crowley, S. (2016). '“No wonder out-of-field teachers struggle!”: Unpacking the thinking of expert teachers, Australian Mathematics Teacher, vol. 72, p. 16 – 20. Chaney, B. (1995). Student outcomes and the professional preparation of eighth-grade teachers in science and mathematics. National Science Foundation. Clotfelter, C. T., Ladd, H. F., & Vigdor, J. L. (2010). Teacher credentials and student achievement in high school: A cross subject analysis with student fixed effects. Journal of Human Resources, 45(3), 655–681. Du Plessis, A. (2015). Effective education: Conceptualising the meaning of out-of-field teaching practices for teachers, teacher quality and school leaders. International Journal of Educational Research. 72, 89-102. doi: 10.1016/j.ijer.2015.05.005 Goldhaber, D. D., & Brewer, D. J. (2000). Does teacher certification matter? High school teacher certification status and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22(2), 129–145. Ingersoll, R. M. (1998). The problem of out-of-field teaching. The Phi Delta Kappan, 79(10), 773–776. Ingersoll, R. M. (2019). Measuring out-of-field teaching. In L. Hobbs & G. Törner (Eds.), Examining the phenomenon of ‘teaching out-of-field’: International perspectives on teaching as a non-specialist (pp. 21–52). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3366-8_2 Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2002). Teacher sorting and the plight of urban schools: A descriptive analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(1), 37–62. Nixon, R. S., Luft, J. A., & Ross, R. J. (2017). Prevalence and predictors of out-of-field teaching in the first five years. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(9), 1197–1218. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21402 Snijders, T. A. B., & Bosker, R. J. (2012). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling (2nd ed.). Sage.