When teachers teach classes for which they are not licensed, they are teaching out of field (OOF) (du Plessis, 2015; Ingersoll, 1999; 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. It should be noted that out-of-field teaching is not due to a lack of academic 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 OOF, they show less academic growth and are less successful (Clotfelter, Ladd & Vigdor, 2010; Lankford, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2002). This is an equity issue because the likelihood of being taught by a teacher OOF is higher for students of color and Emergent Bilinguals as well as those located in urban and rural schools (Beswick, Fraser, & Crowley, 2016; Nixon et al, 2017). In addition, teachers teaching OOF have been shown to have lower satisfaction rates and higher attrition rates (Donaldson & Johnson, 2010). There is growing concern about the negative effects of teachers teaching OOF across all subject areas and most parts of the globe (Hobbs & Porsch, 2022). In the USA, teaching OOF has been a challenge 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 increased local control by providing more flexibility on teacher qualifications, the result has been more teachers teaching outside of their areas of expertise.

This phenomenon of teaching OOF is not new and impacts a wide range of students and subjects. Ingersoll 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 (Ingersoll, 1998). While many think Math and Science are the fields primarily impacted by teachers who teach OOF, more English classes in Texas, USA, are taught by teachers assigned OOF than any other subject (Author, 2020). In addition, most prior studies have been limited because they used only one type of data (quant or qual), they used national assessment data that were not linked directly to the curriculum teachers were teaching, or they used state assessment data with small samples.

In this study, we overcame some of these limitations by using a mixed methods approach where step one utilized quantitative statewide English language arts (ELA) assessment data that were linked directly to the English curricula that teachers were required to teach to identify successful teachers assigned OOF in secondary English. Once these successful English teachers were identified, step two included qualitative methods where teachers were interviewed, and their pedagogical approaches analyzed in order to find more details contributing to their students’ success. In this study we seek to answer the question, “What factors contribute to secondary ELA teachers’ success when assigned to teach at least one course OOF?”

This mixed methods study takes place in Texas, USA, an ideal location for conducting research on teaching OOF because of several factors. The state education agency has collected rich data on large numbers of student, teacher, and schools since 1991 and these data are contained in a State Longitudinal Data System called the Education Research Center (ERC). Not only does Texas collect and store 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. For this study, we expand on prior work and examine the characteristics of successful teachers who are teaching secondary English OOF. We identified the teachers through quantitative means, identifying teachers whose secondary students showed higher than predicted academic growth in ELA on the state’s secondary English assessments. We used three level hierarchical linear modeling and school fixed-effects ordinary least squares models to identify teachers who had students who showed greater increased in English achievement than was predicted based on their student demographic, teacher, and school characteristics. Growth was calculated by subtracting the student’s actual English assessment score from the student's predicted English scores. These student-level growth scores were then averaged at the teacher-level, and the highest performing teachers teaching secondary English OOF were selected. The sample included the 10 teachers with the top growth score averages and their associated schools were identified. We contacted the principals of these schools and arranged to interview the principal and the secondary English teachers. With the principal, we sought to identify any school-level, systematic approaches to supporting teachers teaching secondary English OOF (e.g., professional learning, classroom supports). With the teachers, we sought to identify their perception of teaching secondary English OOF, their perceptions of school-level support, and their sense of teaching self-efficacy. We also observed their pedagogical approaches during classroom observations.

Results show teaching OOF was associated with 17.4% of a standard deviation (SD) lower achievement in English Language Arts in Grade 9 compared to teachers who were prepared and licensed to teach secondary English. These results indicate that students who were taught OOF experience less growth and achievement in English. There are substantial differences across school and student level characteristics. The negative effect of teaching OOF on student growth is twice that of student poverty. In other words, eliminating poverty in Texas would improve student learning by only half the rate of ensuring all teachers were teaching within their fields of expertise. We are processing the qualitative data and will provide details during the presentation. In general, two groups exist. First and least informative, was the group of principals who provided no systematic supports for their teachers, thus were unable to account for the positive outcomes beyond assuming the results were due solely to an individual teacher. Second, and actionable, were the schools that had implemented systematic supports and training for their teachers and discuss how professional learning opportunities were tailored to teachers teaching secondary English OOF. Examples of these systematic supports and the teachers’ perceptions of these supports will be provided. With increased teacher shortages and pressures to churn out more teachers, the OOF rates are likely to increase. The results of our study strongly indicate that teaching OOF is not a 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 multilinguals are significantly more likely to be taught by a teacher OOF than their peers, all else being equal, the current findings 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. 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 Donaldson, M. L., & Johnson, S. M. (2010). The Price of Misassignment: The Role of Teaching Assignments in Teach For America Teachers’ Exit From Low-Income Schools and the Teaching Profession. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 32(2), 299–323. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40732422 Hobbs, L. & Porsch, R. (Eds). (2022). Out-of-field teaching across teaching disciplines and contexts. Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-9328-1 Ingersoll, R. M. (1998). The problem of out-of-field teaching. The Phi Delta Kappan, 79(10), 773–776. Ingersoll, R. M. (1999). The problem of underqualified teachers in American Secondary Schools. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 26-37. 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