Educational Policy

Volume 21 Number 5
November 2007 747-768
© 2007 Corwin Press
Teachers’ Mathematics 10.1177/0895904807307061
http://epx.sagepub.com
Knowledge for Teaching hosted at
http://online.sagepub.com

and School Context

A Study of California Teachers
Heather C. Hill
Harvard University
Sarah Theule Lubienski
University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign

This article examines the relationship between the mathematical knowledge

of 438 K-8 California teachers and the demographics of the schools in which
they work. To measure mathematical knowledge, we used a series of multiple-
choice problems meant to represent both the content teachers teach and the
specialized knowledge of mathematics that teachers might possess. Teachers
in schools with higher proportions of low-SES and Hispanic students
performed more poorly on these measures than did teachers from other schools.
Implications for policy and for further research are discussed.

Keywords: teacher knowledge; student demographics

W ide academic achievement gaps exist between students of different

races, ethnicities, and social classes (Braswell, Daane, & Grigg, 2003;
Jencks & Phillips, 1998; Lee, 2002). As scholars have explored reasons for
these achievement gaps, policy makers have designed programs meant to
close them. While some programs, such as Head Start, Title I, and after-school
tutoring, are designed to directly address student needs, others target school
and teacher resources thought to affect student achievement.

Authors’ Note: The authors would like to thank Nicholas Townsend, Patrick Callahan, Rena
Dorph, and David Goldstein with the preparation of data for this article. The research reported
in this article was supported in part by the National Science Foundation’s Interagency
Educational Research Initiative to the University of Michigan (REC-9979863), the National
Science Foundation’s Research on Learning and Education (REC-0207649), and by the
University of California Office of the President. Opinions expressed in this article are those of
the authors and do not reflect the views of funding agencies or colleagues.

747
748 Educational Policy

One recent effort in this latter area has focused on teacher qualities and
qualifications. In light of evidence that shows disparities across student popu-
lations in the preparation and certification of teachers, the Bush adminis-
tration’s No Child Left Behind requires recipients of federal funding to
employ only “highly qualified” teachers and defines such teachers as those
with a bachelor’s degree, certification from the state in which they teach,
and “qualified” according to state policies. Scholars have debated, however,
the extent to which such paper qualifications lead to enhanced student
achievement (Greenwald, Hedges, & Laine, 1996; Hanushek, 1996), raising
questions about the capacity of such policies to improve student learning and
to close achievement gaps.
Some also argue that these paper qualifications are poor indicators of at
least one key teacher resource: content knowledge for teaching. Teachers
clearly need to have adequate knowledge of disciplinary facts, procedures,
and concepts to teach these accurately to students. Teachers may also require
specialized knowledge to provide high-quality instruction (Shulman, 1986).
For instance, teachers might need to know how to analyze and remedy student
errors and explain or represent particular ideas and procedures. In light of
evidence suggesting teachers’ preparation and credentials vary across popu-
lations of students taught, we explore whether this knowledge for teaching
is also distributed inequitably. We focus specifically on mathematics, which
plays a key gatekeeping role for academic and occupational advancement
in the United States.
Below, we review the literature on teacher credentials, knowledge, and
student characteristics. We then turn to results from an examination of teacher
credentials, teacher knowledge, and student characteristics in one state,
California. We chose California because of its wide variation in student
population and because we possess data on more than 400 K-8 California
teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching. We have linked this informa-
tion to a data set detailing the number and types of students in their school.
We explore whether there are school-level differences in teachers’ know-
ledge and then ask whether teachers’ knowledge varies systematically by
characteristics of the students they teach.

Literature Review

Mathematics achievement data from the 2003 National Assessment of

Educational Progress (NAEP) indicate wide gaps between White, Hispanic,
and Black1 students. For example, whereas 43% of U.S. White fourth graders
 Hill, Lubienski / Teachers’ Mathematics Knowledge 749

Table 1
2003 Fourth-Grade NAEP Mathematics Achievement Data
by Race/Ethnicity and Lunch Eligibility
Percentage Percentage at Percentage at
Below Basic or Above Basic or Above Proficient

Nation
(N = 190,147)
White 13 87 43
Hispanic 38 62 16
Black 46 54 10
Eligible for lunch 38 62 15
Not eligible 12 88 45
California (n = 8,544)
White 14 86 42
Hispanic 47 53 11
Black 49 51 9
Eligible for lunch 46 54 11
Not eligible 17 83 41

Source: NAEP Web Tool, http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nde/.

Note: NAEP = National Assessment of Educational Progress.

performed at or above the “proficient” level, only 16% of Hispanic and 10%
of Black fourth graders were considered proficient (see Table 1). More
than one third of U.S. Hispanic and Black students were deemed “below
basic,” in contrast to only 13% of White students. Similar disparities occurred
between students who qualified for free or reduced lunch and those who did
not. Patterns at Grade 4 were very similar to those at Grade eight (NAEP Web
tool, http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nde/). An examination of achieve-
ment gaps in the 2000 NAEP mathematics data indicated that race-related
gaps in achievement persisted even after controlling for student socioeco-
nomic status (Lubienski, 2002).
As Table 1 indicates, this situation is mirrored within California, the site
of this study. The percentages of White and Black students at the three achieve-
ment levels were fairly consistent with the overall U.S. data, and the gaps
between free lunch–eligible and -ineligible students were similar. However,
Hispanic students fared worse in California than in the nation. Again, patterns
at Grade 4 were similar to those occurring at Grade 8 (NAEP Web tool,
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nde/).
750 Educational Policy

Seeking Explanations for Gaps: The Role of Teachers

Scholars have attempted to explain achievement gaps by modeling
the contribution of factors such as students’ home background and culture
(e.g., Phillips, Brooks-Gunn, Duncan, Klebanov, & Crane, 1998), school (e.g.,
Ferguson, 1998), and teacher characteristics (e.g., Monk, 1994; Rowan,
Chiang, & Miller, 1997) to student achievement. Although student back-
ground characteristics often explain half or more of the variance in student
achievement, many scholars report significant between-teacher variation in
the “value added” to students (Rowan, Correnti, & Miller, 2002; Sanders &
Horn, 1998). Whereas studies attempting to model the contribution of teacher
preparation and experiences to student achievement have met with mixed
success (Greenwald, Hedges, & Laine, 1996; Hanushek, 1996), studies using
more direct measures of teachers’ general knowledge—verbal facility tests,
mathematics basic skills tests—have seen positive and significant results
(e.g., in mathematics, Harbison & Hanushek, 1992; Mullens, Murnane, &
Willett, 1996). These analyses suggest teachers’ intellectual resources, includ-
ing either general intelligence, content-specific knowledge, or both, are factors
in producing student achievement.
If greater teacher knowledge leads to improved student growth, investi-
gations into the distribution of this resource across schools and student
populations become important. In one such study, Ferguson (1991) found
Texas teacher examination verbal scores lower in heavily Black and Hispanic
districts (p. 483). Loeb and Reininger (2004) found that within New York
City, only 16% of White students had teachers who failed the general
knowledge certification exam (National Teachers Exam) on their first try,
whereas 26% of non-White students had such teachers. Both studies suggest
disadvantaged students are further disadvantaged by inequities in the resources
teachers bring to their classrooms. This work also suggests the utility of
exploring whether such inequities exist in other states and in specific subject
areas such as mathematics, the focus of the research described here.
Most evidence on such inequities focuses on disparities in levels of teacher
preparation, rather than direct measures of content knowledge for teaching,
because the latter has been so infrequently measured. Using 1985 National
Survey of Science and Mathematics Education data, Oakes (1990) found
few disparities in the real or perceived qualifications of sampled elementary
school teachers across different student socioeconomic status (SES) strata
and minority status. More recent studies, however, have located disparities.
Loeb and Reininger (2004) found that “schools with minority enrollments
over 80 percent have higher proportions of teachers in their first three years
 Hill, Lubienski / Teachers’ Mathematics Knowledge 751

of teaching” (p. 29). Darling-Hammond (1997) noted the presence of wide

disparities in teacher preparation, including mathematics course taking, across
the nation. For example, whereas more than 50% of high school mathematics
teachers in California, Alaska, and Hawaii lacked even a minor in mathe-
matics, less than 15% of mathematics teachers in Connecticut, Kansas, and
Minnesota lacked this minimal level of mathematics preparation. Darling-
Hammond concluded,

Perhaps the single greatest source of inequity in education is this disparity in

the availability and distribution of well-qualified teachers. . . . The great
majority of these underprepared teachers are hired in poor rural and urban
schools, especially those serving large numbers of minority students. . . . In
nearly all cases, the least well prepared teachers are most likely to teach the
least advantaged children. (pp. 273-274)

NAEP data shed further light on disparities in teacher preparation by

student population. Using the 2000 main NAEP data (NAEP Web tool,
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nde/) for the nation, Strutchens, Lubienski,
McGraw, and Westbrook (2004) found that whereas 80% of White eighth
graders had teachers who reported being certified in secondary mathematics
education, only 72% of Black and Hispanic eighth graders had such teachers.
They also found that eighth graders whose teachers were certified in secondary
mathematics scored a significant 14 points higher on the NAEP mathematics
assessment than those students whose teachers did not have secondary mathe-
matics certification. Although such a difference persisted within each race/
ethnicity and SES category they examined, they caution that many factors
could confound this relationship, and therefore it may not be that disparities
in teacher backgrounds cause the achievement differences.
Gándara, Rumberger, Maxwell-Jolly, and Callahan (2003) also reported
disparities in teacher preparation, this time across California schools. They
pointed out that one out of three California elementary school students is
classified as English language learner (ELL). Of all California teachers, 14%
are not fully credentialed, and this percentage is almost double for teachers
of ELLs. Similarly, Powers’s (2004) examination of California school data
revealed that high-minority schools had fewer fully credentialed teachers,
more teachers teaching out of field, and less experienced teachers than low-
minority schools. Moreover, evidence regarding California from the 2003
NAEP data (NAEP Web tool, http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nde/) indi-
cates that White students are significantly more likely than Hispanic or Black
students to have a teacher with a standard teaching certificate (see Table 2).
752 Educational Policy

Table 2
California NAEP Data on Type of Teaching Certificate
by Race/Ethnicity, 2003
Probationary,
Provisional, No
Standard or Temporary Emergency Certificate

Grade 4
(n = 7,760)
White 90a, b 8 2b 0c
Black 75 15 10 0c
Hispanic 79 10 11 0c
Eligible for free lunch 76d 13 11 0c
Not eligible 91 5 4 0c
Grade 8
(n = 3,558)
White 89a, b 5 6a, b 0c
Black 71 7 19 3
Hispanic 74 11 14 1
Eligible for free lunch 72d 10 17d 1
Not eligible 87 8 5 0c

Source: NAEP Web Tool, http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nde/.

Note: Significance tests could not be performed on the “probationary, provisional or tempo-
rary” category because it is a compilation of three categories on the National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP) Web tool.
a. Percentage for White students is significantly different from the percentage for Black
students.
b. Percentage for White students is significantly different from the percentage for Hispanic
students.
c. Percentage rounds to 0.
d. Percentage of students eligible for free lunch is significantly different from the percentage
of students not eligible for free lunch.

Whereas only 2% of White fourth graders in California had teachers who

reported having an emergency credential, 10% of Black students and 11% of
Hispanic students had such a teacher. These percentages at the eighth-grade
level were 6% for White students, versus 19% for Black students and 14%
for Hispanic students.

Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching

These disparities are striking. Yet concurrent with this work, some scholars
have challenged the wisdom of using either loose proxies, such as content
 Hill, Lubienski / Teachers’ Mathematics Knowledge 753

courses taken, certification, or even tests of basic skills in subject matter, to

capture the knowledge used in teaching. Shulman (1986) and others working
across subject matter areas such as reading (McCutchen, Harry, & Cox, 2002;
Moats, 1994; Phelps & Schilling, 2004), history (Wilson & Wineburg, 1988),
and mathematics (Ball & Bass, 2003; for a review see Ball, Lubienski, &
Mewborn, 2001) have explored the specialized knowledge, sometimes called
“pedagogical content knowledge,” that teachers deploy when in classrooms.
In reading, for instance, being able to decode text for oneself does not
necessarily ensure the ability to teach decoding for students; for the latter,
teachers might need to possess more detailed knowledge of the structure of
language, about typical problems students encounter as they seek to decode
text, and so forth (Phelps & Schilling, 2004).
Working within this framework, researchers in mathematics education
began in recent years to pay close attention to the special ways mathematics
is used in teaching. Ball and Bass (2000), Lamon (1999), Leinhardt and Smith
(1985), Ma (1999), Simon and Blume (1994), and Thompson and Thompson
(1994) have examined the specific ways teachers must understand topics
such as fractions, multiplication, division, and rate or ratio to teach these
topics to children. Teachers may, for instance, not only teach students the
procedure for reducing fractions (3/9 ÷ 3/3 = 1/3) but also explain why it
works—that the student is dividing by one, and thus the value of the fraction
does not change (Leinhardt & Smith, 1985). Teachers may need to represent
mathematical procedures and ideas using pictures or manipulatives. Teachers
may also need to appraise unusual student methods for solving computational
problems and determine whether such methods would be generalizable to
other problems. We call this knowledge specialized knowledge of mathe-
matics, based on our beliefs that it is applied content knowledge that may
be developed through the work of teaching. We contrast this specialized
knowledge with what we call common knowledge of mathematics—being
able to compute 35 × 25 accurately, to identify what power of 10 is equal
to 1, to solve word problems satisfactorily, and so forth. Empirical research
suggests that specialized knowledge is related, although not equivalent to,
common knowledge of mathematics (Hill, Schilling, & Ball, 2004).
To investigate the effect such knowledge might have on student mathe-
matical achievement, the Study of Instructional Improvement and Learning
Mathematics for Teaching (SII/LMT) projects recently designed and piloted
a set of multiple-choice items representing both common and specialized
knowledge of mathematics. These items are not pedagogical in nature; they
ask not about best representations or common student errors but instead focus
on the applied mathematics teachers may need to teach children. The set
754 Educational Policy

included items representing both common and specialized knowledge of

mathematics because of investigators’ belief that they together comprise impor-
tant elements of mathematics knowledge for teaching. Two sample items
are included in Figure 1. Item 1 is an example of a “common” mathematics
knowledge task; solving this problem in one's daily work is not limited to those
in teaching, but is common in diverse professions, including engineering
and mathematics. Item 2 is intended to draw on specialized knowledge for
teaching mathematics. Teachers must inspect each student’s work, determine
what method (if any) the student is using to answer the problem, and then
decide whether these methods would work to multiply any two whole numbers.
This is not a task frequently done by those who do not teach mathematics
to students, yet it is purely mathematical. Thus, we argue it constitutes one
kind of specialized knowledge for teaching mathematics.
Ideas for both common and specialized items were drawn from a review
of the research literature on teacher knowledge (e.g., Ball, 1993a, 1993b;
Carpenter et al., 1989; Lamon, 1999; Lampert, 2001; Ma, 1999) and from
project members’ experiences teaching and observing elementary classrooms.
Specialized knowledge of mathematics tasks included representing numbers
and operations using materials or stories, providing reasons and explana-
tions for concepts and algorithms, and making mathematical appraisals of
students’ work. For more detail on the construction of these measures, see
Hill et al. (2004).
Researchers at the Study of Instructional Improvement have recently
shown a statistically significant and positive relationship between teacher
knowledge, as defined by these measures, and student achievement (Hill,
Rowan, & Ball, 2005). In models that used gain scores for both first and
third graders as the dependent variables, teacher knowledge as measured by
these and other items predicted student growth. A teacher one standard devi-
ation above average in mathematical knowledge would boost her students’
growth by one-half and two-third months in the first- and third-grade models,
respectively. This finding echoes that of the educational production function
literature cited in Greenwald et al. (1996) and Hanushek (1996) but also
suggests that such knowledge may reside in proficiency around the specific
content taught rather than simply general intelligence.
With this new view of the intellectual resources teachers bring to the class-
room, new measures of teacher quality, and the identification of a positive
relationship between these measures and student achievement, questions again
arise about the distribution of teacher qualifications across student popula-
tions. Hill et al. (2005) found mild to moderate correlations between teacher
knowledge and student SES and race (–.12 to –.29) yet enrolled mainly
 Hill, Lubienski / Teachers’ Mathematics Knowledge 755

Figure 1
Items

Note: Items copyright 2005 Study of Instructional Improvement/Learning Mathematics for

Teaching. Not for reproduction or use without consent of authors.
756 Educational Policy

low-achieving schools participating in one of three comprehensive school

reform projects. With a sample of mainly low-performing schools, this find-
ing is not conclusive. However, there are reasons to think teachers’ mathe-
matics knowledge for teaching would be inequitably distributed across the
broader population of schools as well. To start, schooling for poor children
has been historically underresourced. More affluent schools may be more able
to attract higher quality teachers and transfer those of poorer quality.
Furthermore, salary, benefits, students, and other features may attract higher
quality teachers to affluent districts.
However, there are also reasons to expect no difference in teachers’ mathe-
matics knowledge across student populations. Some highly qualified teachers
are certainly drawn to work in particular schools for altruistic reasons rather
than for working conditions and pay. Teachers’ knowledge for teaching
mathematics is not typically assessed by principals or district officials when
they hire teachers, nor is it easily observed as principals evaluate the typical
one to two lessons per year of their practicing teachers. And even if a teacher
had poor command of mathematics for teaching, this trait is only one of
several on which principals and/or district officials may choose to evaluate—
a teacher may excel at reading instruction, motivating students, maintaining
order, supporting ELL students in their native language, or other character-
istics important to good teaching. In addition, it is possible that knowledge
for teaching mathematics is learned primarily while teaching, and, therefore,
years of teaching experience might be a stronger predictor of such knowl-
edge than the race/ethnicity or socioeconomic class of students in a school.
This study examines the question of whether mathematics knowledge
for teaching is distributed equitably across schools. Using the new multiple-
choice measures described above, we explore how these measures covary
with student characteristics such as race/ethnicity and SES.

Method

The items used to gauge knowledge of mathematics for teaching were

written by members of SII/LMT. These multiple-choice items are grounded
in common tasks of mathematics instruction and are designed to elicit teachers’
ability to use elementary (K-6) number and operations content knowledge
as they would in practice. They are different from other standardized assess-
ments of teachers’ content knowledge, such as many state licensure tests, in
that they encompass not only common knowledge of mathematics (e.g., mul-
tiply 35 × 25 correctly; evaluating 100 =) but also the specialized knowledge
 Hill, Lubienski / Teachers’ Mathematics Knowledge 757

of mathematics teachers use in classrooms (e.g., examining unfamiliar meth-

ods for solving 35 × 25; representing 35 × 25 with manipulatives). This
specialized knowledge is mathematics content knowledge, but not content
knowledge that nonteachers, or even mathematicians, are likely to be familiar
with (see Ball & Bass, 2003).
These measures were administered to teachers attending the California
Mathematics Professional Development Institutes (MPDIs) in the summer
of 2002. The MPDIs were one component of the California Professional
Development Institutes, a statewide program designed to provide subject
matter teacher professional development in English Language Arts, English
language development, and mathematics. Initiated in 2000, the mathematics
program involved both mathematicians and mathematics educators in the
design and implementation of content-focused, extended learning opportu-
nities for teachers. Teachers attended summer programs of 1 to 3 weeks’
duration (between 40 and 120 hours), then participated in up to 80 hours of
school year follow-up. Teachers received stipends of approximately $1,500
for full participation in a 3-week institute, less for shorter institutes.
As a condition of funding, MPDI directors were required to participate
in a statewide evaluation of the effectiveness of the program. As part of this
evaluation, teachers took measures written by SII/LMT at the beginning
and end of intensive summer work, and again at the end of follow-up. It is
the preinstitute data we examine here, because posttest scores include any
effect of learning in the MPDI program. On this pretest, teachers answered
20 problems from the mathematical domains of number and operations.
Data were collected from 533 teachers during the summer of 2002.
Teachers’ responses to these 20 items were scored with Bilog, a program
used to analyze dichotomous data. With Bilog, we created teacher-level
scores that reflected performance on the items described above. These scores
are expressed in standard deviations from the average teacher, with higher
scores representing more knowledgeable teachers. Although we are uncertain
whether this particular mix of items validly represents teachers’ knowledge
for teaching mathematics, other, similar items were subject to cognitive tracing
interviews and showed that teachers’ answers to the multiple-choice items
largely reflected their reasoning about the mathematical content involved
(Hill, 2002). Furthermore, psychometric work also suggests these measures
validly represent teachers’ knowledge of mathematics—only 2 of 20 items
misfit during scale construction, and the reliability of the total set is .79.
Successful scaling is, in itself, one check on construct validity, as it demon-
strates items measure the same underlying trait(s) or ability.
758 Educational Policy

After scaling, teachers’ scores were linked to information in two databases.

The first contained teacher-level descriptive information such as length of
teaching career and grade level taught. Data from 58 teachers were lost because
these teachers either taught high school (24) or because they lacked identification
numbers for linking (34). The data were then linked to Common Core Data
(CCD), a data set maintained by the National Center for Educational Statistics
with information on the universe of U.S. public schools (see http://nces.ed
.gov/ccd/aboutCCD.asp). The CCD contains state-reported information on
each school’s student body, including free lunch eligibility and racial compo-
sition. Thirty-nine teachers were lost in this analysis because of the lack of
school identifiers for linking to this CCD database, for a final total of 436.
Even where we had linking identifiers for teachers, the descriptive data
set contained some missing data. Fifteen teachers failed to report years of
experience in the classroom, and we imputed the sample average years of
experience (7 years) to each. In addition, 63 teachers failed to report grade
level taught. If the teacher was in an elementary school, we assigned the teacher
to the third grade; if he or she was in a middle school, we assigned him or her
to the seventh grade. Another 92 teachers reported teaching multiple grades.
In these cases, we assigned that teacher the highest grade he or she taught,
on the theory that teachers should have familiarity with the mathematical
knowledge used in teaching students in their highest grade.
Because teachers and their performance were nested within schools and
their characteristics, we used hierarchical linear models (HLMs) for this
analysis (Bryk & Raudenbush, 1988). There were 436 Level 1 units (teachers),
and 239 Level 2 units (schools). The number of teachers per school ranged
from 1 (in 62% of cases) to 13. Because this does not make the data set the
strongest candidate for HLM, results were checked in ordinary least squares
regressions. Similar results were obtained, but only the HLM results are
presented here.
This data set and the analyses we report below are both unique and prob-
lematic. Where others have attempted to measure teacher quality via courses
taken, degrees received, and more occasionally, licensure scores and basic
skills tests, we have a measure of quality that is much more grounded in the
actual work teachers do in teaching mathematics on a daily basis. Measures
similar to these have also been shown to predict student achievement. Yet this
is a nonrandom sample of teachers, in that it includes only those teachers
who volunteered to attend an MPDI. We have no reason to expect, however,
that the way in which teachers elected to participate in an MPDI was based
on any interaction between teacher knowledge and school characteristics
(e.g., only low-performing teachers from affluent schools enrolled). Finally,
 Hill, Lubienski / Teachers’ Mathematics Knowledge 759

Table 3
Grade Level of Teachers in Sample
Number of Teachers Percentage of Teachers

K 14 3.2
1 23 5.2
2 36 8.2
3 98 22.2
4 82 18.6
5 79 17.9
6 52 11.8
7 18 4.1
8 39 8.8

the modest number of schools with more than one teacher means school-level
reliability for these models will be low. This is a particular threat when null
findings occur, because null findings can result from noisy (low-reliability)
indicators or true null findings. We take this into account below.

Results

Before presenting results from HLM models, we present some basic infor-
mation on the characteristics of the teacher and school-level data collected.
As noted above, the average teacher had slightly more than 7 years of experi-
ence in the classroom before attending an MPDI. This is likely less experi-
ence than that of the average California teacher, yet the MPDIs may have
drawn newer teachers seeking to improve their mathematics teaching ability.
Table 3 shows the final grade level with imputation for multigrade teachers
and missing data. This distribution appears weighted toward Grades 3-6. A
comparison of these schools to the entire population of California elementary
and middle schools contained in the NCES data set shows that the average
percentage of free lunch–eligible students in our data set—56%—is higher
than the state average of 37%. MPDI sites were recruited by the state on
the basis of their commitment to working with high-poverty and/or low-
performing districts and schools (Madfes, Montell, & Rosen, 2002, p. 86),
and this likely explains the disparity. Finally, Table 4 shows the average
percentage of students of different SES, racial, and ethnic groups in schools
in our sample.
Results of the unconditional model, using teachers’ scores for content
knowledge for teaching mathematics as the dependent variable with no
760 Educational Policy

Table 4
Sample School Composition
M SD

Percentage students free lunch eligible 0.56 0.27

Percentage students Hispanic 0.54 0.30
Percentage students Black 0.11 0.13
Percentage students Asian 0.11 0.14

Table 5
Modeling Initial Teacher CKTM Score
ANOVA Student Student Race/
Model SES Model Ethnicity Model

For intercept, B0
Intercept (π00)a .02 (.04) .03 (.04) .03 (.04)
Percentage students free lunch –.12** (.04)
eligible in school (π01)
Percentage students Hispanic (π02)) –.14** (.05)
Percentage students Black (π03)) –.06 (.04)
Percentage students Asian (π04)) –.01 (.05)
Teacher experience (B1)
Intercept (π10) .00 (.04) .00 (.04)
Highest grade taught (B2)
Intercept (π20) .12*** (.02) .12*** (.02)
Variance components
School level (U0) .08** .06* .05*
Residual (r) .61 .57 .58
Degrees of freedom
Teacher level 432 430
School level 227 225

Note: CKTM = content knowledge for teaching mathematics; ANOVA = analysis of variance;
SES = socioeconomic status.
* Significant at p < .05. ** Significant at p < .01. *** Significant at p < .001.
a. Reliability of Level 2 coefficient is .14.

predictor variables, are presented in Table 5, Model 1. In this model, HLM

partitions the variation in teacher scores that lies within and between schools.
Results reveal that 11.5 % of variation lies between schools–that is, teachers
are only moderately likely to be more similar, in terms of mathematics know-
ledge for teaching, to teachers in their own school than they are to a teacher
in a school nearby or across the state. This statistic is slightly lower than those
 Hill, Lubienski / Teachers’ Mathematics Knowledge 761

typically found when teachers’ reports of instructional practices and school

norms are used in the same type of analysis (see Cohen & Hill, 2001, p. 176)
but is statistically significant (p < .01), and by HLM standards, a candidate
for further modeling. Substantively, however, this finding suggests that
on average, principals and other school officials are only weakly effective
at assessing teachers’ knowledge of mathematics when selecting staff or in
improving faculties’ knowledge of mathematics to a standard level.
Results from the model using teacher and student characteristics to pre-
dict teachers’ entering score for knowledge for teaching mathematics
appear in Table 5, Models 2 and 3. Whereas years of experience fail to pre-
dict content knowledge scores, grade level does. This finding is strongly
significant (p < .001) and indicates that the higher the grade level, the better
that teacher performs on our measures. Importantly, this model shows that
the percentage of free lunch–eligible students in a school is significantly
related to teachers’ preinstitute score, but only mildly. A school that is 1 stan-
dard deviation above the average in student poverty has teachers who score
0.12 standard deviations below average on our measure. This is a small effect,
but statistically significant.
Next, we removed school SES from the model and replaced it with student
race, as measured by the percentage of students from a particular racial or
ethnic group at each school. We did not include SES and race together in
the same model because these variables were highly correlated. The model
shows that in comparison with White students, African American and Hispanic
students were both disadvantaged in terms of teacher qualifications; however,
only the coefficient for Hispanic students was significant. Because we cannot
compare the effects of race/ethnicity against the effects of SES, we cannot say
for sure whether one is more strongly associated with lower teacher quality
than the other. However, both models show that students more in need of
high-quality mathematics instruction have teachers who, arguably, are less
prepared to deliver it.
Given that teacher performance on the content knowledge scores was also
predicted by the grade level taught, the possibility exists that the negative
correlation between student status and teacher knowledge is due to a dece-
leration of curriculum in high-poverty schools, thereby providing those teachers
fewer opportunities to learn upper-grade mathematics through teaching
it. A scatter plot of teachers’ knowledge scores by school SES shows this
relationship in more detail and suggests an alternate explanation (Figure 2).
Schools serving more affluent students—those schools with between 0% and
40% free lunch–eligible students—appear to have few very low-performing
teachers, when very low performing is defined as scoring more than one
762 Educational Policy

Figure 2
Teacher Knowledge Resources by School

2.50
2.00
1.50
Teacher knowledge level

1.00
.50
.00
-.50
-1.00

-1.50
-2.00
-2.50
.00 .20 .40 .60 .80 1.00
Proportion students free lunch eligible

standard deviation below average. High-poverty schools, conversely, did

employ numerous highly qualified teachers, at least according to our measure.
However, they also were more likely to employ teachers who performed poorly
on our assessment. This suggests that affluent schools do not attract or retain
teachers with very little mathematics knowledge.
A few other notes about this model are relevant to the drawing of conclu-
sions. When we add variables to the model, we do not explain (remove) much
variation in the teacher knowledge measure. Another way to say this is that
we simply cannot explain well, in the context of these models, why teachers
and schools vary along our dependent variable, knowledge for teaching. At
the teacher level, this finding is consistent with our other explorations into the
correlates of teacher knowledge for teaching mathematics—very few teacher
characteristics significantly predict teacher knowledge, and those that do
predict only very mildly. Hill et al. (2005), for instance, found teachers’
content knowledge to be uncorrelated with years of experience and mathe-
matics method and content courses, and only mildly positively correlated with
certification status (.11).
Of particular interest is the finding in our model that teacher knowledge
is not predicted by years of classroom experience. Recoding this variable to
 Hill, Lubienski / Teachers’ Mathematics Knowledge 763

a dummy representing only teachers in their first 2 years of classroom expe-

rience does not change the null finding. Several different potential explana-
tions exist, including the possibility that teachers learn little mathematics
for teaching during their career or that this finding is the result of complex
changes in teacher quality and preparation during the past 35 years. Finding
a positive relationship between teachers’ highest reported grade level currently
taught and their knowledge of mathematics for teaching, on the other hand,
suggests that experience might play a role in another way—that perhaps the
teaching of upper-grade material leads teachers to perform better on our
more difficult items.2 On the other hand, this correlation could also be due
to teachers’ self-selection of grades to teach—that is, teachers who are less
comfortable with their own mathematical knowledge might choose to teach
lower elementary grades.

Discussion and Conclusion

Our investigation found a relationship between teachers’ mathematical

knowledge for teaching and the population of students in their school. Schools
enrolling larger numbers of low-income and minority students employed
teachers who had, on average, slightly less mathematical knowledge for
teaching than their counterparts in more affluent schools. A scatter plot
suggests this effect results from more affluent schools being able to attract
more knowledgeable teachers, to transfer teachers with low levels of mathe-
matics knowledge for teaching, or both.
Cautions about generalizing from this analysis to all California or U.S.
schools are necessary. This study used a nonrandom sample of California
teachers who volunteered to participate in a professional development insti-
tute. Although we have no reason to suspect that an interaction between school
demographics and teacher knowledge influenced the teachers’ willingness
to participate in a professional development institute, it is possible that such
an interaction exists. Additional studies using random samples are needed
to confirm or challenge the patterns identified in this study.
Assuming such patterns are confirmed, further studies are needed to illu-
minate their underlying causes. Without in-depth knowledge of the schools’
hiring and retention decisions, as well as the labor market factors that might
drive low-knowledge teachers to less affluent schools, we can only speculate
about what might have caused the correlations between teachers’ knowledge
and school demographics. Principals and district officials who oversee more
affluent schools may be in a better position to screen teachers who have weak
764 Educational Policy

academic preparation or who teach mathematics poorly. Or, low-SES and

high-minority schools may prioritize differently, choosing to hire teachers
with second language capabilities, better ability to motivate students, or other
key quality variables. Finally, recent research (Loeb & Reininger, 2004)
suggests teachers often teach close to where they grew up. This suggests that
schools that fail to adequately prepare teachers, in terms of mathematical
knowledge, may suffer the consequences when these students return to teach
in later years.
Despite the need for replication with other samples and subject matter
areas, we believe lessons from this analysis apply to current policies focused
on closing the achievement gap. Inequalities in teachers’ mathematical know-
ledge across student populations may play a small role in explaining some
of that gap, because more mathematically knowledgeable teachers produce
more mathematically knowledgeable students (Harbison & Hanushek, 1992;
Hill et al., 2005; Mullens et al., 1996). Improving teacher knowledge of
mathematics among those working in high-poverty urban schools or simply
distributing knowledgeable teachers more equitably may be an important
step toward eliminating the achievement gap.
Unfortunately, the problem of equitably distributing knowledgeable
teachers has few easy solutions. Teachers’ knowledge of mathematics is not
easily observable during the hiring process. Mathematics methods and other
preservice course work correlates only very mildly with teachers’ mathemat-
ical knowledge. Furthermore, even if this factor were made more observable,
labor market and working conditions may drive high-knowledge teachers
toward more affluent populations. As Gándara et al. (2003) noted,

Policymakers must find incentives to keep good teachers and principals in

their schools, and remove the incentives for them to move into less challenging
schools. Of course, this means that administrators and policymakers must
tackle, head on, the conditions that drive good people out of these schools—
poor facilities, safety concerns, lack of professional support. (p. 37)

One solution might be to target higher salaries toward less affluent schools
in hopes of attracting more qualified teachers, as Loeb and Reininger (2004)
suggested.
Similarly, the problem of equalizing and improving teacher mathematical
knowledge has few easy solutions. Because experience is not an aid to perfor-
mance on our mathematical knowledge measure, policy makers must there-
fore rely on preservice and in-service education to prepare teachers with the
knowledge that has been shown to predict student achievement. Most K-8
 Hill, Lubienski / Teachers’ Mathematics Knowledge 765

teachers take mathematics content and methods course work as part of their
preparation, yet the curricula of these courses are highly variable across
institutions. By strengthening the amount and quality of such course work
for teachers, particularly in institutions whose graduates migrate largely to
high-minority, high-poverty schools, teacher educators might substantially
reduce educational inequities by lessening disparities in the distribution
of knowledgeable teachers. Teacher educators might also design programs
and policies specifically to lead mathematically strong individuals into high-
poverty, high-minority schools and districts. In addition, extended, content-
focused professional development may assist experienced teachers in learning
mathematics.
Finally, the findings from this study also refocus attention on recent legis-
lation and related efforts to improve teacher quality. Many of these efforts
focus on paper qualifications—increasing the number of subject matter or
methods courses taken, or ensuring new teachers are certified to state standards.
Yet elsewhere, we have found that teachers’ preparation, credentials, and years
of experience are only modestly related to performance on our content knowl-
edge measures (Hill et al., 2005). This suggests that those setting policies
about teacher quality with the goal of affecting student achievement should
use more proximal indicators as the metric for grading state and local efforts.
By using measures more closely related to student achievement, policy sets
more appropriate incentives and may spur more effective local action.

Notes
1. Although we acknowledge that differences of opinions exist as to the appropriateness of
these terms, we use them here to be consistent with the National Center for Education Statistics
databases used in our analyses.
2. Deleting middle school teachers from the sample does not substantially change the corre-
lation between teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching and reports of grade level taught.

References
Ball, D. L. (1993a). Halves, pieces, and twoths: Constructing and using representational contexts
in teaching fractions. In T. P. Carpenter, E. Fennema, & T. A. Romberg (Eds.), Rational
numbers: An integration of research (pp. 157-196). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ball, D. L. (1993b). With an eye on the mathematical horizon: Dilemmas of teaching elementary
school mathematics. Elementary School Journal, 93, 373-397.
Ball, D. L., & Bass, H. (2000). Interweaving content and pedagogy in teaching and learning
to teach: Knowing and using mathematics. In J. Boaler (Ed.), Multiple perspectives on the
teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 83-104). Westport, CT: Ablex.
766 Educational Policy

Ball, D. L., & Bass, H. (2003). Making mathematics reasonable in school. In G. Martin (Ed.),
Research compendium for the Principles and Standards for School Mathematics (pp. 27-44).
Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Ball, D. L., Lubienski, S., & Mewborn, D. (2001). Research on teaching mathematics: The
unsolved problem of teachers’ mathematical knowledge. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook
of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 433-456). New York: Macmillan.
Braswell, J. S., Daane, M. C., & Grigg, W. S. (2003). The nation’s report card: Mathematics
highlights 2003 (NCES 2004-451). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education,
Institute for Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics.
Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1988). Hierarchical linear models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Peterson, P. L., Chiang, C.-P., & Loef, M. (1989). Using knowledge
of children’s mathematics thinking in classroom teaching: An experimental study. American
Educational Research Journal, 26, 499-531.
Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. C. (2001). Learning policy: When state education reform works.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The right to learn: A blueprint for creating schools that work.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ferguson, R. F. (1991). Paying for public education: New evidence on how and why money
matters. Harvard Journal on Legislation, 28, 458-498.
Ferguson, R. F. (1998). Can schools narrow the Black-White test score gap? In C. Jencks &
M. Phillips (Eds.), The Black-White test score gap (pp. 318-374). Washington, DC: Brookings
Institution.
Gándara, P., Rumberger, R., Maxwell-Jolly, J., & Callahan, R. (2003, October 7). English
learners in California schools: Unequal resources, unequal outcomes. Education Policy
Analysis Archives, 11. Retrieved October 15, 2003, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n36/
Greenwald, R., Hedges, L., & Laine, R. (1996). The effect of school resources on school achieve-
ment. Review of Educational Research, 66, 361-396.
Hanushek, E. A. (1996). A more complete picture of school resource policies. Review of
Educational Research, 66, 397-409.
Harbison, R.W., & Hanushek, E. A. (1992). Educational performance for the poor: Lessons
from rural northeast Brazil. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Hill, H. C. (2002). Cognitive tracing study: Validity of items in representing teachers’ thinking.
Ann Arbor, MI: Study of Instructional Improvement.
Hill, H. C., Rowan, B., & Ball, D. L. (2005). Effects of teachers’ mathematical knowledge for
teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42, 371-406.
Hill, H. C., Schilling, S. G., & Ball, D. L. (2004). Developing measures of teachers’ mathematics
knowledge for teaching. Elementary School Journal, 105, 11-30.
Jencks, C., & Phillips, M. (Eds.). (1998). The Black-White test score gap. Washington, DC:
Brookings Institution.
Lamon, S. J. (1999). Teaching fractions and ratios for understanding: Essential content know-
ledge and instruction strategies for teachers. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lampert, M. (2001). Teaching problems. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Lee, J. (2002). Racial and ethnic achievement gap trends: Reversing the progress toward
equity? Educational Researcher, 31, 3-12.
Leinhardt, G., & Smith, D. A. (1985). Expertise in mathematics instruction: Subject matter
knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 247-271.
Loeb, S., & Reininger, M. (2004). Public policy and teacher labor markets: What we know
and why it matters. East Lansing: Education Policy Center at Michigan State University.
 Hill, Lubienski / Teachers’ Mathematics Knowledge 767

Lubienski, S. T. (2002). A closer look at Black-White mathematics gaps: Intersections of race

and SES in NAEP achievement and instructional practices data. Journal of Negro Education,
71(4), 269-287.
Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics: Teachers’ understanding of
fundamental mathematics in China and the United States. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Madfes, T., Montell, F., & Rosen, R. (2002). Independent evaluator: California professional
development institutes, mathematics. San Francisco: WestEd.
McCutchen, D., Harry, D. R., & Cox, S. (2002). Reading teachers knowledge of children’s
literature and English phonology. Annals of Dyslexia, 52, 207-228.
Moats, L. (1994). The missing foundation in teacher education: Knowledge of the structure of
spoken and written language. Annals of Dyslexia, 44, 81-102.
Monk, D. H. (1994). Subject area preparation of secondary mathematics and science teachers
and student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 13, 125-145.
Mullens, J. E., Murnane, R. J., & Willett, J. B. (1996). The contribution of training and subject
matter knowledge to teaching effectiveness: A multilevel analysis of longitudinal evidence
from Belize. Comparative Education Review, 40, 139-157.
Oakes, J. (1990). Multiplying inequalities: The effects of race, social class, and tracking on
opportunities to learn mathematics and science. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Phelps, G., & Schilling, S. (2004). Developing measures of content knowledge for teaching
reading. Elementary School Journal, 105(1), 31-49.
Phillips, M., Brooks-Gunn, J., Duncan, G. J., Klebanov P., & Crane J. (1998). Family back-
ground, parenting practices and the Black-White test score gap. In C. Jencks & M. Phillips
(Eds.), The Black-White test score gap (pp. 103-148). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Powers, J. M. (2004). Increasing equity and increasing school performance—Conflicting or
compatible goals?: Addressing the issues in Williams v. State of California. Education Policy
Analysis Archives, 12. Retrieved March 5, 2004, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v12n10/
Rowan, B., Chiang, F., & Miller, R. J. (1997). Using research on employees’ performance to
study the effects of teachers on students’ achievement. Sociology of Education, 70, 256-284.
Rowan, B., Correnti, R., & Miller, R. J. (2002). What large-scale survey research tells us about
teacher effects on student achievement: Insights from the Prospects Study of Elementary
schools. Teachers College Record, 104, 1525-1567.
Sanders, W. L., & Horn, S. P. (1998). Research findings from the Tennessee Value-Added
Assessment System (TVAAS) database: Implications for educational evaluation and
research. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 12, 247-256.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational
Researcher, 15, 4-14.
Simon, M. A., & Blume, G. W. (1994). Building and understanding multiplicative relationships:
A study of prospective elementary teachers. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,
25, 472-494.
Strutchens, M., Lubienski, S. T., McGraw, R., & Westbrook, S. K. (2004). NAEP findings
regarding race/ethnicity: Students’ performance, school experiences, attitudes/beliefs and
family influences. In P. Kloosterman & F. K. Lester Jr. (Eds.), Results and interpretations of
the 1990 through 2000 mathematics assessments of the National Assessment of Educational
Progress (pp. 269-304). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Thompson, P., & Thompson, A. (1994). Talking about rates conceptually, Part I: A teachers’
struggle. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25, 279-303.
Wilson, S. M., & Wineburg, S. (1988). Peering at history through different lenses: The role of
disciplinary perspectives in teaching history. Teachers College Record, 89, 525-539.
768 Educational Policy

Heather C. Hill is an associate professor at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. Her
primary work focuses on developing measures of teachers’ content knowledge for teaching
mathematics and using such measures to evaluate public policies and programs intended to
improve teachers’ understanding of this mathematics. Her other interests include the measurement
of instruction more broadly, instructional improvement efforts in mathematics, and the role
that language plays in the implementation of public policy.

Sarah Theule Lubienski is an associate professor in the Department of Curriculum and

Instruction at the University of Illinois, Urbana–Champaign. Her scholarship centers on education
and equity, focusing on mathematics achievement, instruction, and reform. She has given atten-
tion to social class, race/ethnicity, and gender in both large-scale studies of National Assessment
of Educational Progress mathematics data and smaller, qualitiative studies. Her research has illu-
minated inequities in diverse students’ mathematics learning experiences and outcomes.