AEROSPACE, software, biotechnology, telecommunications and other innovative industries drive our state economy. As a result, Washington's future depends on having a well-educated, technically proficient workforce. But we rank in the bottom third nationally in high school graduation rate. Too many of those who do graduate require remedial courses before they can begin their college careers.

Business and community leaders look at this situation and rightly conclude that we must do a better job of preparing students for the challenges of a future defined by technological change and global connections.

But who will be teaching these students and how can we ensure that they are as effective as possible in doing so?

These are critical questions. Good teaching matters a lot. The difference between good teachers and bad teachers has a tremendous impact on the academic and life chances of students as they move through the K-12 system, acquire post-secondary education and training, and ultimately enter the workforce.

I recently was on a Seattle City Club panel examining how to provide "The Best Teachers for our Children." Our discussion touched on many important questions surrounding teacher quality. Are good teachers born or made? Are student outcomes on standardized tests a fair judge of a teacher's ability? Can "alternative" pathways play a role in improving the supply of quality teachers in hard-to-fill areas?

We didn't have the time to adequately delve into the most fundamental question: what exactly distinguishes good teachers?

In simple terms, we know that good teachers:

• Are good "sense-makers" — they not only understand what they're teaching, but also help their students make sense of it;

• Excel in creating opportunities for students to engage ideas, concepts, and content with rigor and intellectual richness;

• Effectively assess what students understand and what they are learning from their teaching;

• Customize their instruction — they tailor the tools they use to teach specific content to the needs of specific kids;

• Are committed to seeing the success of their students beyond the walls of the school.

Most importantly, good teachers believe that what they do makes a difference in their students' learning and lives.

My colleagues at the University of Washington College of Education are committed to these ideas and to continually innovating and improving teacher education. So we are keenly interested in pursuing any strategy that shows promise for helping our students become better educators.

That's why we provide all candidates with an internship in a diverse, community-based organization. There's no better way to help future teachers understand the impact of their work than to give them a view of youth in their community.

It's also why we have signed on to participate in the "100K in 10" initiative, a multi-organizational national drive to identify, train and place 100,000 great new science and math teachers over the next decade. This program has the potential to significantly improve student achievement in the STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) disciplines that are critical for the future.

And that's why, unlike some college of education deans around the country, I'm supporting U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan's plan to increase accountability for teacher preparation programs. We need system-level improvement, and having the Education Department demanding use of multiple measures and providing additional tools to assess program effectiveness is a huge step in the right direction.

We can't settle for simple answers. There are no silver bullets in improving teacher quality. Simply using student outcomes on standardized tests to evaluate teachers won't solve all of our nation's teacher quality issues. But we can use student performance as one key measure of effectiveness without stifling teacher creativity or innovation, either.

Given the stakes, we have little choice.

Tom Stritikus is dean of the College of Education at the University of Washington.