[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
PREPARING TEACHERS FOR THE CLASSROOM:
THE ROLE OF THE HIGHER EDUCATION ACT
AND NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION,
LIFELONG LEARNING, AND COMPETITIVENESS
COMMITTEE ON
EDUCATION AND LABOR
U.S. House of Representatives
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, MAY 17, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-39
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor
Available on the Internet:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/education/index.html
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
35-187 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2007
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)512-1800
DC area (202)512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR
GEORGE MILLER, California, Chairman
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan, Vice Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman California,
Donald M. Payne, New Jersey Ranking Minority Member
Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin
Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, Virginia Peter Hoekstra, Michigan
Lynn C. Woolsey, California Michael N. Castle, Delaware
Ruben Hinojosa, Texas Mark E. Souder, Indiana
Carolyn McCarthy, New York Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan
John F. Tierney, Massachusetts Judy Biggert, Illinois
Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania
David Wu, Oregon Ric Keller, Florida
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Joe Wilson, South Carolina
Susan A. Davis, California John Kline, Minnesota
Danny K. Davis, Illinois Bob Inglis, South Carolina
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
Timothy H. Bishop, New York Kenny Marchant, Texas
Linda T. Sanchez, California Tom Price, Georgia
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Luis G. Fortuno, Puerto Rico
Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania Charles W. Boustany, Jr.,
David Loebsack, Iowa Louisiana
Mazie Hirono, Hawaii Virginia Foxx, North Carolina
Jason Altmire, Pennsylvania John R. ``Randy'' Kuhl, Jr., New
John A. Yarmuth, Kentucky York
Phil Hare, Illinois Rob Bishop, Utah
Yvette D. Clarke, New York David Davis, Tennessee
Joe Courtney, Connecticut Timothy Walberg, Michigan
Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire
Mark Zuckerman, Staff Director
Vic Klatt, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION,
LIFELONG LEARNING, AND COMPETITIVENESS
RUBEN HINOJOSA, Texas, Chairman
George Miller, California Ric Keller, Florida,
John F. Tierney, Massachusetts Ranking Minority Member
David Wu, Oregon Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin
Timothy H. Bishop, New York Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
Jason Altmire, Pennsylvania Virginia Foxx, North Carolina
John A. Yarmuth, Kentucky John R. ``Randy'' Kuhl, Jr., New
Joe Courtney, Connecticut York
Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey Timothy Walberg, Michigan
Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, Virginia Michael N. Castle, Delaware
Susan A. Davis, California Mark E. Souder, Indiana
Danny K. Davis, Illinois Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan
Mazie Hirono, Hawaii Judy Biggert, Illinois
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on May 17, 2007..................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Altmire, Hon. Jason, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Pennsylvania, prepared statement of............... 2
Hinojosa, Hon. Ruben, Chairman, Subcommittee on Higher
Education, Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness.......... 2
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Prepared statement of the Board of Directors of the
Association of Teacher Educators (ATE)................. 5
Keller, Hon. Ric, Senior Republican Member, Subcommittee on
Higher Education, Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness... 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 5
Statement of Witnesses:
Fallon, Daniel, director, Program in Higher Education,
Carnegie Corporation of New York........................... 24
Prepared statement of.................................... 26
``Teachers for a New Era: A National Initiative to
Improve the Quality of Teaching''...................... 63
Feistritzer, Emily, president, National Center for
Alternative Certification and the National Center for
Education Information...................................... 29
Prepared statement of.................................... 31
Robinson, Sharon P., Ed.D., president and CEO, American
Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.............. 17
Prepared statement of.................................... 18
Summary of AACTE's HEA legislative language
recommendations........................................ 38
Summary of AACTE's NCLB legislative language
recommendations........................................ 42
``What Can the Federal Government Do? A Marshall Plan for
Teaching,'' by Linda Darling Hammond, professor,
Stanford University.................................... 49
Scott, George A., Director, Education, Workforce, and Income
Security Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office..... 8
Prepared statement of.................................... 9
Wiley, Dr. Janice, deputy director, Region One Education
Service Center............................................. 21
Prepared statement of.................................... 23
PREPARING TEACHERS FOR THE
CLASSROOM: THE ROLE OF THE
HIGHER EDUCATION ACT AND
NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND
----------
Thursday, May 17, 2007
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Higher Education,
Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness
Committee on Education and Labor
Washington, DC
----------
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m., in Room
2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ruben Hinojosa
[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Hinojosa, Tierney, Bishop,
Altmire, Yarmuth, Courtney, Scott, Davis of California, Keller,
Foxx, Kuhl, Walberg, Castle and Ehlers.
Staff Present: Tylease Alli, Hearing Clerk; Jeff Appel, GAO
Detailee; Amy Elverum, Legislative Fellow, Education; Lamont
Ivey, Staff Assistant, Education; Brian Kennedy, General
Counsel; Ricardo Martinez, Policy Advisor for Subcommittee on
Higher Education, Lifelong Learning and Competitiveness;
Stephanie Moore, General Counsel; Lisette Partelow, Staff
Assistant, Education; Rachel Racusen, Deputy Communications
Director; Theda Zawaiza, Senior Disability Policy Advisor; Mark
Zuckerman, Staff Director; James Bergeron, Minority Deputy
Director of Education and Human Services Policy; Robert Borden,
Minority General Counsel; Kathryn Bruns, Minority Legislative
Assistant; Steve Forde, Minority Communications Director;
Taylor Hansen, Minority Legislative Assistant; Susan Ross,
Minority Director of Education and Human Services Policy; Linda
Stevens, Minority Chief Clerk/Assistant to the General Counsel;
and Brad Thomas, Minority Professional Staff Member.
Chairman Hinojosa. A quorum is present. The hearing of the
subcommittee will come to order. Pursuant to committee rule 12,
any Member may submit an opening statement in writing, which
will be made part of the permanent record.
[The statement of Mr. Altmire follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jason Altmire, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Pennsylvania
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important hearing on the
role the Higher Education Act and No Child Left Behind can play in
preparing teachers for the classroom.
I would like to extend a warm welcome to today's witnesses. I
appreciate all of you for taking the time to be here and look forward
to your testimony.
Everyone agrees that all children deserve to be taught by a teacher
who has both a deep understanding of the subject they are teaching and
the ability to clearly convey that understanding to their students. I
believe that the majority of students are being taught by teachers that
have the subject knowledge and teaching skill necessary to be highly
effective. The difficult question is how federal policy can best be
used to help ensure that all teachers can be highly effective.
I believe that this Congress has begun to take steps in the right
direction by providing additional funding for teacher professional
development. It is particularly important to provide professional
development to math and science teachers in this country, because many
a currently teaching subjects that they do not have an expertise in.
However, more professional development alone is not the answer. I look
forward to hearing more ideas about how Title II of the Higher
Education Act and Title II of No Child Left Behind can best be used to
attract, train and retain the highest quality teachers.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. I yield
back the balance of my time.
______
Chairman Hinojosa. Before making my opening statement, I
want to say that today many of the members of our Committee on
Education and Labor are participating at a memorial at the
Capitol where we are paying our respect to a former Member of
Congress who passed away and were unable to attend the memorial
service in California, Juanita Millender-McDonald. And because
of that, we are not going to have as many Members at this
congressional hearing.
The schedule, as you all can imagine, has been extremely
tight for all Members of Congress, and the record will, of
course, be complete with a quorum, and there will be a few
Members coming to our hearing and then going on to that
memorial or other committees that are going on at the same
time.
So I wish to start by giving you a good morning and welcome
to the Subcommittee on Higher Education. This committee on
lifelong learning and competitiveness hearing is on Preparing
Teachers for the Classroom: The Role of the Higher Education
Act and No Child Left Behind.
Reaching the goals of the No Child Left Behind Act will
hinge on the quality of teaching in our classrooms.
Unfortunately, too often the number of poor and minority
students in a school is also an indicator of the number of
teachers who are not certified or who are teaching outside of
their field of expertise in a school. The students who need the
most experienced and skilled teachers are typically in schools
that have the least experienced teachers. Our goal should be to
change that.
Not only do we need to ensure that teachers are experts in
the subjects that they are teaching, we also need to ensure
that they are highly qualified to teach the students they have
in their classrooms. The National Center for Education
Statistics reported in its 1999-2000 schools and staffing
survey that 41 percent of teachers in the country had limited-
English-proficient students in their classroom, yet only 13
percent of teachers had more than 8 hours of training in how to
teach these students. Clearly there is room for improvement.
Our Federal programs in the Higher Education Act and the No
Child Left Behind Act are aimed toward improving the quality of
teaching through better preparation and professional
development. They are also aimed at improving the distribution
of these teachers so that concentrations of poverty or minority
populations are no longer coupled with a concentration of
underprepared teachers.
They also recognize that we need to do a better job of
making sure that the teaching profession reflects the diversity
of America's schools. Title II of the Higher Education Act
supports teacher quality by focusing on improving the quality
of teacher preparation programs, rigor of teacher certification
requirements, and recruiting teachers to serve in high-need
districts and schools. It is funded at less than $60 million.
Title II of the No Child Left Behind Act is a formula grant
to States to improve teacher quality and reduce class size. It
is funded at 2.9 billion, a very significant Federal
investment. While similar in goals, it is not clear how
complementary these two programs are.
In this 110th Congress we will reauthorize both the Higher
Education Act and the No Child Left Behind Act. This presents a
unique opportunity to improve these laws so that they operate
in a more integrated fashion and move us closer to our goal of
a highly qualified teacher in every classroom.
I would like to thank our excellent panel of witnesses for
joining us today, and I am looking forward to your testimony on
how the programs are currently working and on what steps we can
take to better coordinate them.
[The statement of Mr. Hinojosa follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ruben Hinojosa, Chairman, Subcommittee on
Higher Education, Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness
Good Morning. Welcome to the Subcommittee on Higher Education.
Lifelong Learning and Competitiveness hearing on ``Preparing Teachers
for the Classroom: The Role of the Higher Education Act and No Child
Left Behind.''
Reaching the goals of the No Child Let Behind Act will hinge on the
quality of teaching in our classrooms. Unfortunately, too often, the
number of poor and minority students in a school is also an indicator
of the number of teachers who are not certified or who are teaching
outside of their field of expertise in a school. The students who need
the most experienced and skilled teachers are typically in schools that
have the least experienced teachers. Our goal should be to change that.
Not only do we need to ensure that teachers are experts in the
subjects that they are teaching. We also need to ensure that they are
highly qualified to teach the students they have in their classrooms.
The National Center for Education Statistics reported in its 1999-2000
Schools and Staffing Survey that 41.2 percent of teachers in the
country had limited English proficient students in their classroom.
Yet, only 12.5 percent of teachers had more than 8 hours of training in
how to teach these students. Clearly, there is room for improvement.
Our federal programs in the Higher Education Act and the No Child
Left Behind Act are aimed toward improving the quality of teaching
through better preparation and professional development. They are also
aimed at improving the distribution of these teachers so that
concentrations of poverty or minority populations are no longer coupled
with a concentration of under-prepared teachers They also recognize
that we need to do a better job of making sure that the teaching
profession reflects the diversity of America's schools.
Title II of the Higher Education Act supports teacher quality by
focusing on improving the quality of teacher preparation programs,
rigor of teacher certification requirements and recruiting teachers to
serve in high need districts and schools. It is funded at less than $60
million. Title II of the No Child Left Behind Act is a formula grant to
states to improve teacher quality and reduce class size. It is funded
at $2.9 billion--significant federal investment. While similar in
goals, it is not clear how complementary these two programs are.
This Congress, we will reauthorize both the Higher Education Act
and the No Child Left Behind Act. This presents a unique opportunity to
improve these laws so that they operate in a more integrated fashion
and move us closer to our goal of a highly qualified teacher in every
classroom.
I would like to thank our excellent panel of witnesses for joining
us today. I am looking forward to your testimony on how the programs
are currently working and on what steps we can take to better
coordinate them.
I would like to yield to my good friend and ranking Member, Mr. Ric
Keller of Florida, for his opening statement.
______
Chairman Hinojosa. Before introducing the panel, I would
like to yield to my good friend and Ranking Member Mr. Ric
Keller of Florida for his opening statement.
Mr. Keller. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
good morning to all our witnesses. I want to thank each of our
witnesses for joining us today to discuss teacher training and
professional development.
Both the Higher Education Act and No Child Left Behind play
a key role in preparing, recruiting, training and retaining
today's teachers. Today we are here to listen and learn about
ways that Congress can improve Title II and both of these laws
to improve teacher quality and to make sure that quality
teachers are staying in the classroom.
There are over 1,200 institutions of higher education that
award degrees in elementary and secondary education. In
addition to earning baccalaureate degrees in education, other
undergraduates get ready to teach by participating in teacher
education programs while earning a degree in an academic
subject area. Still other individuals enter teaching through
postbaccalaureate certificate programs or master's programs
offered by institutions of higher education. Finally,
alternative routes to teaching that target, for example,
individuals changing careers may also involve higher education
institutions.
In years past there has been much discussion and scrutiny
of the caliber of teacher education programs at institutions of
higher education. Teacher preparation programs have been
criticized for providing prospective teachers with inadequate
time to learn subject matter, for teaching a superficial
curriculum, and for being unduly fragmented. On the other hand,
many teacher preparation programs are outstanding and deserve
to be emulated.
As we work to reauthorize the Higher Education Act this
year, Congress will examine the most effective use of Federal
funding for teacher training, whether it is teacher education
programs at colleges and universities or alternative routes for
teacher certification.
I hope that the discussion we have today gives us some good
news about improvements that are being made at the
institutional level as well as some recommendations for
improvements to the Higher Education Act and No Child Left
Behind Act to target policy and funding toward what works best.
Thank you to our distinguished panel of witnesses who are
here today. I look forward to hearing your testimony.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
[The statement of Mr. Keller follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ric Keller, Senior Republican Member,
Subcommittee on Higher Education, Lifelong Learning, and
Competitiveness
Good morning, thank you for joining us here today to discuss
teacher training and professional development. Both the Higher
Education Act and No Child Left Behind play a role in preparing,
recruiting, training and retaining today's teachers. Today, we are here
to listen and learn about ways that Congress can improve Title II in
both of these laws to improve teacher quality and to make sure that
quality teachers are staying in the classroom.
There are over 1,200 institutions of higher education that award
degrees in elementary and secondary education. In addition to earning
baccalaureate degrees in education, other undergraduates get ready to
teach by participating in a teacher education program while earning a
degree in an academic subject area. Still other individuals enter
teaching through post-baccalaureate certificate programs or master's
programs offered by institutions of higher education. Finally,
alternative routes to teaching that target, for example, individuals
changing careers, may also involve higher education institutions.
In years past, there has been much discussion and scrutiny of the
caliber of teacher education programs at institutions of higher
education. Teacher preparation programs have been criticized for
providing prospective teachers with inadequate time to learn subject
matter; for teaching a superficial curriculum; and for being unduly
fragmented. As we work to reauthorize the Higher Education Act this
year, Congress will examine the most effective use of federal funding
for teacher training, whether it is teacher education programs at
colleges and universities or alternative routes for teacher
certification.
Additionally, Congress needs to look into how efficiently the K-12
Title II funds are spent. Title II funds under No Child Left Behind are
used for two purposes: professional development and class size
reduction. According to a November 2005 GAO study on teacher
qualification requirements, half of Title II NCLB funds are currently
used for classroom size reduction. Concerning to me though is that
there is very little evidence to suggest that reducing class size
improves student achievement. While I agree that we should strive to
keep class sizes as small as possible, I think we should also make sure
these funds are spent wisely on the best professional development
available.
I hope that the discussion we have today gives us some good news
about improvements that are being made at the institutional level, as
well as some recommendations for improvements to the Higher Education
Act and No Child Left Behind to target policy and funding towards what
works best. Thank you to our distinguished panel of witnesses who are
here today. I look forward to your testimony.
______
Chairman Hinojosa. Without objection, all Members will have
14 days to submit additional materials or questions for the
hearing record.
[The statement of the Association of Teacher Educators
submitted by Mr. Hinojosa follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Board of Directors of the
Association of Teacher Educators (ATE)
Chairman Hinojosa and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
the opportunity to submit a written statement which may be considered
for adding to the official record of the hearing held May 17, 2007,
``Preparing Teachers for the Classroom: The Role of the Higher
Education Act and the No Child Left Behind Act''. The Association of
Teacher Educators was founded in 1920 and is an individual membership
organization devoted solely to the improvement of teacher education
both for school-based and post secondary teacher educators. ATE members
represent over 700 colleges and universities, over 500 major school
systems, and the majority of state departments of education.
In considering the subject of the hearing and the testimony that
was presented, we would like to emphasize the following points:
Research has shown that novice teachers, whether they gain
certification through traditional programs or alternative programs,
need continuing mentoring and induction in the critical first three
years of their careers. There is a need for accountability and
structure for both university-based and alternative teacher preparation
programs to ensure novice teachers entering the classrooms will be
prepared. As Dr. Emily Feistritzer pointed out, traditional teacher
preparation programs have done a good job preparing classroom teachers,
but alternative certification programs have arisen in response to high
demands, often in high needs and hard to staff schools or specific
subject areas such as math, science or special education. Both HEA and
NCLB should support efforts to develop partnerships between
institutions of higher education and K-12 districts that emphasize
mentoring, induction for novice teachers and meaningful, regular, and
ongoing professional development for tenured or seasoned teachers.
The Federal government has spent more than $50 million on one
program, the American Board for Certification of Teacher Excellence,
that has licensed a total of 200 teachers and is accepted in five
states. On a per-teacher cost basis, this is clearly not the best use
of scarce Federal resources. ABCTE relies on a test alone to put
teachers into classrooms. Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act
and No Child Left Behind should use government funds to promote
university-based teacher preparation programs which prepare much
greater numbers of teachers. Research demonstrates that these programs
have a higher retention rate for novice teachers in their first five
years of teaching than alternative programs do. This is because of
their multiple, intensive, research-based clinical experiences and
student teaching requirements.
Teacher education programs have changed significantly in the past
several years, and they can be expected to change in the future. The
Association of Teacher Educators strongly supports the concept of
Professional Development Schools, in which college and university
schools of education partner with pre-K-12 schools in a variety of
meaningful ways. Other partnerships that are being discussed, including
Teachers for a New Era, represent innovations that encourage this
evolution of teacher preparation. We believe the reauthorization of the
Higher Education Act and No Child Left Behind should support such
collaborative innovations between institutions of higher education and
K-12 districts.
In considering reauthorization of the Higher Education Act and No
Child Left Behind, we support the following:
We strongly support passage of the Teacher Excellence for
All Children (TEACH) Act of 2007 (H.R.2204), and urge incorporation of
its provisions into Title II of HEA and Title II of NCLB;
We believe NCLB reauthorization, in particular, should
include funds to help states develop methods to measure teacher
effectiveness and to refine the NCLB definition of a highly qualified
teacher to address the unique circumstances of certain kinds of
teachers, such as special education teachers and teachers in rural
areas who teach multiple subjects;
We support a comprehensive approach to recruiting and
retaining teachers in high-need schools by requiring adequate working
conditions for all teachers and providing financial incentives, high-
quality residency programs, improved professional development to them.
We believe these reauthorizations should provide resources
to states to develop and implement comprehensive teacher induction and
data tracking systems (at both university and district levels) that
will help document the relationship of different teacher education
program strategies with K-12 student learning performance. This is an
accomplishment in educational research that is now hindered by the lack
of funds available to track teachers from their institutions of higher
education or alternative teacher education programs through their
teaching career and relate their educational experiences and teaching
practices to the performance outcomes of the students they teach.
Chairman Hinojosa, thank you for the opportunity to provide this
statement as your Subcommittee continues its important work.
______
Chairman Hinojosa. I would like to introduce our very
distinguished panel of witnesses here with us this morning. The
first will be Mr. George Scott. He is the Director of
Education, Workforce and Income Security Issues at the
Government Accountability Office in Washington, D.C., and he
has over 19 years of public service. His current
responsibilities include issues in higher education, student
loans and grant programs, as well as accreditation in
institutional grant programs. His previous assignments include
work on retirement income security, private and public sector
pensions, Federal retirement programs, and Social Security.
Welcome, Mr. Scott.
Dr. Sharon Robinson has served the last 2 years as the
president of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher
Education. She was formally president of the Educational
Testing Services Educational Policy Leadership Institute as
well as a senior vice president and chief operating officer at
EPS. Sharon also has worked in the Department of Education as
well as with the National Education Association. She is a Ph.D.
Graduate from the University of Kentucky and has completed the
renowned Harvard Business School Advanced Management Program.
Thank you for being with us.
Dr. Janice Wiley is the deputy director of instruction for
the Region One Education Service Center in Edinburg, Texas,
which just happens to be located in the congressional district
which I represent. Region One serves 37 school districts in a
7-county area along the Texas-Mexico border and includes over
370,000 students. She has been an educator for 33 years, and 29
of those years have been in service to our students in Region
One. Janice holds a Ph.D. From the University of Texas in 1999,
and she also holds certification in five separate instructional
or administrative areas. Finally, she has taught leadership
classes at the University of Texas Pan American in Edinburg.
Region One has been very important to my congressional
district for many years. It is a pleasure to welcome someone
from home. Thanks for coming today.
Dr. Daniel Fallon is the director of higher education at
Carnegie Corporation of New York. He oversees support for
grants in areas of teacher education and reform, school
leadership development, general education, and other areas of
great national interest. He is professor emeritus of psychology
and of public policy at the University of Maryland College
Park. In addition to his teaching duties, he also served there
as the vice president for academic affairs and provost. Dr.
Fallon has worked in colleges in Texas, including Texas A&M;
Colorado; and New York; and has published widely in academia
and is the author of a prize-winning book entitled The German
University.
Most importantly, my staff informs me that your heritage is
part Spanish and Irish, so I give you bienvenido.
Dr. Emily Feistritzer is president and CEO of the National
Center for Alternative Certification as well as president of
the National Center for Education Information, a private
nonpartisan research organization here in Washington, D.C. For
the past 25 years, she has been conducting studies on the
status of the teaching profession. She has coauthored 38 widely
acclaimed database books on education. Dr. Feistritzer has
testified before Congress many times, and she began her career
as a high school science and mathematics teacher.
We appreciate your willingness to share your expertise with
us today, and welcome.
For those of you who have not testified before this
subcommittee, let me explain our lighting system and the 5-
minute rule. Everyone, including Members, is limited to 5
minutes of presentation or questioning. The green light is
illuminated when you begin to speak. When you see the yellow
light, it means you have 1 minute remaining. When you see the
red light, it means your time has expired, and you should need
to conclude your testimony. Please be certain as you testify to
turn on and speak into the microphones in front of you.
We will now hear our first witness.
Mr. Scott, you may begin.
STATEMENT OF GEORGE SCOTT, DIRECTOR, EDUCATION, WORKFORCE AND
INCOME SECURITY ISSUES, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee. I am pleased to be here today to discuss the
results of GAO's studies of Federal efforts to improve teacher
quality.
Approximately 3 million teachers are responsible for
educating over 48 million students, and they account for over
one-half of public school expenditures each year. While the
hiring and training of teachers is primarily a State and local
responsibility, a thorough investment in teacher training is
substantial.
In 1998, Congress amended the Higher Education Act to
enhance the quality of teaching. In 2001, Congress passed the
No Child Left Behind Act, which established Federal
requirements that all teachers of core academic subjects be
highly qualified.
In 2006, about $3 billion in Federal funds were
appropriated for teacher quality efforts on Title II of HEA and
Title II of No Child Left Behind. Given that both laws are
scheduled for reauthorization this year, this hearing presents
an excellent opportunity to explore teacher quality provisions
under these laws.
My testimony will discuss approaches to and funding of
teacher quality programs, how recipients are using Title II
funds, and the Department of Education support of these
activities.
In summary, we reported that teacher quality provisions
under HEA and No Child Left Behind have different approaches
and are funded differently. While the overall goal of both
titles is to improve student achievement by improving the
quality of teachers, some of the specific approach is
different. For example, a major focus of HEA provisions is on
training prospective teachers, while No Child Left Behind
provisions focus on improving teacher quality in the classroom
and employing highly qualified teachers.
Also, both laws use reporting mechanisms to increase
accountability; however, HEA focuses more on institutions of
higher education, while No Child Left Behind focuses on schools
and school districts.
Teacher quality funds under HEA and No Child Left Behind
are distributed differently. HEA funds are distributed through
one-time competitive grants, State partnerships and recruitment
grants. All three types of grants require a match from non-
Federal sources. No Child Left Behind provides funds to States
annually through formula grants. States and districts generally
receive No Child Left Behind funds based on the amount they
received in 2001, the percentage of children residing in the
State or district, and the number of children in low-income
families.
In 2006, Congress appropriated $2.9 billion to No Child
Left Behind and about $60 million under HEA for teacher quality
activities.
HEA and No Child Left Behind provide flexibility for
recipients to use funds for a broad range of efforts to improve
teacher quality, including many similar activities. However,
one difference is that No Child Left Behind specifies that
teachers can be hired to reduce class size, while HEA does not
specifically mention class size reduction. Both laws fund
professional development and recruitment activities. For
example, mentoring was the most common professional development
activity among the HEA grantees we visited. Some districts also
use No Child Left Behind funds for mentoring as well.
HEA and No Child Left Behind funds also support efforts to
recruit teachers. For example, many HEA grantees we visited use
their funds to fill teacher shortages, while some districts we
visited use No Child Left Behind funds to provide recruitment
bonuses and advertise opening teaching positions.
The Department of Education is providing better assistance
to recipients of Title II funds and is improving its oversight
of teacher quality efforts. Our work identified areas where
education could improve its assistance to grantees, enhance
information on their efforts, and more effectively measure the
results of these activities.
In response to our recommendations, Education has improved
communication with HEA grantees and potential applicants.
Education has also provided assistance to recipients of No
Child Left Behind funds by offering professional development
workshops and related materials that teachers can access on
Education's Website. In addition, Education assisted States and
districts by providing updated guidance on teacher
qualification requirements.
Education has also made progress in addressing GAO concerns
by improving how the Department measures the results of teacher
quality activities by establishing performance targets. For
example, in 2005, Education established performance for State
and partnership grants under HEA.
In conclusion, the Nation's public schoolteachers play a
vital role in educating over 48 million students. While Title
II of HEA and No Child Left Behind share the goal of improving
teacher quality, it is not clear the extent to which these laws
complement each other. Our studies of teacher quality programs
under each law have found areas for improvement, such as data
quality and assistance from education. We have also found that
HEA grantees, States, districts and schools engage in similar
activities; however, not much is known about how well, if at
all, these laws are aligned. Thus, there are additional
opportunities to understand how the laws work together at the
Federal, State and local level.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement, and I will be
happy to answer any questions from you or members of the
subcommittee. Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Scott follows:]
Prepared Statement of George A. Scott, Director, Education, Workforce,
and Income Security Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I am pleased to be
here this morning to discuss the federal government's efforts to
improve teacher quality. Teachers are the single largest resource in
our nation's elementary and secondary education system. Approximately 3
million teachers are responsible for educating over 48 million students
and they account for over one half of public school expenditures ($215
billion) each year. Research has shown that teachers play a significant
role in improving student performance. However, research has also shown
that many teachers--especially those in high-poverty districts--lack
competency in the subjects they teach and that most teacher training
programs leave new teachers feeling unprepared for the classroom.
While the hiring and training of teachers is primarily the
responsibility of state and local governments and institutions of
higher education, the federal investment in enhancing teacher quality
is substantial and growing. In 1998, the Congress amended the Higher
Education Act (HEA) to enhance the quality of teaching in the classroom
by improving training programs for prospective teachers and the
qualifications of current teachers. In 2001, the Congress passed the No
Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA)--the most recent reauthorization of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act--which established federal
requirements that all teachers of core academic subjects be highly
qualified. In 2006, about $3 billion of federal funds were appropriated
for NCLBA Title II and HEA Title II to address teacher quality. Given
that NCLBA and HEA are both slated for reauthorization in 2007, this
hearing presents a timely opportunity to explore teacher quality
provisions covered under those laws.
This statement focuses on the approaches, implementation, and
evaluation of teacher quality programs under HEA and NCLBA. I will
first provide information on the goals, approaches, and funding of
these programs. Then I will discuss the allowable activities and how
recipients are using the funds. Finally, I will summarize our findings
related to Education's support and evaluation of these activities.
My remarks today are drawn from previous GAO reports covering HEA
teacher quality programs and Title II under NCLBA,\1\ supplemented with
updated information. We updated information by interviewing state
officials, officials from institutions of higher education, and
Education officials. We also reviewed recent studies and Education
documents. We conducted our work in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards.
In summary:
While the overall goal of Title II in both HEA and NCLBA
is to improve teacher quality, some of the specific approaches differ.
For example, HEA focuses more on training prospective teachers than
NCLBA. In addition, HEA and NCLBA are funded differently, with HEA
funds distributed through competitive grants, while Title II under
NCLBA provides funds annually to all states through a formula.
Both acts provide states, districts, and grantees with the
flexibility to use funds for a broad range of activities to improve
teacher quality, including many activities that are similar, such as
professional development and recruitment. A difference is that NCLBA's
Title II specifies that teachers can be hired to reduce class size,
while HEA does not specifically mention class-size reduction. With the
broad range of activities allowed, we found both similarities and
differences in the activities undertaken.
Under both HEA and NCLBA, Education has provided
assistance and guidance to recipients of these funds and is responsible
for holding recipients accountable for the quality of their activities.
Our previous work identified areas in which Education could improve its
assistance to states on their teacher quality efforts and more
effectively measure the results of these activities. Education has made
progress in addressing our concerns by disseminating more information
to recipients particularly on teacher quality requirements and
activities and improving how the department measures the results of
teacher quality activities by, for example, establishing performance
targets.
Teacher Quality Provisions under HEA and NCLBA Have Somewhat Different
Approaches and Are Funded Differently
While the overall goal of Title II under both HEA and NCLBA is to
improve student achievement by improving the teacher workforce, some of
the specific approaches differ. For example, a major focus of HEA
provisions is on the training of prospective teachers (preservice
training) while NCLBA provisions focus more on improving teacher
quality in the classroom (in service training) and hiring highly
qualified teachers. Also, both laws use reporting mechanisms to
increase accountability. However, HEA focuses more on institutions of
higher education while NCLBA focuses on schools and school districts.
Additionally, HEA focuses on expanding the teacher workforce by
supporting recruitment from other professions.
In addition, HEA and NCLBA Title II funds are distributed
differently. HEA teacher quality funds are disbursed through three
distinct types of grants: state, partnership, and recruitment grants.
State grants are available for states to implement activities to
improve teacher quality in their states by enhancing teacher training
efforts, while partnership grants support the collaborative efforts of
teacher training programs and other eligible partners.\2\ Recruitment
grants are available to states or partnerships for teacher recruitment
activities.
All three types of grants require a match from non-federal sources.
For example, states receiving state grants must provide a matching
amount in cash or in-kind support from non-federal sources equal to 50
percent of the amount of the federal grant.\3\ All three grants are
one-time competitive grants; however, state and recruitment grants are
for 3 years while partnership grants are for 5 years.\4\ HEA amendments
in 1998 required that 45 percent of funds be distributed to state
grants, 45 percent to partnership grants, and 10 percent to recruitment
grants. As of April 2007, 52 of the 59 eligible entities (states, the
District of Columbia, and 8 territories) had received state grants.\5\
Because the authorizing legislation specifically required that entities
could only receive a state grant once, only seven would be eligible to
receive future state grants. In our 2002 report, we suggested that if
Congress decides to continue funding teacher quality grants in the
upcoming reauthorization of HEA, it might want to clarify whether all
59 entities would be eligible for state grant funding under the
reauthorization, or whether eligibility would be limited to only those
states that have not previously received a state grant. We also
suggested that if Congress decides to limit eligibility to entities
that have not previously received a state grant, it may want to
consider changing the 45 percent funding allocation for state grants.
In a 2005 appropriation act, Congress waived the allocation
requirement. In 2006, about 9 percent of funds were awarded for state
grants, 59 percent for partnership grants, and 33 percent for
recruitment. When Congress reauthorizes HEA, it may want to further
clarify eligibility and allocation requirements for this program.
NCLBA, funded at a much higher level than HEA, provides funds to
states through annual formula grants. In 2006, Congress appropriated
$2.89 billion through NCLBA and $59.9 million for HEA for teacher
quality efforts.\6\ While federal funding for teacher initiatives was
provided through two other programs prior to NCLBA, the act increased
the level of funding to help states and districts implement the teacher
qualification requirements. States and districts generally receive
NCLBA Title II funds based on the amount they received in 2001, the
percentage of children residing in the state or district, and the
number of those children in low-income families. After reserving up to
1 percent of the funds for administrative purposes, states pass 95
percent of the remaining funds to the districts and retain the rest to
support state-level teacher initiatives and to support NCLBA
partnerships between higher education institutions and high-need
districts that work to provide professional development to teachers.
While there is no formula in NCLBA for how districts are to
allocate funds to specific schools, the act requires states to ensure
that districts target funds to those schools with the highest number of
teachers who are not highly qualified, schools with the largest class
sizes, or schools that have not met academic performance requirements
for 2 or more consecutive years. In addition, districts applying for
Title II funds from their states are required to conduct a districtwide
needs assessment to identify their teacher quality needs. NCLBA also
allows districts to transfer these funds to most other major NCLBA
programs, such as those under Title I, to meet their educational
priorities.\7\
Some HEA and NCLBA Funds Were Used for Similar Activities As Allowed
under Both Acts
HEA provides grantees and NCLBA provides states and districts with
the flexibility to use funds for a broad range of activities to improve
teacher quality, including many activities that are similar under both
acts. HEA funds can be used, among other activities, to reform teacher
certification requirements, professional development activities, and
recruitment efforts. In addition, HEA partnership grantees must use
their funds to implement reforms to hold teacher preparation programs
accountable for the quality of teachers leaving the program. Similarly,
acceptable uses of NCLBA funds include teacher certification
activities, professional development in a variety of core academic
subjects, recruitment, and retention initiatives. In addition,
activities carried out under NCLBA partnership grants are required to
coordinate with any activities funded by HEA. Table 1 compares
activities under HEA and NCLBA.
With the broad range of activities allowed under HEA and NCLBA, we
found both similarities and differences in the activities undertaken.
For example, districts chose to spend about one-half of their NCLBA
Title II funds ($1.2 billion) in 2004-2005 on class-size reduction
efforts, which is not an activity specified by HEA.\8\ 1We found that
some districts focused their class-size reduction efforts on specific
grades, depending on their needs. One district we visited focused its
NCLBA-funded class-size reduction efforts on the eighth grade because
the state already provided funding for reducing class size in other
grades. However, while class-size reduction may contribute to teacher
retention, it also increases the number of classrooms that need to be
staffed and we found that some districts had shifted funds away from
class-size reduction to initiatives to improve teachers' subject matter
knowledge and instructional skills. Similarly, Education's data showed
that the percent of NCLBA district funds spent on class-size reduction
had decreased since 2002-2003, when 57 percent of funds were used for
this purpose.
HEA and NCLBA both funded professional development and recruitment
efforts, although the specific activities varied somewhat. For example,
mentoring was the most common professional development activity among
the HEA grantees we visited. Of the 33 HEA grant sites we visited, 23
were providing mentoring activities for teachers. In addition, some
grantees used their funds to establish a mentor training program to
ensure that mentors had consistent guidance. One state used the grant
to develop mentoring standards and to build the capacity of trainers to
train teacher mentors within each district. Some districts used NCLBA
Title II funds for mentoring activities as well. We also found that
states and districts used NCLBA Title II funds to support other types
of professional development activities. For example, two districts we
visited spent their funds on math coaches who perform tasks such as
working with teachers to develop lessons that reflected state academic
standards and assisting them in using students' test data to identify
and address students' academic needs. Additionally, states used a
portion of NCLBA Title II funds they retained to support professional
development for teachers in core academic subjects. In two states that
we visited, officials reported that state initiatives specifically
targeted teachers who had not met the subject matter competency
requirements of NCLBA. These initiatives either offered teachers
professional development in core academic subjects or reimbursed them
for taking college courses in the subjects taught.
Both HEA and NCLBA funds supported efforts to recruit teachers.
Many HEA grantees we interviewed used their funds to fill teacher
shortages in urban schools or to recruit new teachers from
nontraditional sources--mid-career professionals, community college
students, and middle- and high-school students. For example, one
university recruited teacher candidates with undergraduate degrees to
teach in a local school district with a critical need for teachers
while they earn their masters in education. The program offered tuition
assistance, and in some cases, the district paid a full teacher salary,
with the stipulation that teachers continue teaching in the local
school district for 3 years after completing the program. HEA
initiatives also included efforts to recruit mid-career professionals
by offering an accelerated teacher training program for prospective
teachers already in the workforce. Some grantees also used their funds
to recruit teacher candidates at community colleges. For example, one
of the largest teacher training institutions in one state has partnered
with six community colleges around the state to offer training that was
not previously available. Finally, other grantees targeted middle and
high school students. For example, one district used its grant to
recruit interns from 14 high-school career academies that focused on
training their students for careers as teachers. Districts we visited
used NCLBA Title II funds to provide bonuses to attract successful
administrators, advertise open teaching positions, and attend
recruitment events to identify qualified candidates. In addition, one
district also used funds to expand alternative certification programs,
which allowed qualified candidates to teach while they worked to meet
requirements for certification.
Finally, some states used HEA funds to reform certification
requirements for teachers. Reforming certification or licensing
requirements was included as an allowable activity under both HEA and
NCLBA to ensure that teachers have the necessary teaching skills and
academic content knowledge in the subject areas. HEA grantees also
reported using their funds to allow teacher training programs and
colleges to collaborate with local school districts to reform the
requirements for teacher candidates. For example, one grantee partnered
with institutions of higher education and a partner school district to
expose teacher candidates to urban schools by providing teacher
preparation courses in public schools.
Education Is Working to Provide Better Assistance and Improve Its
Evaluation and Oversight Efforts
Under both HEA and NCLBA, Education has provided assistance and
guidance to recipients of these funds and is responsible for holding
recipients accountable for the quality of their activities. In 1998,
Education created a new office to administer HEA grants and provide
assistance to grantees. While grantees told us that the technical
assistance the office provided on application procedures was helpful,
our previous work noted several areas in which Education could improve
its assistance to HEA grantees, in part through better guidance. For
example, we recommended that in order to effectively manage the grant
program, Education further develop and maintain its system for
regularly communicating program information, such as information on
successful and unsuccessful practices. We noted that without knowledge
of successful ways of enhancing the quality of teaching in the
classroom, grantees might be wasting valuable resources by duplicating
unsuccessful efforts. Since 2002, Education has made changes to improve
communication with grantees and potential applicants. For example, the
department presented workshops to potential applicants and updated and
expanded its program Web site with information about program
activities, grant abstracts, and other teacher quality resources. In
addition, Education provided examples of projects undertaken to improve
teacher quality and how some of these efforts indicate improved teacher
quality in its 2005 annual report on teacher quality.\9\
Education also has provided assistance to states, districts and
schools using NCLBA Title II funds. The department offers professional
development workshops and related materials that teachers can access
online through Education's website. In addition, Education assisted
states and districts by providing updated guidance. In our 2005 report,
officials from most states and districts we visited who use Education's
Web site to access information on teacher programs or requirements told
us that they were unaware of some of Education's teacher resources or
had difficulty accessing those resources. We recommended that Education
explore ways to make the Web-based information on teacher qualification
requirements more accessible to users of its Web site. Education
immediately took steps in response to the recommendation and
reorganized information on its website related to the teacher
qualification requirements.
In addition to providing assistance and guidance, Education is
responsible for evaluating the efforts of HEA and NCLBA recipients and
for overseeing program implementation. Under HEA, Education is required
to annually report on the quality of teacher training programs and the
qualifications of current teachers. In 2002, we found that the
information collected for this requirement did not allow Education to
accurately report on the quality of HEA's teacher training programs and
the qualifications of current teachers in each state. In order to
improve the data that states are collecting from institutions that
receive HEA teacher quality grants, and all those that enroll students
who receive federal student financial assistance and train teachers, we
recommended that Education should more clearly define key data terms so
that states provide uniform information. Further, in 2004, the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) completed a Program Assessment Rating
Tool (PART) assessment \10\ of this program and gave it a rating of
``results not demonstrated,'' due to a lack of performance information
and program management deficiencies. Education officials told us that
they had aligned HEA's data collection system with NCLBA definitions of
terms such as ``highly qualified teacher.'' However, based on the PART
assessment, the Administration proposed eliminating funding for HEA
teacher quality grants in its proposed budgets for fiscal years 2006-
2008, and redirecting the funds to other programs. Congress has
continued to fund this program in fiscal years 2006 and 2007.
Education has responded to our recommendations and issues raised in
the PART assessment related to evaluating grantee activities and
providing more guidance to grantees on the types of information needed
to determine effectiveness. When the Congress amended HEA in 1998 to
provide grants to states and partnerships, it required that Education
evaluate the activities funded by the grants. In 2005, Education
established performance measures for two of the teacher quality
enhancement programs--state grants and partnership grants--and required
grantees to provide these data in their annual performance plans
submitted to Education.\11\ The performance measure for state grants is
the percentage of prospective teachers who pass subject matter tests,
while the measure for partnership grants is the percentage of
participants who complete the program and meet the definition of being
``highly qualified.'' In addition, in 2006, Education included
information in letters to grantees on the types of information that it
requires to assess the effectiveness of its teacher quality programs.
For example, in its letters to state grantees, Education noted that
when reporting on quantitative performance measures, grantees must show
how their actual performance compared to the targets (e.g., benchmarks
or goals) that were established in the approved grant application for
each budget period.
In addition, in May 2006, Education issued its final report on
HEA's partnership grants, focusing on the 25 grantees of the 1999
cohort.\12\ The goal of the study was to learn about the collaborative
activities taking place in partnerships. It was designed to examine
approaches for preparing new and veteran teachers and to assess the
sustainability of project activities after the grant ends. Among its
findings, Education reported that partnerships encouraged and supported
collaboration between institutions of higher education and schools to
address teacher preparation needs.
Under NCLBA, Education holds districts and schools accountable for
improvements in student academic achievement, and holds states
accountable for reporting on the qualifications of teachers. NCLBA set
the end of the 2005-2006 school year as the deadline for teachers of
core academic subjects, such as math and science, to be highly
qualified.\13\ Teachers meeting these requirements must (1) have at
least a bachelor's degree, (2) be certified to teach by their state,
and (3) demonstrate subject matter competency in each core academic
subject they teach.\14\ Education collects state data on the percent of
classes taught by highly qualified teachers and conducts site visits in
part to determine whether states appropriately implemented highly
qualified teacher provisions.\15\
In state reviews conducted as part of its oversight of NCLBA,
Education identified several areas of concern related to states'
implementation of teacher qualification requirements and provided
states feedback.\16\ For example, some states did not include the
percentage of core academic classes taught by teachers who are not
highly qualified in their annual state report cards,\17\ as required.
In addition, because some states inappropriately defined teachers as
highly qualified, the data that these states reported to Education were
inaccurate according to a department official. In many states, the
requirements for teachers were not sufficient to demonstrate subject
matter competency. Since subject matter competency is a key part of the
definition of a highly qualified teacher, such states' data on the
extent to which teachers have met these requirements could be
misleading. Education also found that a number of states were
incorrectly defining districts as high-need, in order to make more
districts eligible for partnerships with higher education institutions.
According to Education, each of these states corrected their data and
the department will continue to monitor states to ensure they are using
the appropriate data.
In addition to Education's oversight efforts, OMB completed a PART
assessment of NCLBA Title II in 2005 and rated the program as
``moderately effective.'' While OMB noted that the program is well-
managed, it also noted that the program has not demonstrated cost-
effectiveness and that an independent evaluation has not been completed
to assess program effectiveness. In response to OMB's assessment,
Education took steps to more efficiently monitor states and conducted
two program studies related to teacher quality. An Education official
told us that the program studies had been conducted but the department
has not yet released the findings.
Concluding Observations
In conclusion, the nation's public school teachers play a key role
in educating 48 million students, the majority of our future workforce.
Recognizing the importance of teachers in improving student
performance, the federal government, through HEA and NCLBA, has
committed significant resources and put in place a series of reforms
aimed at improving the quality of teachers in the nation's classrooms.
With both acts up for reauthorization, an opportunity exists for the
Congress to explore potential interrelationships in the goals and
initiatives under each act.
While HEA and NCLBA share the goal of improving teacher quality, it
is not clear the extent to which they complement each other. Our
separate studies of teacher quality programs under each of the laws
have found common areas for improvement, such as data quality and
assistance from Education. We have also found that states, districts,
schools, and grantees under both laws engage in similar activities.
However, not much is known about how well, if at all, these two laws
are aligned. Thus, there may be opportunities to better understand how
the two laws are working together at the federal, state, and local
level. For example, exploring links between efforts aimed at improving
teacher preparation at institutions of higher education and efforts to
improve teacher quality at the school or district level could identify
approaches to teacher preparation that help schools the most.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I welcome any
questions you or other Members of this Subcommittee may have at this
time.
Teacher Quality
approaches, implementation, and evaluation of key federal efforts
Teachers are the single largest resource in our nation's elementary
and secondary education system. However, according to recent research,
many teachers lack competency in the subjects they teach. In addition,
research shows that most teacher training programs leave new teachers
feeling unprepared for the classroom.
While the hiring and training of teachers is primarily the
responsibility of state and local governments and institutions of
higher education, the federal investment in enhancing teacher quality
is substantial and growing. In 1998, the Congress amended the Higher
Education Act (HEA) to enhance the quality of teaching in the classroom
and in 2001 the Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA),
which established federal requirements that all teachers of core
academic subjects be highly qualified.
This testimony focuses on
(1) approaches used in teacher quality programs under HEA and
NCLBA, (2) the allowable activities under these acts and how recipients
are using the funds, and (3) how Education supports and evaluates these
activities.
This testimony is based on prior GAO reports. We updated
information where appropriate.
While the overall goal of Title II in both HEA and NCLBA is to
improve teacher quality, some of their specific approaches differ. For
example, a major focus of HEA provisions is on the training of
prospective teachers while NCLBA provisions focus more on improving
teacher quality in the classroom and hiring highly qualified teachers.
Both laws use reporting mechanisms to increase accountability; however,
HEA focuses more on institutions of higher education while NCLBA
focuses on schools and districts. In addition, HEA and NCLBA grants are
funded differently, with HEA funds distributed through one-time
competitive grants, while Title II under NCLBA provides funds annually
to all states through a formula.
Both acts provide states, districts, or grantees with the
flexibility to use funds for a broad range of activities to improve
teacher quality, including many activities that are similar, such as
professional development and recruitment. A difference is that NCLBA's
Title II specifies that teachers can be hired to reduce class-size
while HEA does not specifically mention class-size reduction. Districts
chose to spend about one-half of their NCLBA Title II funds on class-
size reduction in 2004-2005. On the other hand, professional
development and recruitment efforts were the two broad areas where
recipients used funds for similar activities, although the specific
activities varied somewhat. Many HEA grantees we visited used their
funds to fill teacher shortages in urban schools or recruit teachers
from nontraditional sources, such as mid-career professionals.
Districts we visited used NCLBA funds to provide bonuses, advertise
open teaching positions, and attend recruitment events, among other
activities.
Under both HEA and NCLBA, Education has provided assistance and
guidance to recipients of these funds and is responsible for holding
recipients accountable for the quality of their activities. GAO's
previous work identified areas where Education could improve its
assistance on teacher quality efforts and more effectively measure the
results of these activities. Education has made progress in addressing
GAO's concerns by disseminating more information to recipients,
particularly on teacher quality requirements, and improving how the
department measures the results of teacher quality activities by
establishing definitions and performance targets under HEA.
While HEA and NCLBA share the goal of improving teacher quality, it
is not clear the extent to which they complement each other. States,
districts, schools, and grantees under both laws engage in similar
activities. However, not much is known about how well, if at all, these
two laws are aligned. Thus, there may be opportunities to better
understand how the two laws are working together at the federal, state,
and local level.
endnotes
\1\ GAO, Higher Education: Activities Underway to Improve Teacher
Training but Reporting on These Activities Could Be Enhanced, GAO-03-6
(Washington, D.C.: Dec. 11, 2002) and GAO, No Child Left Behind Act:
Improved Accessibility to Education's Information Could Help States
Further Implement Teacher Qualification Requirements, GAO-06-25
(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 21, 2005).
\2\ Eligible partnerships must include at least three partners,
consisting of teacher training programs, colleges of Arts and Sciences,
and eligible local school districts. Partnerships may include other
groups such as state educational agencies, businesses, and nonprofit
educational organizations.
\3\ Partnerships must match from non-federal sources 25 percent of
the partnership grant in the first year, 35 percent in the second, and
50 percent in each succeeding year. States and partnerships that
receive recruitment grants have the same matching requirements for
these grants as they have under their separate grant programs.
\4\ According to Education, an institution of higher education can
have more than one grant (simultaneously or sequentially) as long as
the members of the partnership are not identical (i.e. a new
partnership is formed).
\5\ Since 1999, 63 partnership grants have been made to various
entities, and 68 recruitment grants were made.
\6\ The funding authorizations for Title II, along with the rest of
HEA, were extended through June 30, 2007, under the Third Higher
Education Extension Act of 2006 (Pub. L. No. 109-292).
\7\ Specifically, districts are allowed to transfer up to 50
percent of the funds allocated to them under most major NCLBA programs,
including Title II, into other programs under NCLBA. For example,
districts may transfer a portion of their Title II funds into Title I
for initiatives designed to improve student achievement.
\8\ Education surveyed approximately 800 districts and found that
they spent $1.2 billion, about half of their NCLBA Title II funds in
2004-2005, to hire more teachers in order to reduce class size.
According to an Education official, no comparable HEA expenditure data
is available.
\9\ The Secretary's Fourth Annual Report on Teacher Quality, U.S.
Department of Education (Washington, D.C.) August 2005.
\10\ OMB uses the PART as a diagnostic tool meant to provide a
consistent approach to evaluating federal programs as part of the
executive budget formulation process and as a central component of its
overall governmentwide management efforts.
\11\ Grantees are required to submit data on how well they meet
their project performance measures that they negotiate with their
Education grant managers.
\12\ See Partnerships for Reform: Changing Teacher Preparation
through the Title II HEA Partnership Program: Final Report, May 2006.
Department of Education, 2006.
\13\ Although 2005-2006 was the original deadline, on October 15,
2005 Education sent a policy letter to the Chief State School Officers
saying that states that do not quite reach the 100 percent goal by the
end of the 2005-2006 school year will not lose federal funds if they
are implementing the law.
\14\ Veteran teachers may demonstrate subject matter competency
through a state-developed High Objective Uniform State Standard of
Evaluation, whereby subject matter competency is established through
teaching experience, professional development, coursework, and other
activities.
\15\ In 2003, Education aligned HEA's definition of highly
qualified teacher'' to that in NCLBA.
\16\ As of April 2006, Education officials had completed reviews of
all states.
\17\ States must prepare and disseminate an annual report card that
includes information on student achievement and the professional
qualifications of teachers in the state, the percentage of teachers
teaching with emergency or provisional credentials, and the percentage
of classes in the state not taught by highly qualified teachers. These
data are presented in the aggregate and are also disaggregated by high-
poverty compared to low-poverty schools.
______
Chairman Hinojosa. Dr. Robinson.
STATEMENT OF SHARON ROBINSON, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION
OF COLLEGES FOR TEACHER EDUCATION
Ms. Robinson. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee. Thank you so much for the opportunity to testify
before you today. I represent the American Association of
Colleges for Teacher Education. Our members are 800 schools and
colleges of education in all the States of the Nation.
In my written testimony I describe three myths about
schools of education that I am hoping to dispel. Myth number
one holds that teacher candidates leaving the academy are weak
in content knowledge. Myth number two states that schools of
education are ivory towers divorced from the realities of the
pre-K-12 classrooms, producing teachers who are unprepared for
today's realities in the classroom. Myth number 3, my personal
favorite, suggests that schools of education reject
accountability.
While I argue that each of these myths is wrong, I do not
assert that schools of education are where they need to be, for
there is certainly considerable work yet to be done, but I
think it is important to acknowledge that we are not standing
still, and I think Mr. Fallon's testimony will dramatically
illustrate this fact.
It is also important to acknowledge that schools of
education alone cannot solve the Nation's teacher supply and
distribution problems. Federal incentives are needed to support
able candidates in becoming well prepared and to distribute
these well-prepared teachers to the schools where they are most
needed.
In order to make real headway, we need a much more systemic
approach. One such approach was recently developed by my
colleague Linda Darling-Hammond. It is called the Marshall Plan
for Teaching. This bold plan is reflected in Chairman Miller's
recently introduced TEACH Act, which includes many of the
features of the Marshall Plan for Teaching.
Title II both of the Higher Education Act and of the No
Child Left Behind Act are linchpins in the Federal investment
for teacher quality, yet neither is currently robust enough to
produce the transformation that is needed. The purpose of Title
II of the Higher Ed Act is to transform teacher education so
that it is rigorous and accountable. I am pleased to report
that transformation is under way, but that which was envisioned
by the law, systemic and comprehensive, has not occurred.
Worthy efforts are too few and unsustained given the minimal
and uncertain $60 million Federal investment.
Title II of the Higher Education Act was envisioned as a
$300 million program. It has never been funded at that level,
and every year funds seem to dwindle.
In summary, our reauthorization recommendations for Title
II of the Higher Education Act include a targeted investment in
data systems for program improvement and accountability,
partnerships focused on clinical development to produce
expertise in teaching diverse learners, a new teaching
fellowship program such as a service scholarship program, and a
revision of the pass rate requirements.
Title II of No Child Left Behind is the $2.9 billion
investment in professional development, yet according to the
Department, only 28 percent of Title II Part A funds are
actually spent on professional development. Title II No Child
Left Behind funds should be targeted to produce systemic and
sustainable change in the States working through partnerships
involving higher education and school districts.
I submit for the record our recommendations for improving
Title II of No Child Left Behind, which include support for the
development of teacher performance assessments to be used in
programs and in licensing, state-of-the-art mentoring programs
for beginning teachers, preparation and professional
development to help teachers learn to use data and assessments
more effectively, clinical training to ensure that all teachers
are prepared to teach diverse populations including English-
language learners and special education students, and
partnerships to reduce teacher shortages in urban and rural
areas.
The relationship between higher education and pre-K-12
schools has changed dramatically in the last decade, resulting
in ongoing relationships that promote innovation leading to
improved instructional practice in both the academy and the
Nation's classrooms. Both Title IIs need to support and fund
these rich partnerships to yield maximum benefit to our
Nation's learners. I look forward to discussing these comments
with you further.
Chairman Hinojosa. Thank you.
[The statement of Ms. Robinson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Sharon P. Robinson, Ed.D., President and CEO,
American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education
Good morning, Chairman Hinojosa and members of the Subcommittee.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today.
I represent the American Association of Colleges for Teacher
Education. Our members are 800 schools and colleges of education in all
states of the nation. Schools of education produce over 90% of the new
teachers who enter our classrooms every year.
Colleges of education have changed dramatically over the last
decade. Major reforms of programs since the late 1980s have created a
curriculum much stronger in content and how to teach it, in how to
serve diverse learners well, and in how to apply what is learned in
courses to the classroom through tightly connected clinical training.
Gone from most universities are the education majors that ducked
serious subject matter and provided abstract theory divorced from
practice. Our teacher candidates have also changed. A major share are
mid-career professionals moving into teaching as a second career. Many
are instructional aides who have returned to school to become highly
qualified teachers. Others go to classes from their own living rooms
via the Internet. And a growing number attend their university classes
in the public schools where they are teaching, which function like
teaching hospitals do in medicine.
Indeed, we are not your grandmothers' schools of education!
Although there are still some weak programs of teacher education
that are a matter of significant concern to us, most of the enterprise
has changed dramatically as a result of reforms launched by states,
universities, and the federal government.
I would like to dispel three myths about schools of education that
often masquerade as facts.
Myth #1 holds that teacher candidates leaving the academy are weak
in content knowledge. While that once was often true, nothing could be
further from the truth today. In every state, beginning teachers
demonstrate significant content knowledge in their area of
concentration either by completing a major or by passing a rigorous
content test or both. The most recent MetLife survey reported that 98%
of principals reported that first-time teachers are well prepared to
teach subject matter. Nearly 60% of principals found the quality of new
teachers entering the profession today to be noticeably better than the
quality of new teachers in the past. And in states like Kentucky and
California where major reforms of preparation were undertaken, studies
have found that at least 85% of teachers and employers report that new
teachers from public colleges are entering teaching well prepared for
their work. Preliminary findings from a forthcoming report from the
Education Testing Service indicate that the academic quality of teacher
candidates is improving--in terms of SAT scores, grade point averages,
and Praxis scores. Indeed, an earlier ETS study found that newly
prepared high school teachers have higher SAT scores than their peers
and equivalent or higher grade point averages in their subject matter
majors. The practice of majoring in education without strong subject
matter preparation and then entering teaching as a mathematics or
chemistry teacher is a thing of the past.
Myth #2 holds that schools of education are ivory towers, divorced
from the realities of the K-12 classroom, producing teachers who are
unprepared for today's schools. This, too, has changed dramatically.
Schools of education are integrally involved with K-12 schools.
Professional development schools, which are schools modeled after
teaching hospitals in the medical profession, are increasingly the
norm. In the last decade, universities have launched more than 1,000
such school partnerships across the country, which provide state-of-
the-art sites for preparing teachers, pursuing reforms, and conducting
research. Studies have found that teachers trained in these sites--many
of which are in hard-to-staff urban communities--feel better prepared
and are rated as more effective. In addition, veteran teachers report
improvements in their own practice, and curriculum reforms stimulated
by these university partnerships have produced student achievement
gains. Candidates in these sites often complete a full year of student
teaching or residency under the wing of an expert veteran teacher.
Research tells us that such sustained clinical experiences are a
predictor of effectiveness and retention.
Myth #3, my personal favorite, suggests that schools of education
reject accountability. In fact, we may be the only portion of the
higher education community that fully embraces accountability. We want
to know if our graduates are effective; if they remain in the
profession; if they generate high achievement from their students.
Higher education systems in Texas, Louisiana, California, Florida, and
Ohio, to name a few, are actively developing the capacity to follow
education graduates and make determinations about program
effectiveness. These efforts are underway based on the initiative of
the colleges of education supported by external funding.
Even though national professional accreditation is voluntary in
most states, most teacher education institutions volunteer to undertake
national accreditation, even though about 1/4 of institutions do not
receive full approval on their first attempt. NCATE accreditation now
requires solid evidence of teacher education outcomes, including how
candidates perform on licensing examinations, how they succeed in
classrooms, how many enter and stay in teaching, and, increasingly, how
they influence student learning. Teacher educators are committed to
evaluating preparation programs based on the success of graduates
I am not asserting that there is no room for improvement in schools
of education--for there certainly is considerable work yet to be done.
But I think it is important to acknowledge that we are not standing
still. It is also important to acknowledge that schools of education
alone cannot solve the nation's teacher supply and distribution
problems. Federal incentives are needed to support able candidates in
becoming well-prepared and to distribute these well-prepared teachers
to the schools where they are most needed.
Teachers in the U.S. are paid considerably less than their peers
who go into other lines of work, and many must go into debt to complete
their preparation, as there is very little governmental support to help
them gain the skills they need to do their extraordinarily complex jobs
well. If they go to teach in high-need communities, they will generally
earn considerably less than if they teach in wealthy districts.
Meanwhile, our competitor nations that are higher achieving (such as
Finland, Sweden, Norway, Netherlands, Germany, France, Australia, New
Zealand, Japan, Taiwan, and Singapore) have made substantial
investments in teacher training and equitable teacher distribution in
the last two decades. These nations recruit their best and brightest
into high-quality graduate-level teacher education (which includes a
year of practice teaching in a clinical school connected to the
university), completely subsidized for all candidates at government
expense. They provide mentoring for all beginners in their first year
of teaching, and their funding mechanisms ensure equitable salaries,
often with additional stipends for hard-to-staff locations, which are
competitive with other professions.
In order to make headway on the issue of recruiting, preparing, and
retaining teachers where they are needed most, we need a much more
systemic approach.
I would like to submit for the record a copy of the ``Marshall Plan
for Teaching'' that was written recently by AACTE Board member and
internationally renowned teacher educator Dr. Linda Darling-Hammond.
This bold plan points out that in order for our nation to ensure that
every student has a teacher who knows how to teach challenging content
to diverse learners, we need to invest $3 billion annually. Chairman
Miller's TEACH ACT that he recently introduced includes some features
of this plan. The simple fact is that the federal government has not
made the kind of investment in either higher education or pre-K-12
education that is needed to get the result we want.
The two Title IIs--of the Higher Education Act and of the No Child
Left Behind Act--are lynchpins in the federal investment in teacher
quality. Yet neither is currently robust enough to produce the
transformation that is needed.
Title II of the Higher Education Act was first authorized in 1998,
four years before the enactment of No Child Left Behind. This will be
the first time Congress has had an opportunity to look at the Higher
Education Act in relation to the requirements of NCLB.
The purpose of Title II of HEA is to transform teacher
preparation--so that it is rigorous and accountable. I am pleased to
report to you that transformation is under way. Schools of education
are deeply involved with other components of the university--including
schools of arts and sciences--and with local school districts. The
successes of some of these new models of preparation have been
documented in a number of recent reports, including a major volume by
the National Academy of Education. When the ``highly qualified''
mandate was enacted in NCLB, Title II HEA funds were increasingly used
to prepare teachers to meet those requirements.
Schools of education are at the beginning of developing more
meaningful and robust capacity for accountability--through collection
of rich assessment data regarding their candidates and their programs.
The development of valid and reliable performance assessments is an
essential element of those activities. For example, a consortium of
universities in California has developed the PACT assessment
(Performance Assessment for California Teachers) that, like the
National Board's assessments, measures the actual teaching skills and
outcomes of prospective teachers. This assessment and similar efforts
in Wisconsin, Washington, Oregon, North Carolina, and elsewhere
demonstrate the possibilities for improving preparation by measuring
whether new teachers can actually teach before they enter the
profession. Such measures build on earlier work--such as the teacher
work sample assessment--and could provide much stronger accountability
than the current requirements for teachers to pass paper-and-pencil
tests of basic skills and subject matter knowledge that, though
important, fall short of looking at whether teachers can actually
succeed in teaching diverse students.
We believe that state certification requirements should include
this type of performance assessment so that parents and students are
assured that a beginning teacher is skilled in instructing all
students. A modest investment by the federal government could
facilitate the continued development of valid and reliable teacher
performance assessments so that states may adopt them. Such an
investment is called for in the TEACH Act recently re-introduced by
Chairman Miller.
The Higher Education Act has also put a premium on partnerships
among K-12 schools, colleges of education, and schools of arts and
sciences. Such partnerships are no longer novel, but are increasingly
routine.
But the transformation envisioned by the law--systemic and
comprehensive--has not occurred. The transformation remains spotty and
unsustained given the minimal $60 million federal investment. Title II
of the Higher Education Act was envisioned in 1998 as a $300 million
program. This amount is a bare minimum for starting on the critical
agenda of ensuring that every beginning teacher is adequately prepared
to teach the challenging content standards required under NCLB and to
do so successfully with students with a wide array of learning needs.
Yet every year the funds dwindle.
I would like to submit our reauthorization recommendations for
Title II of the Higher Education Act for the record. In summary, we
propose
A targeted investment in the development of data systems
so that schools of education can follow their graduates and assess
their impact on student learning, track teacher movement, and measure
retention.
An investment in partnerships among schools of education,
schools of arts and sciences, and K-12 schools that targets sustained
clinical experience, teaching diverse learners (including ELL and
special education students), addressing the critical shortage areas
(including, math, science, special education, and ELL) and addressing
teacher turnover in high-need schools--with a significant increase in
funding. This would include support for partnerships that provide high-
quality internships and residencies in communities where teachers are
most needed.
A new Teaching Fellowship program that would provide
service scholarships to cover the cost of preparation in exchange for
teaching in high-need fields and high-need schools for at least four
years.
A revision of the Pass Rate requirements so that pass
rates are reported for candidates who have completed 100% of their
coursework. (This will ensure that candidates taking certification
exams have completed all content and pedagogical curricula courses.)
Title II of the No Child Left Behind Act is the federal
government's $2.9 billion investment in professional development. Yet,
according to the Department of Education, only 28% of the funds are
actually spent on professional development. About half of the funds go
to class-size-reduction initiatives in states.
Title II NCLB funds should be targeted to produce systemic and
sustainable change in states--working through partnership involving
higher education and local school districts. The funds should support
developing and carrying out statewide initiatives to address the
following challenges:
Persistent and critical shortages in fields such as math,
science, special education, and ELL.
The maldistribution of teachers so that the neediest
students are most likely to have the least qualified teachers.
Ensuring that rural and urban schools have effective
teachers and high retention rates.
Ensuring that all teachers can provide instruction in a
rigorous curriculum to diverse learners.
I submit for the record our recommendations for improving the No
Child Left Behind Act, which include:
Partnerships to reduce teacher shortages in urban and
rural areas;
Preparation that will ensure that all new teachers are
prepared to teach diverse populations, including English language
learners and special education students;
Preparation and professional development to help teachers
learn to use data and assessments to improve teaching and learning; and
State-of-the-art mentoring programs for beginning teachers
so that they become increasingly competent and stay in teaching.
Support for the development of teacher performance
assessments that enhance teacher preparation and teacher
accountability.
I would also like to submit our publication ``Teacher Education
Reform: The Impact of Federal Investments,'' which profiles grants
funded by Title II of the Higher Education Act. Next month, I will be
pleased to submit to the Subcommittee our upcoming publication,
``Preparing STEM Teachers: The Key to Global Competitiveness.''
The relationship between higher education and K-12 schools has
changed dramatically in the last decade. There is no longer a clear
line between the role of higher education and the role of public
schools. Rather, there are ongoing innovative relationships that
promote the improvement of instructional practice in both the academy
and the classroom. Both Title IIs need to support and fund these rich
partnerships to yield maximum benefit for our nation's learners.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
______
Chairman Hinojosa. Dr. Wiley.
STATEMENT OF JANICE WILEY, DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
REGION ONE SERVICE CENTER
Ms. Wiley. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I
thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I am Janice
Wiley, deputy director for the Region One Education Service
Center located in Edinburg, Texas. We serve a student
population of over 373,000 students along the south Texas-
Mexico border, and of those, about 144,000 are limited-English-
proficient students. Ninety-seven percent of our student
population is of Hispanic decent, with 85 percent qualifying as
economically disadvantaged.
To serve these students there are over 23,000 teachers in
the Region One area, and over 18,000 of those teachers serve
core academic subject areas. Of those, about 12 percent hold a
master's degree, and about 40 percent have less than 10 years
experience.
If you can imagine for a first-year teacher entering the
first day of teaching at a local high school, there she finds
25 to 30 students in each class period, and the class is made
up of the demographic characteristics that I just mentioned.
There are also many diverse learners, including limited-
English-proficient migrant students as well as special needs
students, and for many of them, at least half, they will be the
first in their family to earn a high school diploma and the
first to attend college.
Not only is the novice teacher faced with the challenge of
helping all these students meet State and Federal standards,
but the school is rated based on the passing rate of his or her
students. Can you feel the immense pressure that this teacher
must be facing? And what can we do to support the teacher so
that after a few years he/she does not feel burned out, leave
the classroom and feel like they are facing a losing battle?
We can continue to provide professional development and
mentoring programs to assist the teacher so their students are
successful not only in meeting, but surpassing these academic
standards. We believe a key factor in increasing student
achievement lies in improving the quality of teachers in our
classrooms. Title II funds make it possible to provide these
learning opportunities for our teaching force.
It is impossible for teachers to learn everything they need
to know for a lifetime of teaching during their college
preparation work. Therefore, professional development and
mentor programs are crucial for beginning teachers. Research
clearly shows a well-trained teacher is the greatest factor in
predicting student achievement, and that, dollar for dollar,
money spent on professional development produces far greater
gains in learning than do investments in tests, materials or
programs.
Even our most experienced teachers have professional
development needs. Many graduated from teacher preparation
programs before State content standards were developed and well
before technology played such an important role in our
profession. Additionally, due to brain research, we know more
about how students learn cognitively than ever before.
Experienced teachers must be knowledgeable about new
scientifically research-based strategies in order to reach all
students.
Through Title II funds we have been able to fulfill many of
these professional development needs in Region One. We have
formed a local P-16 council to align instruction from high
school to our colleges and universities to create a seamless
transition for our students.
Title II funds have been used also in our Texas Regional
Science and Math Collaborative. This is a network of State
universities, service centers and school districts that provide
professional development in math and science. Teacher mentors
are developed, and participating teachers may earn college
credit and pursue graduate degrees in the math and science
content fields.
The Texas Science, Math, Engineering and Technology Center,
Region One is one of five centers in Texas that were created to
develop professional development opportunities in the STEM
content areas. Project-based learning is emphasized, in which
teachers learn how to engage students in more relevant, real-
world problem-solving activities. This is a collaboration of
our local school districts, service centers, the local
university, community college and the Workforce of South Texas.
Region One has also formed a collaborative with other
service centers to produce a curriculum based on the State
content standards. Districts use Title II funds to pay for
professional development needed to implement the
standards-based curriculum. Key participants in the
training are campus administrators, who learn how to support
the curriculum, monitor and provide feedback. Also through our
Texas American History Grant, which is designed to raise
student achievement by improving teachers' knowledge and
appreciation of traditional U.S. history.
Title II moneys have also been used to pay stipends to
recruit highly qualified teachers in shortage areas, mentor
programs for beginning teachers and principals, hiring of
additional teachers to reduce class size, particularly in the
early grades.
Since 2004, Region One has shown immense gains in student
achievement. In reading we have gained 10 percent, from 71 to
81 percent; mathematics, a gain of 11 percent; and in science
we have seen the largest gain of 18 percent. We believe these
gains are due to the Title II professional development that we
provide to our teachers, and we are hopeful these funds will
continue.
Thank you for the opportunity to be here and present my
testimony.
Chairman Hinojosa. Thank you.
[The statement of Ms. Wiley follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Janice Wiley, Deputy Director, Region One
Education Service Center
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I thank you for the
opportunity to testify today. I am Dr. Janice Wiley, Deputy Director
for Instructional Support Services of the Region One Education Service
Center located in Edinburg, Texas. The Region One Service Center serves
a student population of over 373,000 located along the south Texas-
Mexico border, of which approximately 144,000 students are limited
English proficient. Ninety-seven percent of the student population is
of Hispanic descent with 85% qualifying as Economically Disadvantaged.
To serve these students, there are over 23,256 teachers in the Region
One area, with over 18,000 teachers in the academic core subject areas.
Of those, only 12.6% hold a master's degree and approximately 40% have
less than 10 years experience.
Imagine a first-year teacher entering his/her first day of teaching
at local high school. There are 25-30 students in each class period;
the class made up of many of the demographic characteristics that I
just mentioned. There are also many diverse learners including students
that are Limited English Proficient, migrant students, as well as
special needs students. For many of them, at least half will be the
first in their family to earn a high school diploma and the first to
attend college, much less have an advanced degree. Not only is the
novice teacher faced with the challenge of helping all of these
students meet state and federal standards, but the school is rated
based on the passing rates of his/her students. Can you feel the
immense pressure this teacher must be facing? What can we do to support
this teacher so that after a few years he/she does not feel burned out
or worse yet, feel like they are facing a losing battle all by
themselves? We can continue to provide quality professional development
and mentoring programs to assist the teacher so that their students are
successful in not only meeting, but surpassing state and federal
academic standards. The Region One Education Service Center believes
vehemently that a key factor in increasing student achievement lies in
improving the quality of teachers in our classrooms. Title II funds
make it possible to provide these learning opportunities for our
teaching force.
It is impossible for teachers to learn everything they need to know
for a lifetime of teaching during their college preparation work;
therefore professional development and mentor programs are crucial for
beginning teachers. Research clearly shows that a well-trained teacher
is the greatest factor in predicting student achievement and that,
dollar for dollar, monies that are spent on professional development
produce far greater gains in student learning than do investments in
tests, materials, or programs.
Even our most experienced teachers have professional development
needs. Many graduated from teacher preparation programs before state
content standards were developed and well before technology played such
an important role in our profession. Additionally, due to brain
research we know more about how students learn cognitively than ever
before. Experienced teachers must be knowledgeable about new
scientifically researched-based strategies in order to reach all
students.
Through Title II funds we have been able to fulfill many of our
teachers' professional development needs. Many efforts are being
coordinated locally with the service center facilitating many of the
activities. We have formed a local P-16 council to align instruction
from high school to our colleges and universities and to create a
seamless transition for our students.
Title II funds have been used to serve identified needs and have
been used by the Region One Education Service Center to form the
numerous initiatives:
Texas Regional Science and Math Collaborative--A network
of statewide universities, education service centers, and school
districts that provide professional development in math and science.
Teacher mentors are developed and participating teachers may earn
college credit and pursue graduate degrees in the math and science
content fields.
Texas Science, Math, Engineering, and Technology (TSTEM)
Center--Region One ESC is one of only 5 centers in Texas created to
develop professional development opportunities in the STEM content
areas. Project-based learning will be emphasized in which teachers will
learn how to engage students in more relevant real-world problem
solving activities. This is a collaboration of local school districts,
Region One ESC, universities, community colleges, and the Workforce of
South Texas.
CSCOPE Curriculum--Region One Esc has formed a
collaborative to produce a curriculum based on the state content
standards. Districts use Title II funds to pay for the professional
development needed to implement the standards-based curriculum. Key
participants in the training are campus administrators who also learn
how to support the curriculum, monitor the implementation, and provide
feedback to teachers through analysis of data from six weeks tests and
walkthrough observations.
Teaching American History Grant -This program is designed
to raise student achievement by improving teachers' knowledge and
understanding of and appreciation for traditional U.S. history. This is
a partnership between local school districts, Region One ESC,
University of Texas Pan American, and local museums.
Title II monies have also been used in recruitment and retention in
the following manner:
Stipends to recruit highly qualified teachers in shortage
areas;
Mentor programs for beginning teachers and principals;
Hiring of additional teachers to reduce class size,
particularly in the early grades
Since the 2004 school year, Region One has shown significant gains
in student achievement for all students on state assessments. Reading
increased from 71% to 81% passing rate, a gain of 10%. Mathematics
increased from 58% to 69%, a gain of 11%. Social Studies increased from
77% to 81%, a gain of 4%. Science has seen the largest increase, from
43% to 61%, a gain of 18%. We firmly believe that these gains are due
to the professional development that we provide to our teachers through
Title II funds. We are hopeful that these funds will continue to be
available to meet the needs of the children in south Texas.
Thank you for the opportunity to be here today to present this
information. I will be happy to answer any questions that the committee
may have.
______
Chairman Hinojosa. Dr. Fallon.
STATEMENT OF DANIEL FALLON, PROGRAM DIRECTOR,
CARNEGIE CORPORATION
Mr. Fallon. Good morning. Thank you for inviting me to
testify on behalf of our common goal: to provide high-quality
teachers for the Nation's classrooms.
I am Dan Fallon. In the summer of 2000, I began planning an
ambitious private philanthropic initiative to rethink and thus
improve the way teachers receive their education at our
country's colleges and universities. For the past 6 years I
have been administering this program, which is called Teachers
for a New Era. I work for Carnegie Corporation of New York, one
of the oldest large philanthropies in the United States. With
the cooperation and support of the Annenberg Foundation and the
Ford Foundation, Carnegie Corporation of New York has enabled
11 institutions of higher education throughout the United
States to restructure their academic programs of teacher
education by focusing on learning gains made by pupils in
working classrooms of public schools.
We have financed the big bet we are making on teacher
education through an investment from all sources of more than
$125 million in funds provided primarily by the private sector.
Although it is still too early to draw definitive conclusions
about the many features of Teachers for a New Era, some
promising patterns are emerging. We believe on the basis of our
experience, for example, that teacher quality could be
significantly advanced first through incentives to the States
to improve educational data systems and use them for purposes
of program improvement; second, by providing incentives to
encourage teacher education programs to support novice
teachers; and, third, by inviting teacher education programs to
partner with school districts on evidence-based, continuous
improvement designs for teacher education focused on pupil
learning.
Teachers for a New Era does not dictate a common curriculum
or structure for teacher education. There is as yet no solid
research basis to justify with persuasive evidence the
imposition of a single model. More importantly, the genius of
American education is its diversity and its responsiveness to
local needs and local culture.
Instead of curricular conformity, Teachers for a New Era
demands attention to three large design principles. The first
is fostering a culture of respect for persuasive evidence. The
second is effectively engaging contributions from faculty in
the academic content disciplines of the arts and sciences. And
the third is thinking about teaching as academically taught,
skilled clinical practice. This is a template for reform that
any teacher education program anywhere in the United States
could implement.
Embedded within the requirement of an evidence-based
program is for us the generally novel challenge that the
teacher education program find a way to measure the quality of
its work by demonstrable pupil learning occurring in the
classrooms of teachers who are graduates of the program. A
similarly novel challenge is embedded within the conception of
teaching as clinical practice. It obliges the teacher education
program to offer each of its graduates intensive mentoring and
support during the first 2 full years of professional teaching,
a feature we call academy-based induction.
The apparent success of focusing on pupil learning and of
academy-based induction forms the rationale for what my
testimony offers to you. First, we believe you can facilitate
the production of high-quality teachers by providing incentives
to the States to enable the formation of educational data
systems that serve broad purposes of program improvement.
Second, encouraging the adoption of academy-based induction
holds the promise of significantly reduced costs coupled with
instructional improvement. Third, promoting partnerships
between school districts and teacher education programs to
construct evidence-based continuous improvement designs focused
on pupil learning appears from our experience a promising
strategy for increased teacher quality, especially in
challenging, high-need schools.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, we offer you a
vision for a reliable means of preparing effective teachers who
can teach all children from all walks of life to learn to high
standards. It is a vision of higher education in the Nation's
service.
Thank you for your attention this morning.
Chairman Hinojosa. Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Fallon follows:]
Prepared Statement of Daniel Fallon, Director, Program in Higher
Education, Carnegie Corporation of New York
Introduction
My name is Daniel Fallon. I serve as Director of the Program in
Higher Education at Carnegie Corporation of New York, which is the
philanthropic organization established in 1911 by Andrew Carnegie to
maintain the benefaction he intended to pursue with the wealth he had
accrued in his lifetime. In Mr. Carnegie's words, our mission is to
promote ``* * * the advancement and diffusion of knowledge and
understanding to benefit the citizens of the United States.''
Over the course of the twentieth century Carnegie Corporation of
New York has provided support for many worthwhile American activities,
with a particular focus on education. For example, resources from the
philanthropy helped establish the first nationally available pension
fund for college teachers, the Teachers Insurance Annuity Association,
known by its initials TIAA. Research supported by the Corporation
provided the basis for establishing national need-based financial aid,
now known more commonly as Pell Grants. Other investments were
instrumental in establishing the College Board, the Educational Testing
Service, and more recently the National Board for Professional Teaching
Standards.
Since the early 1980's the Corporation has increased its efforts to
improve the quality of teaching in the nation's schools. Under its
current president, Vartan Gregorian, it undertook a major initiative
beginning in 2001 to reform teacher education. The initiative is called
Teachers for a New Era and I am its principal designer and have
directed its development since its inception. The Annenberg Foundation
and the Ford Foundation have joined Carnegie Corporation in this
effort, contributing significant resources to extend the reach of
Teachers for a New Era and to disseminate positive findings arising
from its work.
Purpose of this testimony
I have accepted your invitation to describe today the work we are
doing in teacher education reform. Some of our findings thus far may be
helpful to you if you begin to consider ways to facilitate the
production of high quality teachers. For example, in my testimony I
will discuss three areas you may find useful: (1) the value for states
of recording educational data, releasing such data to higher education
institutions for purposes of improvement of teacher education programs,
and placing responsibility for educational data with research
institutions; (2) how academy-based induction functioning as a
complement to district-based induction increases efficiency, reduces
costs, and improves pupil learning; and (3) why it may be worthwhile to
provide incentives for teacher-education programs to adopt evidence-
based continuous-improvement designs focused on facilitating pupil
learning.
I speak on behalf of the eleven institutions of higher education
that are participating in Teachers for a New Era, and with their
consent. I should add that the presidents of the Teachers for a New Era
institutions, led by President Simon of Michigan State University and
President Hennessy of Stanford University, are preparing a letter to
the National Research Council. You will be receiving a copy of this
letter, which addresses the congressional charge to the Council to
prepare a report on teacher education. It echoes some of the themes I
raise today, but also places a particular emphasis on the value of
teacher education reform to improve the nation's competitiveness in the
areas of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.
As an officer of Carnegie Corporation of New York I hope my
testimony may serve one of our basic purposes: to increase the life
chances of citizens of the United States.
Why try to reform teacher education?
We decided to undertake this work seven years ago with no
illusions. There was a well-justified consensus within the policy
community about teacher education. It was judged in general to be
intellectually incoherent. Its value in providing certified teachers
was of unproven effectiveness. Finally, numerous well-organized efforts
at reform of teacher education had not led to any fundamental change in
the enterprise. In short, most informed observers did not think that
teacher education was a worthy target of philanthropic attention.
Nonetheless, we decided to make a big bet on it.
We undertook our initiative on teacher education for two principal
reasons. The first is the much-discussed emergence in the U.S. of a
knowledge-based economy. Our nation is today and for the foreseeable
future generating wealth principally through knowledge, information,
and services. If the nation is to preserve its standard of living and
protect the quality of life of its citizens, it must place priority on
producing a highly educated work force. We understand the
reauthorizations of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and the
Higher Education Act in recent years as a rational political response
to the challenge of a new economy.
The second reason for our investment is a fundamental paradigm
shift in our conception of how well children learn in schools. For more
than a generation our knowledge was based on the excellent pioneering
work of sociologist James Coleman sponsored by the U.S. government in
the late 1960's. These analyses led to a prevailing conclusion that
pupil achievement was largely controlled by economic inequality
mediated in large part by family circumstances. The science on which
this idea was based depended for the most part on cross-sectional
analyses of average test scores of some groups of pupils compared with
others. Longitudinal data permitting the analysis of the change in test
scores by individual pupils over time were largely nonexistent and thus
not available to Coleman. That circumstance changed with the broad
introduction in several states during the decade of the 1980's of
mandatory state-wide testing in the public schools. As the accumulation
of these data made further analysis possible, researchers began to look
at the performance of individual pupils in successive years with
different teachers. They discovered that some teachers demonstrated an
ability to raise pupil achievement reliably, in some cases quite
dramatically, even in the face of severe economic hardship experienced
by the pupil. In other words, our knowledge shifted from thinking that
wealth, families, and neighborhoods were the principal source of pupil
achievement to understanding that high quality teaching made a very
significant contribution.
The two new developments, a new knowledge-based economy and an
understanding that the quality of the teacher was likely the single
most important school-based factor influencing the achievement of
pupils, were foremost in giving Carnegie Corporation of New York
confidence that an investment in improving the quality of teacher
education would be worthwhile. To these we added other considerations.
We believe, on principle, that higher education institutions are the
best place to educate teachers. Further, we are convinced that a new
generation of faculty at colleges and universities are more prepared
than ever before to accept the challenge of designing strong programs
of teacher education.
Evidence-based guidelines for reform
The U.S. has not on the whole invested heavily in rigorous research
on education. Primarily for that reason we do not know with high
confidence what an ideal teacher education program might look like. We
began with a straightforward presumption that observable pupil learning
is the only way to make high quality teaching visible. Therefore, if we
want to see evidence of high quality teaching, we must look for pupil
learning. We studied the limited amount of relevant research literature
carefully and could find no reason based on evidence to recommend a
specific structure or curriculum for teacher education. Instead, we
asked higher education institutions to respond to challenges for
teacher education around three large design principles that were
justified to the best of our ability on sound evidence.
The first design principle is cultivating a respect for evidence.
Within this general framework we embedded a radical idea, that the
higher education institution must find a way to measure the quality of
the teacher education program by demonstrable pupil learning occurring
in classrooms of teachers who were graduates of the program.
The second design principle is effectively engaging faculty from
the disciplines of the arts and sciences. This includes acquiring
knowledge of the content that the teacher will teach, of course, but
also speaks to the importance of general education for the teacher.
Also important is the idea that faculty from the disciplines of the
arts and sciences will learn from their contact with teacher candidates
and with their colleagues in colleges of education more effective ways
of representing content so that it is readily learned by students.
Finally, the third design principle calls for understanding the act
of teaching as skilled clinical practice. Thus, it considers pupils as
clients, the classroom as a clinic, and the teacher as a clinician who
assists each child in learning to high standards. Taking this idea
seriously requires that teacher education programs work closely with
representative school districts, that teacher candidates be exposed
early and often to working classrooms, that some highly effective
teachers from schools be appointed to positions as ``professors of
practice'' in the teacher education program, and that higher education
faculty from the disciplines of the arts and sciences also observe
teaching in classrooms and assist in instructing teacher candidates
about the teaching of the content. The third design principle embeds a
second radical idea within the teacher education program, namely, that
the teacher education program should offer to each of its graduates a
program of intensive mentoring and support during the first two full
years of professional clinical practice. Through this device the novice
teacher who was once a teacher candidate in the teacher education
program continues to receive education to become an effective teacher.
We call this idea academy-based induction, or residency.
By tightly coupling the teacher education program to working
classrooms in schools, requiring an ongoing professional relationship
with recent graduates who are working as novice teachers, and using
pupil learning in the classrooms of graduates as the primary means of
measuring quality, Teachers for a New Era is explicitly a design for
continuous improvement. We believe this is an evidence-based program
that will enable a teacher education program to gather the data it
needs to improve continuously over time. The functional nature of the
reform challenge ensures that any teacher education program anywhere in
the United States today could meet it by applying the design
principles.
A capsule description of how Teachers for a New Era is being
implemented
Instead of requesting proposals to participate, Carnegie
Corporation of New York engaged policy analysts from the RAND
Corporation, and appointed a National Advisory Panel of distinguished
figures from the world of policy, practice and research. With
assistance from these two groups, we went through an iterative process
of investigation of teacher education programs, culminating in site
visits to numerous institutions, and ultimately in the identification
of eleven institutions of higher education that we believed were
capable of meeting the challenges we posed in our general prospectus,
which is attached to this document. We then invited proposals from just
these eleven, and went through multiple revisions of the proposals
until each proposal was judged to have produced a work plan capable of
meeting our requirements.
In addition to the prospectus describing Teachers for a New Era, I
have separately provided each member of the Subcommittee with a
laminated 4x6 card containing a list of the eleven participating
institutions on one side, and a schematic summary of the design
principles on the other side. We designed the initiative so as to
provide strong support for fundamental reform. Each of the eleven
institutions of higher education was awarded $5 million over a five to
seven year period, and was then asked to raise another $5 million
independently, with at least 30% of the matching money dedicated to a
permanent endowment to support the reconfigured program of teacher
education. In addition, each institution received $500,000 to be shared
with ``partners,'' such as school districts or other cooperating
institutions, to facilitate relationships necessary for preparing
effective teachers. Thus, each institution received $10.5 million in
direct support. Carnegie Corporation of New York also contracted with
outside partners, primarily the Academy for Educational Development, to
provide direct technical assistance for the life of the project that
included assistance for each institution with budget development,
monitoring of benchmarks, consultation services, and several meetings
of teams from all institutions each year to discuss progress on the
design principles. All in all, the philanthropic investment in this
unusual national initiative has exceeded $125 million.
Early findings and implications
Although it is too early to draw many confident conclusions about
the long-term success of this initiative, a few patterns are becoming
clear. First, in a few pilot studies several of the institutions have
been able to link pupil learning gains in public school classrooms with
teachers who have pursued distinct teacher education programs before
being appointed as teachers. These investigations have been very
helpful in pointing to areas within the teacher education curriculum
that require strengthening. The promise of this approach seems clear.
Nonetheless, we have found in many instances that there are severe
obstacles to retrieving data for legitimate program improvement
purposes, even when the data are available, there are no objections
from union representatives, and proper safeguards have been taken to
protect the identities of particular teachers and particular students.
In other cases, state or local data are not collected in ways that make
comparisons for research purposes useful.
We thus find ourselves faced with the dilemma that (a) we cannot
mount an evidence-based system for program improvement without data
from the schools; and (b) the authorities responsible for school data
are often unable to provide data for program improvement. Therefore, if
your legislative deliberations include data systems, and you wish to
improve the education of future teachers, you may wish to consider
incentives to states and local school districts to construct
comprehensive data systems that collect measures that can be compared
directly from school to school within a district, and from district to
district within a state. It would be helpful if such data systems
included unique identifiers that permitted the linking of performance
of individual pupils with the teachers that taught them, in ways that
protect the identity of the pupils and the teachers, and also included
provisions that require such data to be made available to institutions
of higher education with teacher education programs for the purpose of
program improvement. There may also be distinct advantages in ensuring
that school data repositories be entrusted to research institutions in
the state rather than to state regulatory agencies.
A second finding of importance has been the remarkable success of
the implementation of academy-based induction as a supplement to
district-based induction programs. For example, one of our grantees,
the University of Virginia, has shown that its academy-based induction
achieved a 33% reduction in attrition of novice teachers over and above
the existing district-based induction program by itself. Innovations of
this kind result in enormous cost savings to districts and lead to more
effective instruction for pupils. To offset the cost of design and
introduction of academy-based induction nationally, you may want to
consider offering incentives to partnerships between teacher-education
programs and school districts to propose them.
Finally, a third finding is that the introduction of an evidence-
based continuous-improvement program built around the Teachers for a
New Era design principles has resulted in substantial long-term
administrative and organizational changes within these higher education
institutions. The effect of new management has been to promote greater
institution-wide responsibility for teacher education and to improve
the application of the considerable knowledge resources throughout
these institutions to the enterprise of teacher education. Therefore,
you may want to consider some form of incentive grants to higher
education institutions that propose to restructure teacher education by
agreeing to design principles similar to Teachers for a New Era.
Summary and conclusion
As we review the fifth year of implementation since the first group
of institutions received awards under Teachers for a New Era, a wide
variety of very encouraging developments are beginning to emerge. The
comprehensive application of the design principles appears to be
shaping a coherent vision of effective teaching as academically-taught
skilled clinical practice. Therefore, we have reason to hope that a
foundation is being laid for an evidence-based program of teacher
education driven by attention to pupil learning in working classrooms
in a form that enables continuous improvement of teacher education.
Ours is a vision for reliable means of preparing effective teachers
who can teach all children, from all walks of life, to learn to high
standards. It is a vision of higher education in the nation's service.
Thank you for your attention this morning.
______
Chairman Hinojosa. Yes, Dr. Feistritzer. You may begin.
STATEMENT OF EMILY FEISTRITZER, PRESIDENT,
NATIONAL CENTER FOR ALTERNATIVE CERTIFICATION
Ms. Feistritzer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee. Thank you for this opportunity to speak to you this
morning on the very critical topic of preparing teachers for
the classroom.
I am Emily Feistritzer, and I am actually the founder and
president of the National Center for Alternative Certification,
which was created in 2003 with a discretionary grant awarded to
the National Center For Education Information, which I also
run, to serve as a national clearinghouse for information about
alternative routes to teacher certification.
Since 1983, the National Center for Education Information
has been tracking what is going on in teacher preparation and
certification at all levels throughout the country, and we
actually started focusing on documenting what States were doing
regarding creating alternative routes for certifying teachers
in 1983.
I would like to discuss with you data and information about
these alternative routes to teaching and their impact on the
preparation of all teachers going forward. Alternate routes to
teacher certification are having a profound impact on who
enters teaching, how they enter teaching, when they enter
teaching, and where they teach.
What began in the early 1980s as a way to ward off a
projected shortage of teachers and replace emergency
certification have evolved into very sophisticated models for
recruiting, training and certifying people who already have at
least a bachelor's degree and want to become teachers.
In 1983, when we first started tracking this issue, there
were eight States that said they had some type of alternative
to the approved college undergraduate teacher education program
route for certifying teachers. In 2007, and the latest report I
will make copies available to the committee, every State in the
United States and the District of Columbia report that they now
have at least one alternative route to teacher certification.
All told, 13 alternate routes to teacher certification have
been created in the 50 States, and they are being implemented
in approximately 485 programs throughout the country.
Last year 59,000 individuals entered teaching through
alternative routes and this constitutes about a third of all of
the new teachers, new, never-taught-before teachers, in that
year. That number increased from 39,000 in 2003-2004. I have a
graph in my written testimony which you will have which shows
the exponential growth of the production of teachers through
alternative routes.
Furthermore, Title II of the No Child Left Behind Act,
resubmissions of their plans for meeting the highly qualified
teacher requirements, we analyzed those, and 38 of the States
specifically said they were going to use alternative routes to
ensure that their teachers met the highly-qualified teacher
mandate.
So this is not any longer a stepchild of the system.
Alternate routes have become a major player in the production
of teachers. A hallmark of alternative routes is that they are
a market-driven phenomenon. They don't exist unless there is a
demand for a teacher in a specific subject in a specific area
in a specific geographic region of the country. Alternate
routes are very efficient in that the programs do exist to
recruit, train, place teachers where teachers are most needed.
There has been a lot of change in the alternative teacher
certification movement over time, and currently--and my yellow
light is already on--it is important to note that they are
specifically designed to recruit, prepare and license
individuals who already have at least a bachelor's degree. They
require rigorous screening processes such as passing tests,
interviews. They are very heavily on-the-job training programs.
The coursework and equivalent experiences in professional
education studies generally occur while they are teaching. They
involve working with mentor teachers and other support
personnel, and they set high performance standards for
completion of the programs.
What do we know about preparing teachers through alternate
routes? In summary, we know that there is a wide variation in
preparation of programs, from about a third of them that
require 31 or more credit hours that an individual takes on a
college campus for which they pay tuition to a college or
university, all the way down to about a third that don't
require any such courses. About a half of alternate route
programs now are being administered by higher education
institutions, a fourth of them by school districts, and a
fourth by collaborations, individual States or private
entities.
Nearly all alternate routes are field-based teacher
preparation programs that include mentoring and learning
experiences directly related to classroom teaching. More than
half of alternate-route teachers come into the profession with
experience from other professional careers, and only a fourth
of teachers who have entered teaching through alternate routes
say they would have become a teacher if the program had not
been available.
Chairman Hinojosa. Thank you.
[The statement of Ms. Feistritzer follows:]
Prepared Statement of Emily Feistritzer, President, National Center for
Alternative Certification and the National Center for Education
Information
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to speak before you today on the critical topic of
preparing teachers for the classroom. My name is Emily Feistritzer and
I am the president of the National Center for Alternative Certification
which was created in 2003 with a discretionary grant awarded to the
National Center for Education Information to serve as a comprehensive
clearinghouse for information about alternative routes to teacher
certification.
The Center's web site, www.teach-now.org, is used by tens of
thousands of individuals per day, including policy makers and
individuals seeking to become teachers.
In addition to collecting, analyzing and disseminating information
about teacher preparation and certification since 1979, the National
Center for Education Information has been documenting what is going on
in the development of alternatives to college-based undergraduate
teacher education program routes to certification since 1983 and
publishing descriptions of alternative routes in an annual publication,
ALTERNATIVE TEACHER CERTIFICATION: A State-by-State Analysis. I have
made the 2007 edition of this 346-page document available to you, as
well as Alternate Routes to Teaching, a book I co-authored with
Charlene K. Haar which was published by Pearson Education, Inc. in
April of this year.
I would like to discuss with you data and information about these
alternative routes to teaching and their impact on the preparation of
all teachers going forward.
Alternate routes to teacher certification are having a profound
impact on the who, what, when, where and how of K-12 teaching. What
began in the early 1980s as a way to ward off projected shortages of
teachers and replace emergency certification has evolved into a
sophisticated model for recruiting, training and certifying people who
already have at least a bachelor's degree and want to become teachers.
When the National Center for Education Information (NCEI) first
began in 1983 asking state certification officials the question, ``What
is your state's status regarding alternatives to the traditional
college teacher education program route for certifying teachers?''
eight states said they were implementing some type of alternative route
to teacher certification.
Now, in 2007, all 50 states and the District of Columbia report
they have at least some type of alternate route to teacher
certification. All toll, 130 alternate routes to teacher certification
now exist in these 50 states and the District of Columbia. In addition,
these states report that approximately 485 alternate routes programs
are implementing the alternative routes to teacher certification they
established.
Based on data submitted by the states, NCEI estimates that
approximately 59,000 individuals were issued teaching certificates
through alternative routes in 2005-06, up from approximately 50,000 in
2004-05 and 39,000 in 2003-04. As shown in the figure below, the
numbers of teachers obtaining certification through alternative routes
have increased substantially since the late 1990s. Nationally,
approximately one-third of new teachers being hired are coming through
alternative routes to teacher certification.
Furthermore, an analysis of the NCLB Title II reports the states
re-submitted to the U.S. Department of Education last summer after none
of the original reports showed that any state had met the highly
qualified teacher requirement, revealed that 38 states specifically
stated they intend to utilize alternate routes to ensure that all of
their teachers meet the highly qualified teacher requirements. This
illustrates, further, the market-driven, solution-oriented role these
effective programs are having in meeting the demand for qualified
teachers.
A hallmark of alternative routes is that they are market-driven.
Alternate routes to teaching are created for the explicit purpose of
filling a demand for teachers in specific subject areas in specific
schools in specific geographic regions. They are designed for
individuals who already have at least a bachelor's degree--many of whom
have experience in other careers--who want to teach the subjects in
areas where there is a demand for teachers.
Why Alternate Routes?
Since the mid 1960s, reforming teacher education and certification
was the focus of solving teacher quantity and quality issues. Having
enough qualified teachers has been at the root of most reform efforts
concerning teachers.
For decades, teacher education and certification have been
identified as both the cause and solution of many of the problems
regarding teachers. The 1,300 or so Colleges of Education have taken
the brunt of criticism for not adequately preparing qualified teachers.
Additionally, state agencies responsible for licensing (certifying)
teachers have been targets for an array of attacks -from the
complicated certification processes to weak assessments that fail to
measure competencies for teaching.
In 1983, the state of New Jersey grabbed national headlines with
its out-of-the-box solution. New Jersey created an alternative route to
teacher certification specifically to attract a new market for teaching
-liberal arts graduates--and transition them into elementary and
secondary teaching without going through a traditional college teacher
education program.
This solution to teacher quantity and quality began the alternative
teacher certification movement and the nation took notice. Significant
changes in alternative routes to teacher certification have occurred
since the mid-1990s. In addition to the development of alternative
routes at the state level, an evolving consensus of essential
characteristics shows that most alternate routes:
are specifically designed to recruit, prepare and license
individuals who already have at least a bachelor's degree--and often
other careers.
require rigorous screening processes, such as passing
tests, interviews, and demonstrated mastery of subject matter content.
provide on-the-job training.
include coursework or equivalent experiences in
professional education studies before and while teaching.
involve work with mentor teachers and/or other support
personnel.
set high performance standards for completion of the
programs.
What do we know about preparing teachers through alternate routes?
1. There is wide variation in preparation programs--from about a
third that require 31 or more college credit hours of education courses
to a third that require none for which a candidate pays college
tuition.
2. About half of alternate route programs now are being
administered by higher education institutions, a fourth by school
districts and a fourth by collaborations, states, or private entities.
3. Nearly all alternate route programs are field-based teacher
preparation programs that include mentoring and learning experiences
directly related to classroom teaching.
4. More than half of alternate route teachers came into the
profession with experience from a professional career outside of
education.
5. Only one-fourth a teachers who have entered teaching through
alternate routes say they would have become a teacher if the program
had not been available.
What does the research say about the effectiveness of various teacher
preparation routes?
Most of the research conducted concerning alternative routes to
teacher certification shows that alternate routes do what they are
designed to do: bring people into teaching who would not otherwise have
become teachers. The research also indicates that the route one goes
through does not seem to matter all that much as far as effective
teaching goes. Experience and effective mentoring seem to be the most
important variables for becoming a competent teacher.
A growing body of research shows that after a couple of years'
experience, differences in teacher performance measures and/or student
achievement disappear regardless of what kind of route a teacher comes
into teaching through.
A scientifically designed study still underway shows similar
results. How Changes in Entry Requirements Alter the Teacher Workforce
and Affect Student Achievement reported findings from this study being
conducted by Donald Boyd, Pamela Grossman, Hamilton Lankford, Susanna
Loeb, and James Wyckoff. The researchers focused their study on
pathways into teaching in New York City and the ``effects of such
programs on the teacher workforce and on student achievement'' (1). The
study's basic findings indicate that, after two years, the small
differences among the groups at the beginning of teaching disappear
(Boyd, et al, 2005).
In 2005, the American Educational Research Association (AERA)
released Studying Teacher Education: The Report of the AERA Panel on
Research and Teacher Education (2005).
The compendium's findings regarding alternate routes included:
The studies provided some evidence that alternatively
certified teachers may be ``more willing than traditionally certified
teachers to teach in low-SES urban schools, but these data may reflect
more where teachers can get jobs than actual teacher preferences''
(663).
``there were no differences between alternatively and
traditionally certified teachers in terms of teacher efficacy or in
teaching competence as measured by classroom observations'' (663).
The research showed ``very little difference between
alternatively and traditionally certified teachers'' (670).
``The studies of the alternative certification programs in
Houston, Dallas, and Milwaukee school districts indicate inconclusive
results'' (674). Anticipated retention was higher in Milwaukee in
alternative programs. In Houston there were no significant differences
between traditionally certified and alternatively certified teachers'
``perception of the problems they faced in the classroom,'' at the end
of the first academic year (674).
The studies that ``compared the impact of multiple teacher
education programs on various dimensions of teacher quality have
suggested that alternatively certified teachers may in some
circumstances have higher expectations for the learning of students of
color living in poverty than teachers who have been traditionally
certified'' (689).
More targeted research needs to be done to find out what it is that
makes for effective teachers. The research conducted thus far seems to
indicate that preparation route does not matter.
I would like to conclude my statement with some statistics from the
U.S. Department of Education that shed light on who actually is being
prepared to teach and who actually become teachers, as well as the
structure of K-12 education which illustrates the realities of teacher
demand.
A. Are Bachelor Degree Recipients a Reliable Market for Teachers?
Getting clarity about college graduates who are qualified to teach
upon receiving their bachelor's degree and who go into teaching, as
well as those who do not, is not easy. The U.S. Department of
Education's Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal Studies are often
cited for these data which are based on samples, so NCES does not
report these findings in numbers of individuals, but rather in
percentages.
The latest published Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal Studies
show that 12.2 percent of baccalaureate degree recipients in 1999-2000
had taught as regular teachers ``in a K-12 school at some point between
receiving the 1999-2000 bachelor's degree and the 2001 interview''
(USDoE, 2000/01, 5).
Given that NCES data show that 1,237,875 bachelor's degrees were
awarded by degree-granting institutions in 1999-2000, one could
estimate that 151,000 new graduates were teaching at some point within
a year of receiving their baccalaureate degree.
The data indicate that, of those 151,000 who received a bachelor's
degree in 1999-2000 and were teaching in 2001, 21 percent were neither
certified nor had prepared to teach as part of their undergraduate
program. It is conceivable that some of these individuals were becoming
certified to teach through alternate route programs.
NCES data also show that more than one-third (35 percent) of
Education Bachelor's Degree recipients in 1999-2000 were not teaching
the following year. Furthermore, the data indicate that one-fourth (25
percent) of education bachelors' degree recipients in 1999-2000 had not
even prepared to teach and/or were not certified to teach.
Fewer than half (47.5 percent) of graduates with education degrees
in 1992-93 were teaching in 1994.
Furthermore, of the B.A. recipients who were certified and/or had
prepared to teach as part of their undergraduate program, 23 percent
were not teaching within a year of graduating.
A follow-up survey in 1997 of 1992-93 baccalaureate degree
recipients indicated that 13 percent of those graduates had taught by
1997. However, the B&B follow-up report also stated that ``8 percent
expected to teach full-time in three years and 7 percent expected to
teach in the longer term. Thus, it appears that many graduates who
teach soon after college do not expect to spend much time teaching, let
alone make it a career'' (USDoE, 2000-152, x).
These statistics lead one to question the efficiency of the model
for teacher production. The problem is further compounded by NCES data
that show that about one-third of these new teachers leave within the
first three years of teaching, and about half of them have left
teaching after five years.
Alternative routes to teacher certification programs, on the other
hand, accept only individuals who not only already have a bachelor's
degree, but come into a program because they want to teach. In most
alternate route programs, the participants fill particular existing
teacher vacancies. Alternative routes exist to recruit, train and
certify baccalaureate degree holders to meet the demand for specific
teachers to teach specific subjects at specific grade levels in
specific schools.
The retention rate for alternate route teachers in California and
other large teacher-production states is 85-90 percent after five
years.
B. School District Size and Student Enrollment.
The sizes of school districts and where students are enrolled vary
greatly and bear directly on teacher demand.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) data indicate there
were 14,383 regular public school districts in 2003-04. Fewer than 2
percent of these school districts enrolled one-third of all the
students enrolled in the United States. These are the 256 school
districts that enroll 25,000 or more students. When the next category
of school districts by size is added--those that enroll between 10,000
and 24,999--587 additional school districts enter the count, taking the
number of school districts that enroll 10,000 or more students to 843;
these school districts represent just 6 percent of all school districts
that enroll more than half (52.1 percent) of all the public elementary
and secondary students.
At the other end of the spectrum, more than one-fifth (2,994) of
all school districts enroll between 1 and 299 students each and account
for less than 1 percent of all students enrolled. Nearly half of all
school districts (6,703 or 46.6 percent) enroll fewer than 1,000
students each, and collectively account for only 5.5 percent of total
public elementary and secondary school enrollment across the nation.
Since these local school districts are responsible for hiring and
placing teachers, it is obvious that the needs and demands for teachers
in a metropolitan school district with a diverse population that
includes several hundred schools, each of which likely enrolls anywhere
from fewer than 100 students to more than 3,000 are different from a
school district that has a handful of small schools in a rural
predominantly white community.
Alternate routes, again, by their very nature, address such
disparities. Alternate routes are created to meet specific needs for
specific teachers in specific areas.
C. Public School Size and Student Enrollment
NCES data indicate that more than one in 10 (11.02 percent) of all
schools and nearly 17 percent of secondary schools enroll fewer than
100 students each.
Furthermore, more than one-third (35.89 percent) of public
secondary schools enroll fewer than 300 students each. These statistics
are crucial in any discussion about out-of-field teaching or having a
teacher with a major or minor teaching every class in ever school in
the country. In these small schools, generally there is no more than
one physics class, one chemistry class and one biology class per day.
The chances that a teacher with a major or minor in each of these
sciences will be teaching each of those three classes per day in each
of these schools are slim to none.
Many alternative routes to teacher certification meet the needs for
highly qualified teachers in these and other high demand subjects, such
as special education, in small schools by targeting programs that
ensure that teachers have--or obtain--content and pedagogical mastery
in the subjects they are teaching. Alternate routes that utilize
technology and distance learning opportunities are likely to appeal to
the needs of small schools.
D. Teacher Vacancies (Demand)
The 2003-04 SASS data (2006-313) also show that the demand for
teachers, as indicated by vacancies in schools and subjects, is
greatest:
In schools
at the secondary level,
in central cities and urban fringe/large towns,
that enroll 750 or more students; In subjects of
Special education,
English/language arts,
Mathematics,
Sciences, and
Foreign languages.
All of these statistics are important in understanding the context
in which teachers are recruited, prepared and hired.
Alternate route programs, by their very nature, are established to
meet specific needs for specific teachers in specific subject areas in
specific schools.
The targeted nature of alternate routes is the reason they are
proliferating at a rapid rate, why thousands of people who would not
otherwise have done so are choosing to become teachers.
Recommendations
I urge the Congress in its reauthorization of Title II of the
Higher Education Act (HEA) and of Title II of No child Left Behind
(NCLB) to make changes that reflect the significant and growing role
alternate routes have in bringing high quality individuals into the
teaching profession who--without them--would not otherwise become
teachers. As I have documented earlier in this statement, these
competent teachers make a commitment to teach in classrooms where
teachers are most needed. They now constitute one-third of all new
teachers being hired.
The Federal government needs to target the nation's resources so
that the most qualified individuals who intend to teach can do so in
high-quality efficient programs that meet the need for specific
teachers in specific subjects in specific schools across this nation.
Both HEA and NCLB are the very vehicles to ensure that programs of
preparation are created and/or enhanced to attract highly qualified,
experienced adults who know their subject matter and are eager to use
their life experiences and practical knowledge to--as they report
themselves--``help young people learn and develop.''
Specific recommendations in the reauthorization of the Higher
Education Act and No Child Left Behind are:
1. Shift the focus in the preparation of teachers from institutions
of higher education exclusively to a wide variety of providers of
recruitment and preparation programs that are targeted to actually
producing effective teachers in the classrooms where they are needed.
2. Encourage school districts and state departments to collect and
disseminate data about their teachers, including their preparation to
teach and their effectiveness.
3. Encourage research that could be utilized by the public as well
as researchers and policymakers that would yield answers to such
critical questions as, ``What makes for truly effective teachers and
how do they come by those qualities?''
4. Funding should be more market-driven and flow to programs that
are proving their effectiveness in recruiting and preparing competent
teachers where they are needed.
5. One of the chief contributions of alternate routes to teaching
has been infusing the teacher workforce with experienced adults that
have earned valuable life skill equity. The federal government should
encourage initiatives that help transition more of these people into
teaching, particularly in high schools, where there is a need for their
applied knowledge. With their real world experience base and maturity,
alternate route teachers can do much to accelerate the development of
skills high school students need to excel in college and the workforce.
6. The federal government should create incentives for states and
school districts to expand alternate routes to solve particular
shortfalls in highly qualified areas. Alternate routes have been a
wonderful incubator for innovation in addressing niche teaching
shortages with highly qualified teachers. A market driven environment
needs to be encouraged not stifled by attempts to standardize or
develop regulations constricting experimentation with alternate routes.
Thank you for this opportunity to speak before you today.
______
Chairman Hinojosa. There will be opportunities for all of
you to expand on your presentation as we go through the
question-and-answer part of this hearing.
My first question is directed to George Scott with the
Government Accountability Office. Your testimony indicates that
both the HEA Title II and the NCLB Title II fund partnership
initiatives. What is known about how well these efforts are
linked?
Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, the prior work looked at these two
programs separately. This is one area where we think further
study is warranted in terms of looking at how well there is
coordination between the HEA programs and the NCLBA programs.
We think this is one area where additional study would really
help provide additional information on how well these programs
are coordinated.
Chairman Hinojosa. Have you and your staff found any
benefits in funding the teacher improvement efforts under the
two different laws?
Mr. Scott. I think, as we discuss in our reports, while
there is certainly benefit to allowing different approaches to
funding some of these programs, but to the extent that there is
potential for overlap or duplication, I think it is important
that we continue to receive good information on the efforts and
outcomes of these programs so we can continue to monitor them
and see to what extent there is overlap.
Chairman Hinojosa. I appreciate that.
Dr. Robinson, I assume you are familiar with the American
Board of Certification of Teacher Excellence. My understanding
is that this is a teacher certification program developed in
2001 intended to be a fast track to produce certified teachers.
I also note that the Federal Government invested $51 million in
that effort. How do the costs per teacher certification compare
between the teachers your association works with versus the
cost for those certified by the alternative entity?
Ms. Robinson. Mr. Chairman, ABCTE, as we call it, is
essentially a test in primarily model of alternative licensing.
It is being marketed to the States. It is now being used in
about five States, but the numbers are still quite low. So, in
essence, the Federal Government since 2001 has spent $51
million to license fewer than 200 teachers, so that is quite a
high cost per individual. If those funds had been devoted to
scholarships for these individuals who want to come into
teaching, had those funds been used to support monitoring
programs, or, more importantly, I think these funds might have
been used to develop performance assessments in teacher
education so that we would have additional information on
candidate quality.
Right now we have simply yet another test of content when
there are already other tests of content out there. I would
suggest that the funds now being used to support yet another
content test be devoted to developing performance assessment in
teacher education so that candidates can come to the licensing
process with some valid information not just of what they know,
but also of what they can do.
Chairman Hinojosa. With that statement and the testimony I
heard, what the current state of teacher training reflects,
what percentage of any new funds which you recommend go
directly for the accountability purposes?
Ms. Robinson. That is an interesting question. I think that
in Title II of the Higher Education Act, we have got to
dedicate a percentage of funds to developing the data system if
the State is already not involved in designing such systems. We
have enough evidence, given the work of the schools and
Teachers for a New Era and other efforts, we know these data
systems can be designed, and we know that the schools of
education have to have some money to come to the table and
intrude themselves, if you will, on an already intense effort
to develop accountability systems at the State level.
Chairman Hinojosa. I am going to cut you short because the
time is moving real fast, and I want to ask questions of the
other presenters. But give thought to my question and give us
in writing what percentage you think would be best for us to
consider.
[Additional information submitted by Ms. Robinson follows:]
Summary of AACTE's HEA Legislative Language Recommendations
Title II, Section 202, State Grants
Many states have developed or are in the process of developing
statewide data systems that can connect K-12 to higher education so
that teacher retention, teacher effectiveness, and preparation program
effectiveness can be tracked. These data systems entail considerable
costs both in dollars and labor, particularly in the development
stages. Title II of the Higher Education Act is well situated to assist
in these efforts. AACTE recommends refocusing the state grants on
helping states develop these data systems. These data systems will
allow states to better meet their educational needs as they will be
able to use the data from the system to track teacher movement, analyze
student learning in relation to teacher quality, measure induction
program effectiveness, analyze what factors contribute most to
effective teaching (and revamp preparation programs and certification
requirements accordingly), and create uniformity in how districts and
institutions within the state report on retention, accountability, and
qualifications.
Title II, Section 203, Partnership Grants
AACTE recommends that the Partnership Grants be refocused on
strengthening educator preparation programs by providing intensive
clinical experiences through residency programs in high-need schools;
preparing all educators to work with diverse learners, including ELL
and special education students, as well as ensuring that all educators
can use student data to inform their instruction; addressing critical
shortage areas such as special education, ELL, mathematics and science;
and, developing dissemination tools to disburse best practice models in
effective educator preparation.
Title II, Section 204, Recruitment Grants
AACTE recommends folding the Teacher Recruitment grant program into
Section 203.
Title II, Section 207, Accountability for Programs that Prepare
Teachers
AACTE recommends revising the Pass Rate requirements so that pass
rates are only reported for candidates who have completed 100% of their
coursework. This will ensure that candidates taking certification exams
have the benefit of completing all content and pedagogical curricula
that will contribute to their performance on the exams.
Title II, Centers of Excellence
AACTE proposes an amendment to Title II called ``Centers of
Excellence''. This new authority would strengthen educator preparation
at institutions that serve historically underrepresented students.
These Centers prepare teachers to use scientifically-based research to
inform their instructional techniques, prepare teachers to close the
achievement gap, strengthen mentoring programs for new teachers, and
provide scholarships to help candidates at grantee institutions
complete their preparation. This amendment was included in H.R. 609 in
the last Congress.
Title IV
AACTE recommends that a new section be added to Title IV for the
Teaching Fellowships program. This program would provide service
scholarships to candidates who commit to teaching for a minimum of four
years in a high-need school or field. The scholarships would cover the
cost of the candidate's preparation program.
AACTE's HEA Recommendations
legislative language
Title II, Section 202--State Grants
We recommend replacing the current use of funds with the language
below
(d) USES OF FUNDS--An eligible State that receives a grant under
this section shall use the funds to develop and establish State-level
integrated data management systems capable of enabling evidence-based
accountability, evidence-based decision making, and evidence-based
management as applied to one or more of the following activities:
(1) TEACHER PREPARATION--(A) Collecting, synthesizing, and
analyzing evidence demonstrating the influence of teacher preparation
programs on teacher classroom performance and on student academic
growth and achievement. (B) Identifying evidence for the most effective
patterns of preparation for acquiring necessary academic content
knowledge and essential pedagogical knowledge and skills in relation to
various teaching licenses and teaching assignments.
(2) NOVICE TEACHER INDUCTION AND SUPPORT--Collecting, synthesizing,
and analyzing evidence demonstrating the influence of novice teacher
induction, support, and mentoring activities at State, district, and
school levels on teacher classroom performance and on student academic
growth and achievement.
(3) TEACHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT--Collecting, synthesizing, and
analyzing evidence demonstrating the influence of teacher professional
development activities at State, district, and school levels on teacher
classroom performance and on student academic growth and achievement.
States receiving a grant under this section must assure that state
partnerships are established to engage all relevant providers and
stakeholders in such a manner that enables evidence of effects to
become the basis for evidence-based management directed at continuous
system-level improvement.
Funding recommendation: Authorizing level of $400,000 per year for
5 years totaling $2,000,000 per state grants. This would enable funding
for 15 state grants (assuming $6 million per year for 5 years).
Recommend funding as many possible per year, with the provision that
grantees would share learnings.
Title II, Section 203--Partnership Grants
We recommend incorporating the following language into Section 203
1. Authorization for partnership grants between institutions of
higher education and high need school districts to a) strengthen
educator preparation programs and b) prepare high quality educators for
high-need communities through a) intensive one year clinical
residencies as part of teacher preparation in specialized ``teaching
schools'' or professional development schools and b) model induction
and mentoring programs.
Eligible partnerships:
Required partners:
a) a school, college or department of education at an institution
of higher education
b) a high need school district
c) the college of Arts and Sciences, or departments within, at an
Institution of Higher Education (or in cases where institutions of
higher education are exclusively educator preparation programs,
assurances that in depth content knowledge is part of the program)
(NOTE: Some schools such as Bank Street College are do not have
colleges of arts and sciences)
optional partners:
a) a non-profit organization
b) a state education agency
Required use of funds:
a) Support of a teacher education model that includes, in addition
to teacher education coursework necessary for certification, a one year
intensive residency experience in a specialized teaching school or
professional development school staffed by expert mentor teachers.
These teaching schools must be designed and staffed to offer high-
quality education to students in high-need communities and high-quality
preparation for teachers. The resident teacher works in the classroom
of an expert mentor teacher throughout the year, while gradually taking
on more responsibility for teaching. Coursework must meet state
licensing standards and include subject matter pedagogy, knowledge of
student learning and assessment, the teaching of students with
disabilities and English language learners, classroom management,
working effectively with parents, and uses of technology.
Such programs may serve undergraduate or graduate students
preparing to be teachers in high-need schools
b) Development of a model mentoring and induction program for new
teachers that provides regular coaching by an expert teacher in the
same teaching field for at least the first year of a teacher's career
c) gather information about the impact of the residency program on
student learning and teacher retention
Authorization: $300 million
2. Authorize challenge grants to improve the capacity of educator
preparation programs to a) prepare all teachers and principals to work
with diverse learners including ELL and special education students, b)
prepare all educators to utilize data and evidence about student
learning to inform instructional decision making, c) target the
production of more teachers in key shortage areas including math,
science, special education and teachers of English Language Learners d)
ensure a high degree of curricular content knowledge and knowledge of
how to teach that content to a wide range of learners.
Authorization: $200 million
Dissemination, collaboration, coordination and technical assistance
contract
3. Proposal to create capacity to develop and disseminate knowledge
about best practices in educator preparation
A grant or contract shall be made with education organizations with
expertise in educator preparation and an established network of
educator preparation programs for the following purposes:
a) to ensure sharing of best practices in designing and
implementing educator preparation programs, including residency models
b) to provide technical assistance to educator preparation programs
that need to strengthen their ability to a)prepare teachers to instruct
diverse learners b) utilize data to make instructional decisions and c)
ensure a high degree of curricular content knowledge and knowledge of
how to teach that content to a wide range of learners.
Authorization: $2 million a year for 7 years
Title II, Section 204--Teacher Recruitment Grants
We recommend eliminating this section. The partnerships grants
described above can be used for teacher recruitment efforts.
Title II, Section 207--Accountability for Programs that Prepare
Teachers
We recommend amending subpart (f)(1)(A)--Pass Rate as follows
`(A) Pass rates and scaled scores----
`(i) For the most recent year for which the information is
available, the pass rate and scaled scores for each prospective teacher
who has completed 100 percent of the coursework required by the teacher
preparation program on the teacher certification or licensure
assessments of the State in which the institution or alternative
certification program is located, but only for those prospective
teachers who took those assessments within 3 years of completing the
coursework.
`(ii) A comparison of the institution's or alternative
certification program's pass rate and scaled scores for prospective
teachers who have completed 100 percent of the coursework at the
teacher preparation program with the average pass rate for institutions
and alternative certification programs in the State.
`(iii) In the case of teacher preparation programs with fewer than
10 graduates who have completed 100 percent of the coursework required
by the program taking any single initial teacher certification or
licensure assessment during an academic year, the institution or
alternative certification program shall collect and publish information
with respect to an average pass rate on State certification or
licensure assessments taken over a 3-year period.
Title II, Centers of Excellence
We recommend adding a new section in Title II for the Centers of
Excellence Program
`(a) PURPOSES--The purposes of this part are----
`(1) to help recruit and prepare teachers, including minority
teachers, to meet the national demand for a highly qualified teacher in
every classroom; and
`(2) to increase opportunities for Americans of all educational,
ethnic, class, and geographic backgrounds to become highly qualified
teachers.
`(b) PROGRAM AUTHORIZED--From the amounts appropriated to carry out
this part, the Secretary is authorized to award competitive grants to
eligible institutions to establish centers of excellence.
`(c) DEFINITIONS--As used in this part:
`(1) ELIGIBLE INSTITUTION--The term `eligible institution' means--
--
`(A) an institution of higher education that has a teacher
preparation program that meets the requirements of section 301 and that
is----
`(i) a institution (as defined in section 322);
`(ii) a Hispanic-serving institution (as defined in section 502);
`(iii) a Tribal College or University (as defined in section 316);
`(iv) an Alaska Native-serving institution (as defined in section
317(b)); or
`(v) a Native Hawaiian-serving institution (as defined in section
317(b));
`(B) a consortium of institutions; or
`(C) an institution or a consortium of institutions described in
subparagraph (A) in partnership with any other institution of higher
education, but only if the center of excellence established under
section 205 is located at an institution described in subparagraph (A).
`(2) HIGHLY QUALIFIED--The term `highly qualified' has the meaning
given such term in section 9101 of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801).
`(3) SCIENTIFICALLY BASED READING RESEARCH--The term
`scientifically based reading research' has the meaning given such term
in section 1208 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965
(20 U.S.C. 6368).
`(4) SCIENTIFICALLY BASED RESEARCH--The term `scientifically based
research' has the meaning given such term in section 9101 of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801).
`(d) USE OF FUNDS--Grants provided by the Secretary under this part
shall be used to ensure that current and future teachers are highly
qualified, by carrying out one or more of the following activities:
`(1) Implementing reforms within teacher preparation programs to
ensure that such programs are preparing teachers who are highly
qualified, are able to understand scientifically based research, and
are able to use advanced technology effectively in the classroom,
including use for instructional techniques to improve student academic
achievement, by----
`(A) retraining faculty; and
`(B) designing (or redesigning) teacher preparation programs that--
--
`(i) prepare teachers to close student achievement gaps, are based
on rigorous academic content, scientifically based research (including
scientifically based reading research), and challenging State student
academic content standards; and
`(ii) promote strong teaching skills.
`(2) Providing sustained and high-quality pre-service clinical
experience, including the mentoring of prospective teachers by
exemplary teachers, substantially increasing interaction between
faculty at institutions of higher education and new and experienced
teachers, principals, and other administrators at elementary schools or
secondary schools, and providing support, including preparation time,
for such interaction.
`(3) Developing and implementing initiatives to promote retention
of highly qualified teachers and principals, including minority
teachers and principals, including programs that provide----
`(A) teacher or principal mentoring from exemplary teachers or
principals; or
`(B) induction and support for teachers and principals during their
first 3 years of employment as teachers or principals, respectively.
`(4) Awarding scholarships based on financial need to help students
pay the costs of tuition, room, board, and other expenses of completing
a teacher preparation program.
`(5) Disseminating information on effective practices for teacher
preparation and successful teacher certification and licensure
assessment preparation strategies.
`(6) Activities authorized under sections 203 and 204.
`(e) APPLICATION--Any eligible institution desiring a grant under
this section shall submit an application to the Secretary at such a
time, in such a manner, and accompanied by such information the
Secretary may require.
`(f) MINIMUM GRANT AMOUNT--The minimum amount of each grant under
this part shall be $500,000.
`(g) LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES--An eligible institution
that receives a grant under this part may not use more than 2 percent
of the grant funds for purposes of administering the grant.
`(f) REGULATIONS--The Secretary shall prescribe such regulations as
may be necessary to carry out this part.
Title IV Amendments
We recommend adding a new section to Title IV for this program
4. Proposal to create a program of Teaching Fellowships to provide
service scholarships that cover tuition and living costs in high-
quality undergraduate or graduate programs, including residency models,
for those who will teach in a high-need field or location for at least
4 years.
Service scholarships would be used proactively to recruit
candidates to the fields and locations where they are needed, covering
up to three years of undergraduate or two years of graduate teacher
education and would be:
Allocated on the basis of academic merit and indicators of
potential success in teaching, such as perseverance, capacity and
commitment to teaching in high-need communities;
Targeted especially to areas of teaching shortage as
defined nationally and by individual states, and
Awarded in exchange for teaching for four years in
priority schools, defined on the basis of poverty rates and educational
needs (e.g. language minority status).
Authorization: $500 million
To provide 20,000 service scholarships of up to $25,000 each
annually.
______
Summary of AACTE's NCLB Legislative Language Recommendations
Title IX, Section 9101, Highly Qualified Teacher Definition
The current definition of HQT emphasizes the importance of a
teacher having content knowledge and does not explicitly address the
importance of the teacher's ability to convey that knowledge to K-12
students. AACTE amends the definition to require all new teachers to
have at least 450 supervised clinical hours in the P-12 classroom prior
to certification or licensure. In addition, all new teachers must pass
a performance assessment prior to certification or licensure. These new
components would go into effect for the 2010-11 school year. AACTE also
amends the HQT definition to ensure that only a teacher who has
completed a state approved higher education or state approved alternate
route preparation program is described as HQT. A teacher candidate in
the process of becoming licensed or certified may not be described as
HQT.
Title II, Section 2113, part (a)
Institutions of higher education are critical partners in preparing
educators and providing professional development to teachers. As NCLB
is currently written, the IHE role in contributing to professional
development is quite limited. AACTE amends the allocation of NCLB Title
II funds so that IHE's are eligible to receive 5% of the state's Title
II funds to partner with LEA's.
Title II, Subpart 3, Section 2134, Use of Funds
NCLB reserves need to be targeted to the specific education needs
of communities. AACTE recommends refocusing the Use of Funds solely on
activities that will (1) address the teacher shortage areas such as in
the STEM subject fields, ESL, and special education (2) address the
teacher turnover and shortages in urban and rural areas (3) ensure that
all teachers can serve diverse populations and, (4) provide substantial
clinical experiences for teacher candidates.
Title II, Subpart 3, Subgrants to Eligible Partnerships, Preparing
Teachers to Utilize Student Data
Part of being an effective teacher is the ability to analyze
student achievement data and other measures of student performance to
gauge where the students are in their learning and to improve
instruction based on that information. AACTE recommends adding a new
authorization that would support pre-service and in-service teachers in
developing the skills to analyze student data and to improve their
classroom instruction based on the data analysis.
Title II, Part C, Innovation for Teacher Quality, Regional Reciprocity
Consortium
AACTE recommends a new program be added to Title VI that would
encourage states to develop regional reciprocity agreements to
facilitate teacher mobility and to allow states to more easily fill
hard-to-staff subjects and schools. Teachers participating in this
program would be highly effective teachers.
Title II, Subpart 1, Portable Performance-Based Teacher Assessment and
10 State Pilot Studies
Based on a proposal in the 109th Congress's TEACH Act (S. 1218,
H.R. 2835), AACTE recommends that NCLB encourage the use of teacher
performance assessments and add a new program that would authorize the
development of valid and reliable model performance assessments and the
piloting of these assessments in 10 states. The passage of performance
assessments by teacher candidates will ensure their readiness to enter
the classroom.
Title II, Section 2113, Use of State Funds, Subpart (c), State
Activities
AACTE recommends adding to the use of funds initiatives addressing
teacher workforce diversity, recruitment of teachers in the STEM fields
and other shortage fields, and encouraging partnerships between P-12
schools and institutions of higher education.
Title II, Establishing Teacher Induction Programs
Critical to teacher success is the support he or she receives in
the first years of teaching. Title II of NCLB should include an
emphasis on induction. AACTE has modified slightly the induction
program outlined in the 109th Congress's TEACH Act (S. 1218, H.R. 2835)
so that partnerships of IHE's and LEA's would develop strong induction
programs that provide mentoring and professional development for new
teachers.
Title II, Section 2123 and Section 2201, IHE's as Partners
AACTE amends both sections to ensure that IHE's are required
partners in the activities listed in each section.
P-16 Councils
AACTE supports the creation of P-16 councils to identify and
redress alignment gaps in the education pipeline. AACTE believes that
faculty from the division of education in IHE's should be required
members of these councils.
______
What Can the Federal Government Do?
A Marshall Plan for Teaching
Linda Darling Hammond, Professor, Stanford University
A strategic federal role is needed to create an infrastructure for
strong teaching across the country. Individual innovative programs at
the local level will not alone solve the problems we face. Federal
strategies for enhancing the supply of teachers have precedents in the
field of medicine as well as teaching. Since 1944, Washington has
subsidized medical training to meet the needs of underserved
populations, to fill shortages in particular fields, and to build
teaching hospitals and training programs in high-need areas. This
consistent commitment has contributed significantly to America's world-
renowned system of medical training and care.
Intelligent, targeted subsidies for preparation coupled with
stronger supports at entry and incentives for staying in high-need
schools are needed to ensure that all students have access to teachers
who are indeed highly qualified. A serious national teacher quality and
supply policy could be accomplished for $3 billion annually, less than
1% of the more than $300 billion spent thus far in Iraq, and, in a
matter of only a few years, could build a strong teaching force that
would last decades.
In the long run, these proposals would save far more than they
would cost. The savings would include the more than $2 billion dollars
now wasted annually because of high teacher turnover, plus the even
higher costs of grade retention, summer school, remedial programs, lost
wages and prison costs for dropouts[i] (increasingly tied to illiteracy
and school failure)--all of which could be substantially lowered if we
committed to ensuring strong teachers in the schools that most need
them. Such a plan should focus on:
Increasing the supply and quality of teachers targeted to
high-need fields and locations through
1) Service scholarships for entering teachers, with special focus
on high-need fields and locations (40,000 @ $25,000 each = $1 billion
annually)
2) Recruitment incentives for expert, experienced teachers to teach
in high-need schools (50,000 teachers x $10,000 stipends ($500 million)
+ $300 million to improve teaching conditions in high-need schools =
$800 million)
3) Improved preparation for teaching high-need students and for
programs in high-need areas ($500 million, including $200 million for
state-of-the-art ``teaching schools'' partnered with universities in
hard-to-staff communities)
Improving retention and mobility of well-qualified
teachers through
4) Mentoring for all beginning teachers through investments in
state and district mentoring programs (150,000 @ $4000 each = $600
million)
5) A high-quality, nationally available teacher performance
assessment to guide training, improve quality, and facilitate
interstate mobility ($100 million)
Increasing Teacher Supply and Quality in High-Need Fields and Locations
While most states have long had surpluses of candidates in
elementary education, English, and social studies, there are inadequate
numbers of teachers trained in high-need areas like mathematics,
physical science, special education, bilingual education and English as
a Second Language (ESL), and there are problems getting well-prepared
teachers to where they are most needed. Shortages in poor urban and
rural schools are usually met by lowering standards--an especially
dysfunctional response because the students in these schools need the
most highly skilled teachers if they are to close the gap, and because
high turnover rates for untrained teachers cost urban districts
hundreds of millions of dollars in attrition costs. Because fully
prepared beginning teachers are twice as likely to stay in teaching as
those who enter without complete training, district shortages could be
reduced rapidly if such districts could hire better prepared teachers
(as fewer would need to be hired each year to replace those who left
and a more adequate supply would be available). Two kinds of targeted
incentives are needed to attract qualified teachers to schools and
areas that historically have been underserved.
1) First, the federal government should maintain a substantial,
sustained program of service scholarships that completely cover
training costs in high-quality pre-service or alternative programs at
the undergraduate or graduate level for those who will teach in a high-
need field or location for at least 4 years. (After three years,
candidates are much more likely to remain in the profession and to make
a difference for student achievement.) While some federal grants are
currently available, there are too few of them and they are too small
in scope to serve as an adequate incentive to candidates.
Service scholarships (as opposed to post hoc forgivable loans) can
be targeted to high-ability candidates who might not otherwise enter
teacher preparation. These incentives can be used proactively to
recruit candidates to the fields and locations where they are needed.
Nearly all of the vacancies currently filled with emergency teachers
could be filled with talented, well-prepared teachers if 40,000 service
scholarships of up to $25,000 each were offered annually. These should
be designed to cover up to two years of undergraduate or graduate
teacher education, including alternative programs for mid-career
recruits, and should be:
Allocated on the basis of academic merit and indicators of
potential success in teaching, such as perseverance, capacity and
commitment;
Targeted especially to areas of teaching shortage as
defined nationally and by individual states, and
Awarded in exchange for teaching for four years in
priority schools, defined on the basis of poverty rates and educational
needs (e.g. language minority status).
(2) Second, recruitment incentives for high-need schools are also
needed to attract and keep expert, experienced teachers in the schools
where they are most needed, both to teach and to mentor other teachers.
This requires a combination of salary incentives and improvements in
working conditions, including the redesign of dysfunctional school
organizations to support smaller pupil loads, and time for teachers to
work and plan together.
Federal matching grants to states and districts should provide
incentives for the design of innovative approaches to attract and keep
accomplished teachers in priority low-income schools, through
compensation for accomplishment and for additional responsibilities,
such as mentoring and coaching. $500 million would provide $10,000 in
additional compensation for 50,000 teachers annually to be allocated to
expert teachers in high-need schools through state- or locally-designed
incentive systems, recognizing teacher expertise through such
mechanisms as National Board Certification, state or local standards-
based evaluations, and carefully assembled evidence of contributions to
student learning. (Matched by state and local contributions, this
program would provide incentives to attract 100,000 accomplished
teachers to high-poverty schools.)
To keep high-quality teachers in high-poverty communities, schools
need to offer working conditions that support teacher and student
success. An additional $300 million should be allocated on a state /
district matching grant basis to improve teaching conditions,
including, as warranted, smaller classes and pupil loads,
administrative supports for necessary materials and supplies, and time
for teacher planning and professional development--all of which attract
and keep teachers in schools.
3) Third, just as the federal government has undertaken in
medicine, the Marshall plan should fund improved preparation for
teaching high-need students and for programs in high-need areas. For
this purpose, the plan would allocate $300 million to improve
preparation for teaching reading and literacy skills at all grade
levels, mathematics and science, special education, and English
language learners.
An additional $200 million of these funds should be targeted for
state-of-the-art teacher education programs in hard-to-staff
communities that incorporate ``teaching schools'' partnered with
universities, including urban teaching residencies and professional
development school models. In these programs, candidates would take
coursework focused on teaching challenging content to diverse learners
while engaged in practice teaching in schools staffed by expert
teachers and designed to model state-of-the-art practice. Since many
teachers have a strong preference to teach close to where they grew up
or went to school, this approach would also enhance the pool of local
college graduates prepared to teach in their communities. Funding for
200 programs at $1,000,000 per year per program (for 5 years), each
serving an average of 150 candidates annually, would supply 30,000
exceptionally well-prepared recruits to urban teaching each year who
would provide long-term commitment and leadership in these districts.
Improving Teacher Retention and Mobility
Most of the teacher supply problem in the United States is actually
a problem of retention. Attrition is highest in the early years of
teaching: About one-third of new teachers leave within 5 years, and the
rates are much higher for teachers who enter with less preparation and
those who do not receive mentoring. Current estimates average about
$15,000 per teacher who leaves, totaling at least $2 billion each year.
Because beginning teachers are generally less effective than those with
3 or more years of experience, continual high turnover of beginning
teachers also significantly reduces educational productivity. Stemming
this attrition is critical, as recruitment efforts are otherwise like
pouring water into a leaky bucket, rather than repairing it.
4) Providing mentoring for all beginning teachers would reduce
attrition and increase competence. A matching grant program could
ensure support for every new teacher in the nation through investments
in state and district mentoring programs. Based on the funding model
used in California's Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment Program,
a federal allocation of $4000 for each beginning teacher, matched by
states or local districts, would fund a mentor for every 10-15
beginning teachers. At 125,000 new teachers each year,[ii] an
investment of $500 million could ensure that each novice is coached by
a trained, accomplished mentor with expertise in the relevant teaching
field.
5) Finally, this preparation and mentoring can be strengthened if
they are guided by a high-quality, nationally-available teacher
performance assessment, which measures actual teaching skill in the
content areas, and which can facilitate interstate mobility. Current
examinations used for licensing and for federal accountability
typically measure basic skills and subject matter knowledge in paper-
and-pencil tests that demonstrate little about teachers' abilities to
practice effectively. Furthermore, in many cases these tests evaluate
teacher knowledge before they enter or complete teacher education, and
hence are an inadequate tool for teacher education accountability.
The Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium
(INTASC), sponsored by the Council of Chief State School Officers,
created teacher licensing standards adopted by most states and piloted
performance assessments tied to the standards; several states,
including Connecticut and California, have incorporated such
performance assessments in the licensing process. These assessments
have been found to be strong levers for improving preparation and
mentoring, as well as determining teachers' competence. Federal support
of $100 million for the development of a nationally available,
performance assessment for licensing would not only provide a useful
tool for accountability and improvement, but it would also facilitate
teacher mobility across states, if it were part of an effort to unify
the current medieval system of teacher testing that has resulted in 50
separate ``fiefdoms'' across the country. Because teacher supply and
demand vary regionally, teachers need to get easily from states with
surpluses to those with shortages, which requires license reciprocity.
With a purposeful focus, a Marshall Plan for Teaching could help
ensure within only a few years that the U.S. has developed an
infrastructure comparable to those in other countries for providing
highly-qualified teachers to all children in all communities.
______
Chairman Hinojosa. Dr. Wiley, you mentioned--by the way, I
know that your teachers have a real challenge with students as
you described in that Region One service area that you work.
You mentioned that many teachers graduated prior to No
Child Left Behind, before State content standards and new
technology played crucial roles in current education efforts.
So how do you work with experienced teachers in this regard,
and do you think Federal resources should also target
experienced teachers with 10 years or more?
Ms. Wiley. Definitely I believe that it should target
teachers, all teachers, because no matter what level, we all
still have a lot to learn. And I believe that in our
experienced teachers, many of them have served their students
well, but as we have new expectations, and as States have
developed the State standards, many of their courses are not
aligned to those standards. And so we have done a lot of work
in the Region One area to help teachers look at the curriculum
that they are teaching to ensure that it helps the students
meet the State standards, because many of the textbooks that
teachers rely on only account for maybe 30 or 40 percent of the
State standards and are not really aligned. They are aligned to
a generic curriculum rather than the specific State
expectations.
So when we work with our teachers, particularly in the math
and science, and now the expectation is that all students will
be taking higher-level courses, and being proficient, for
example, at the high school level, when many of our experienced
teachers began teaching algebra I, only top students took that
course. Now all students are required to take algebra I,
geometry and algebra II, and in Texas we have added a fourth
year of math and science.
So to help teachers tailor--because one thing that teachers
do express is they do not have enough time to teach all of the
expectations, so we really have to target explicit knowledge
that we want our students to have.
Chairman Hinojosa. Thank you, Dr. Wiley.
I would like to yield time to my good friend Congressman
Castle.
Mr. Castle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank all of you
for your presentations, and I think I will start with you, Dr.
Feistritzer.
You actually answered a lot of questions that I had, but
one question I have is in this alternative routes to teaching,
because it is more than one--I mean, I know some of them, and
there are probably a lot others--but Teach for America for
veterans coming in, and then different programs for people with
experiences, and different levels of science or training and
then coming into teaching. Is there any distinction amongst
them in terms of the quality of the teachers we are getting? Is
anyone looking at that; is you or anyone looking at it, as far
as you know?
Ms. Feistritzer. Well, that is a very good question,
because one of the recommendations that we make is that the
Congress support some real resources to study more thoroughly
what it is that makes for truly effective teachers.
So there is a lot of evidence in the alternative routes.
And I would like to clarify a bit about Teach for America and
the Troops to Teachers programs. Both of those programs are
federally funded, not exclusively in Teach for America's case,
but exclusively for Troops to Teachers. Those programs really
are recruitment efforts to bring specific populations of people
into teaching. They are not really alternate routes to teacher
certification programs because they are not certification
programs.
So when we talk about alternative routes to teacher
certification, we are really talking about those State-created
avenues whereby a person can get--a person who already has at
least a baccalaureate degree can get into teaching in an
expeditious manner besides just showing up in a classroom and
fulfilling all of the requirements that they generally would
need to take.
And there are variations on the theme of alternative routes
around the country. There are some programs that have very
rigorous criteria for entry, that have very rigorous criteria
for getting out of the program, and there are some programs
that do possibly allow some warm bodies into the school system
who might not--whose skills might not be well served to have.
The balance of alternate routes, though, has emerged to be
very selective about who they let into programs, and programs
that don't do well--because, as I said in my formal remarks,
the programs don't exist unless there is a need for teachers.
These are very official----
Mr. Castle. Are the programs sufficiently rigorous enough,
or are we dealing with something that is less than going
through a teacher certification program?
Ms. Feistritzer. I think--and I have been tracking this
issue since the early 1980s, and I know alternate routes, we
have really gathered data on every alternate route program in
the country, and I don't know of any alternate routes in this
country that do not have rigorous entry requirements. You have
to pass a test to get into one in practically every program in
the country. You have to demonstrate knowledge of the subject
matter that you are going to be teaching. They have interview
processes whereby people have to really illustrate to
interviewees that they have the competence and the desire and
the basic qualifications to teach. There are interview programs
set up now that can actually ascertain the likelihood that
someone would be a good teacher, and the programs weed people
out early. So by the time you finish an alternate route program
in this country today, you have got a pretty good teacher.
Mr. Castle. Let me go to Dr. Fallon. I know you to be
extremely knowledgeable in this area, and I am just curious as
to whether anyone is judging whether these alternative ways or
the alternative routes to certification which we have just
heard about, or alternative methodologies of teaching, Teach
for America, the Troops to Teachers, are these programs really
working? Are we getting people into the education profession? I
don't think Teach for America has an intention of having people
stay in it forever. Or are they rigorous enough, or are there
problems with it? What is your view of those kind of programs?
Mr. Fallon. I think on the whole you can be comfortable
that most of the programs that you mentioned and the ones that
are well known are rigorous enough and of reasonable high
quality. We support it with a grant, a major study of
alternative certification that was done by SLI International,
which I think came to the very sensible conclusion that--
talking about how teachers get into classrooms as if there were
something called alternative certification relative to
something else is not a very sensible way of talking about
that; that really what you ought to be talking about are
pathways into teaching. People get into teaching in a variety
of different ways, and as Emily pointed out, often you have
recruitment programs such as Teach for America and others whose
purpose it is ultimately to help those candidates get
certificates.
The knowledge base, I think, as you know better than anyone
else because you spent a career looking at these questions, is
very thin because educational research is not very well
developed or very well supported, but we have provided through
our foundation support for a variety of research efforts aimed
at exactly this question.
So we are, for example, providing support for a major study
in New York City that looks at pupil learning gains of new
teachers as a result of the pathway that took them into the
classroom. The reason we are in New York City is because it is
the largest school system in the United States. It educates
more than 1.2 million students. There are more students in the
New York City public schools than there are in 38 of the 50
States, and as a result they hire something like 6,000 new
teachers every year. And so if you look at a little matrix of
where these teachers come from and find the little box called
Teach for America, it has got 400 teachers in it. So you can
get reasonable estimates of teacher quality.
And what those findings show is that for novice teachers in
their very first year of teaching, teachers who come out of
college-recommended teacher-education programs, traditional
teacher-education programs produce significantly greater value-
added pupil learning growth than either Teach for America
candidates or the New York City Teaching Fellows.
Those differences disappear after 3 years, so that after 3
years you find that they are all producing pupil learning
growth, but it is also the case that after 3 years the Teach
for America candidates and the New York City Teaching Fellows
have gone through a certification program.
This study also does not control for differential attrition
among the different groups, so there are some things that we
don't quite know about it, but it does point in the direction
of suggesting that clinical practice, that is student teaching,
engaging in the classroom, is extremely important, because we
know that is one of the major differences between, for example,
Teach for America or similar kinds of programs and college-
recommended teachers programs.
Chairman Hinojosa. Thank you, Dr. Fallon.
I would like to recognize the gentleman from the State of
New York, Congressman Tim Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much
for holding this hearing. And to the panel, thank you all. I
have found your testimony to be very helpful.
Dr. Fallon, let me start with you. I found your suggestion
that teacher education programs include a postbaccalaureate 2-
year mentoring and supervisory component to be an intriguing
idea, and I think a very good one. As a practical matter I can
understand how it would work for gradates who are placed in
reasonable proximity to their alma mater, but how do you see it
working more broadly? Do you see a consortium of colleges of
teacher education that would supervise people in a cooperative
way in their regions, or do you see some network of supervising
teachers? Just talk to us a little bit about that.
Mr. Fallon. We are experimenting with this in these 11
different institutions. In your packet each of you has a little
laminated card that has on one side of it the listing of all of
the institutions in Teachers for a New Era, and on the other
side the design principles. In these 11 institutions we are
experimenting with these notions.
The answer to your question is that every one of them have
teachers who are in a local area and also teachers who go far
away, and what they have been doing is experimenting with
virtual mentoring sessions in which, for example, a teacher who
is having a particular difficulty can go onto a secure Website
and ask a question of somebody from the teacher education
program, saying, I had a meltdown in the classroom this
morning.
And I can't quite figure out what happened and these are
what the circumstances were, and that teacher educator back at
the university can provide in confidence to that teacher, in a
way that doesn't in fact involve any employee of the school
district, information about how to resolve that particular
problem.
Mr. Bishop. Quickly, if this idea were to be expanded, it
would seem to me that some schools of education are well funded
and would be able to accommodate the additional cost associated
with providing the service. Others would not. Do you see this
as a targeted place for Federal support to help less well-
endowed schools of education?
Mr. Fallon. I personally think it is one of the strongest
investments you can possibly make for a whole variety of
reasons.
Mr. Bishop. If I may, I am going to run out of time but I
want to go on to Dr. Robinson. But thank you, Dr. Fallon.
You talked about State certification to include a
performance assessment, again, I think an excellent idea. How
do you see that playing out? Do you see the assessment being
undertaken by the supervising teacher for the student teacher
placement or do you see it going forward in some other way?
Ms. Robinson. I see this assessment process beginning in
the program. So the design of the performance assessment would
be done in consultation perhaps with the leadership of the
State to make certain that the requirements of licensure that
the State would want would be fully reflected in the data
collected by the performance assessment.
But it could begin in the program where the student becomes
very accustomed to reflecting on practice, to reflecting on the
impact that they make on students' learning, and in making
changes in what they do. So the point is you want to be aware
of what you are doing and be able to change based on that.
Mr. Bishop. But do you see it--right now in many States
certification is awarded upon graduation from a school of
education. Do you see that as one of the minimum expectations
for graduation to reach a certain level of competency in order
to get the bachelor's degree?
Ms. Robinson. Well, the degree can be one thing but I think
licensure should be conferred based on completing a clinical
experience in which you are assessed, and not just what you
know but what you are able to do can be documented. So the
conferring the degree could be a decision quite apart from
getting the license.
Mr. Bishop. One last question and the issue of the Title II
moneys in No Child Left Behind, I believe it is only 28 percent
go to actual teacher improvement efforts and I think it is
close to 50 percent go to reduction of class sizes. It seems to
me that is a two-edged sword because certainly reasonable class
size is a component of an attractive teaching environment and
one of the ways that Dr. Hammond suggests that we incentivize
people to go to high need districts.
Would you make a suggestion for us as we reauthorize No
Child Left Behind in terms of proscribing a distribution of
those funds, or should we leave it the way it is now?
Ms. Robinson. Well, I would ask this question. What is the
investment quality? Perhaps there should be money that goes to
relieving an immediate need, and maybe class size represents
that immediate need.
But then the other funds must be given to creating a
situation where this need gets ameliorated over time or you can
stay in remediation forever. So I am concerned about how we are
evaluating the impact of it.
Mr. Bishop. Again let me sharpen the point a little bit. Do
you see it as an issue in which the Federal Government would
proscribe or do you see it as an issue that either the State or
the local school system would make that judgment?
Ms. Robinson. I think the Federal Government can require
reporting of results, documenting what happened based on the
use of the money, so that you can say to the State while you
used the money on class size but student achievement didn't
really change, therefore, your class size reduction strategy
wasn't productive, don't do that any more.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Chairman Hinojosa. Thank you. I now wish to recognize the
Congressman from Massachusetts, Congressman Tierney.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for having
this hearing, for your leadership on these issues. Dr. Fallon,
my query on this, I think the recommendations that you make are
good. And we talked about this at length before. Don't our
higher education institutions that are involved in preparing
teachers for the classroom already have the ability to
restructure their current systems to do the things that you are
talking about?
Mr. Fallon. They do have the ability to do that. I think in
many instances what you are looking for is investment capital
to allow the institution to completely redo the structures
internally that are necessary to get where they want to go. I
don't think you need indefinite funding to do this. I think you
need upfront funding. And I think part of the answer to the
question to Mr. Bishop about the academy-based induction, what
we have discovered is that the advantages of this are so
profound that the school districts pick up the costs because it
is in their best interests to do so. To get there initially is
not something----
Mr. Tierney. It is also what you expect higher education
institutions to do to prepare teachers. They are charging fair
amounts of money for tuition, and this is their job.
Ms. Robinson, how do we get some of these institutions, and
I know Mr. Fallon has listed here, some of these colleges are
very wealthy colleges with sizeable endowments, Stamford,
Boston College, whatever. How do we get them to participate in
this program so that billions of dollars that are tied up
earning interest and otherwise inactive are invested into these
kinds of things? Again from my previous comments, it bothers me
to sit there and look at Harvard, $39 billion more or less in
an endowment fund, Stamford, $3 billion fundraising venture
going on and things of that nature, while we are all struggling
trying to get resources on the public side down here. How do we
get them to loosen up to maybe put the money into
infrastructure changes and sometimes maybe not just for just
their own institutions but for a consortium of institutions
that service an area?
Ms. Robinson. I wish I knew the answer to that.
Mr. Tierney. I do, too.
Ms. Robinson. I do think that we are relying on these
institutions to provide leadership by demonstrating what is
possible, so that we can hold up these examples as the model to
be followed by others.
And then we are also undertaking important conversations
within the higher education community so that institutions
understand that investing in teacher education in order to
support the more expensive clinical component will pay off
handsomely for the university, for the community and for their
students. So, we are hoping to cajole and provide leadership
that drives people in the direction of the advanced model, if
you will, the more modern way of getting this done.
Mr. Tierney. Do you agree with Dr. Fallon that the
inhibition right now seems to be the lack of capital funding to
make the transition structurally and that there need not be a
programmatic funding that goes on and on and that most of these
schools are entirely capable of doing this kind of work but
seem to have some sort of difficulty changing over, or do you
think it is just stubbornness, they just want to stay the same
way?
Ms. Robinson. Well, I don't think we see people rushing in
the direct of rigorous clinical training because it is more
expensive to do and many colleges of education are operating
under a level budget if not a reduced budget. However, at the
same time I point out that over 1,000 teacher professional
development schools, which represent a much more rigorous
partnership and enriched clinical training model, have been
developed in the last 10 years.
Now we are talking about extending the reach of the school
of education into at least, I would say, the first 3 years of
practice, and schools of education are already starting to try
to do this on their own, but it is going to be spotty unless
there is some Federal investment that allows this to happen in
a more uniform way.
Mr. Tierney. I am sort of bothered by especially the
private institutions that charge so much and have such large
endowments, why they would even think of coming with their hand
out when this is their obligation, but to the other public
institutions and others that aren't as well endowed I
understand there is a need for that.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Too many questions, too little
time.
Chairman Hinojosa. Thank you. I want to acknowledge that we
have been joined by the gentlewoman, Congresswoman from North
Carolina, Virginia Foxx, and know that if you want to ask any
questions or have a dialogue that I would recognize you.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry that I was
dealing with a situation where we have had a death in our
district overseas, and I apologize but I was called out to do
that.
I would make one quick comment, and I apologize that I
wasn't able to hear all of the information. But I come from a
background of education. I was 12 years on a school board, 15
years as an administrator and teacher at a university where I
dealt with academic advising and orientation for new students
and as a community college president and have worked with this
issue of teacher recruitment and teacher retention over the
years in North Carolina.
And I would say that I have often said that if we pay the
teachers well and we give them the support that they need in
the classroom, that we would be able to retain a lot more of
our teachers and we would be able to recruit more people into
the classroom. I was one of a few Republicans who early on in
the North Carolina legislature supported a great increase in
pay for teachers.
I think too often the schools, the universities are hide
bound and don't make the adjustments they need to make quickly
enough. I worked there for 15 years. I know.
I was attracted to the community colleges because community
colleges generally will adapt quicker than universities do. I
frankly would like to see more emphasis on helping community
colleges provide as much of the educational preparation as we
can for people.
I think we can--it is like nursing. In North Carolina if it
weren't for the community colleges, we would have practically
no nurses because they are educating about 95 percent of the
nurses that are serving.
And I think that we would be well served if we would look
to the community colleges more, and I recommend that as a
strategy. So just from my observation from those three
perspectives, again I have been in all three of the areas, I
think that would be something that would be well worth doing.
So thank the panel and thank the chairman for recognizing me.
Chairman Hinojosa. Thank you, Congresswoman Foxx. I would
like to at this time recognize the Congresswoman from
California, Congresswoman Susan Davis.
Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank
you, all of you, for being here, good to see you. I wanted to
go back to the two areas that I think we have been focusing on
a great deal. One is the need for reflective teaching on the
part of teachers, but also getting the teachers who demonstrate
those skills into the classrooms where they are needed the
most, highest need. And I am wondering how do you see instances
where the universities who have participated in some of the
high quality programs have some incentives that they place
there for teachers to actually go into those high needs
schools?
Is there a role that the universities can play and is it--
are we needing to help incentivize them to do that also? How
can we make that work?
Ms. Robinson. It is interesting to note that as we have
tried to catalog some of the uses of Title II higher education
partnership funds, we find a number of partnerships focused at
recruitment for hard-to-staff schools in urban and rural
communities, and also there are a number of partnership
programs that involve working with the community colleges. So I
think that we have some examples here that are very, very
informative. Additionally, there is----
Mrs. Davis of California. Could you share--are there
specific strategies, whether it is loan forgiveness, whether
you have to stay there for at least 3 to 5 years? What
specifically could we look at?
Ms. Robinson. First of all, you are looking at specific
recruitment which really does help letting these able students
know that there are opportunities here that you may find very,
very challenging. Then you are looking at loan forgivenesses,
bonuses, you are looking at signing bonuses, unheard of means
of using cash, if you will, in education, but you are also
looking at offering these candidates a unique community. They
are marketing themselves by saying you will join a team doing
important work.
And I will be happy to provide an example that we actually
catalogued in a publication that we did to illustrate the
payoff for the Federal investment in higher education across a
number of topics, and recruitment is one of them.
Additionally, we are finding that recognizing really star
students and helping them position themselves early in the
labor market is paying off. We are working in collaboration
with Virginia, Delaware, D.C. And Maryland, to using a Web
based tool to allow these candidates to put their names forward
to recruiting school districts in hard-to-staff schools and say
to these candidates, have we got a deal for you, to these
students with very high TPAs and very good strong
recommendations.
Mrs. Davis of California. I appreciate that. And I don't
think, Dr. Fallon--in your work have you been able to track
teachers from perhaps going from one school to the other and
are the performance levels the same, and if I could quickly
also with the question because the time is going to run out, if
you can address national board certification. Some of the
issues you have all been talking about would reflect that. Are
there practices embedded within schools of higher education and
teaching schools where you found that that is effective or are
there some problems with reaching the larger number of teachers
that we obviously want to attract that go for that
certification?
Mr. Fallon. Let me just deal with several of the questions
that you have asked in order. The first has to do with the
question of the distribution of teachers in trying to find
circumstances that will encourage teachers to go into high
needs schools. We have been greatly impressed by the fact that
providing for an academy-based induction program that in fact
is focused on high needs schools produces teachers who really
want to go into those schools.
One of the more dramatic examples, one of our institutions
is Michigan State University, and they developed a program with
inner city Detroit and they traditionally had not been
providing teachers for inner city Detroit, and the teachers who
have been involved in that program who have done their student
teaching there and are engaged in the induction programs there
are in fact excited about doing it. It has been one of the big
growth areas at Michigan State.
Another quite interesting example to your point about is
there anything in the institutions, the universities can do,
Stanford wanted to find places where good teaching was being
the model in particularly high needs schools, and what they did
was to take advantage of the charter school legislation in
California to create charter schools in high need areas where
in fact the need for the teachers was great and good teaching
did not exist. By doing that they created a pipeline for their
own teachers, and these teachers are doing spectacular teaching
in these situations. One of them at Summit Prep in Redwood,
California, for example, is now listed as one of the top
performing schools in California. So there are examples where
this kind of strategy has worked.
On the question that you asked about do we know what it is
about the performance----
Chairman Hinojosa. Dr. Fallon, I am sorry to interrupt you.
The bells are beginning to ring. We have a series of eight
votes coming up, and I would like to give an opportunity to
other members of the committee to ask some questions before we
take that break to go vote. I am very pleased that Congressman
Scott from Virginia was able to return to the hearing, and I
would like to recognize him for a few minutes.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to follow up
the last question and ask if there was a discipline in academia
for urban education. You have elementary and secondary, but is
there a discipline for urban education because there are
certain skills that are needed there that you may not find
elsewhere?
Mr. Fallon. Several teacher education units specialize in
urban education and especially those who see that they have a
particular mission. Boston College with its Jesuit tradition
for social justice, for example, located in Boston, is heavily
focused on inner city Boston. University College in Milwaukee.
Those are institutions, for example, where you have a natural
connection with the local school district.
But let me take a case from Virginia, at the University of
Virginia in Charlottesville, you don't think of the City of
Charlottesville necessarily as a high needs urban district but
it shows all the characteristics demographically of such a
district, and of course a significant number of University of
Virginia graduates go outside of Albemarle County or the City
of Charlottesville. But increasingly because of the nature of
that program and the particular emphasis within it on urban
education and urban education issues, increasingly a number of
these graduates from the University of Virginia are going to
inner city Richmond, to inner city Norfolk and to similar types
of place of where needs are very high, and in those instances
we have found that the induction programs and other kinds of
support programs we provide for the teachers make it possible
for the teachers to stay and to do good work in those schools.
Mr. Scott. Let me just ask one other question, and I will
defer to my colleagues. If a teacher is not being successful in
teaching minority students and you see an achievement gap, a
consistent achievement gap in the students, is there in-service
professional development that can help cure that?
Ms. Robinson. Mr. Scott, there are many interventions that
could cure it, and the most important is to recognize with any
teacher that they are not producing learning gains with the
students, so that the building administrator, working with--
hopefully working in partnership with the university, can give
a teacher the opportunity to design a professional development
intervention.
But the important thing is to help teachers reflect on the
impact they are having on students' learning and recognize
where they are not having the desired result and give them
opportunities to change.
Mr. Scott. Do those interventions work? Can you make a
change?
Ms. Robinson. Sure, yes, you can make a change. Teaching is
clinical work. It is work that where you bring what you know
and are able to do to the benefit of the student. And what we
need is more teachers who have more capacity to reflect on the
impact of their work through data and through consultation with
other colleagues and other practitioners.
We are seeing a lot of improvements in the learning of low-
income students, students of English, who are not English
speakers in the home and special education.
Mr. Scott. Out of respect to my colleagues I want to defer,
but I want to follow up on that if we could. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Hinojosa. Thank you. I want to recognize the
gentleman, Congressman John Yarmuth, from the State of
Kentucky.
Mr. Yarmuth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have one
question. If we believe all the studies that we read about
United States students are way behind students in many other
nations in performance, academic performance, do we know enough
about how other countries whose students are doing better than
ours are doing, do we know enough about the way they train
their teachers and school their teachers or are those lessons
not particularly applicable to this culture? Just a fairly
broad, but naive question. Dr. Robinson, do you want to attack
that?
Ms. Robinson. Mr. Yarmuth, we know some things. We know a
lot about the way other countries are credentialing their
teachers, what the expectations are, and I will be happy to
make some of those references available. The biggest thing we
have to understand is that the training and placement of these
teachers represents one important part of a complicated
formula. There are other components such as compensation, the
status of the work in the larger society, and so forth, but
also I would say the importance of learning that is placed in
the--that learning has in the culture plays a role here as
well. So while we admit some of the results we see
internationally, we also have to recognize that our students
have a lot of distractions.
Mr. Yarmuth. Raw materials are a lot different there. Thank
you.
Voice. Can I testify? I am a former teacher. They do not
teach to standardized tests. I will tell you that much.
Mr. Hinojosa. Do you have any other questions? Thank you
very much. I want to say that before I conclude we have seen
different models that work and work very well throughout the
country, and in an area that I represent we have been focusing
a lot of efforts in the last 5 years in trying to recruit
students in middle school to look at and consider the STEM
fields and, Dr. Wiley, being that you represent that area, tell
us what you are, the teachers are doing in that area, the
schools, in collaboration with the University of Texas Pan
American and the community college to be able to help us fill
the pipeline with students towards those STEM careers.
Ms. Wiley. One of the ways we have been working with our
universities in our districts is in order to recruit we may
have a campaign in our area to recruit more of our high school,
and starting with middle school, students into the teaching
profession. And many of our high schools are designing
themselves into smaller learning communities where they are
focusing on the STEM content areas so that we can produce
students who have a high quality of math and science degrees
but who are also interested in going into the teaching
profession.
And so through the center that we have and working with the
university, we are also working with existing teachers to get
Master's Degrees in those content fields, help pay for their
tuition, so that we can better prepare the teachers who then
can better prepare students in the STEM content areas.
One of the areas that the students themselves feel if you
talk to students they say that the curriculum is not relevant.
So one of the focus of the STEM center is to put more relevance
into our curriculum so that students understand how the STEM
content is applied not just learning it for the content's sake.
And so that is the biggest effort that we are making.
Chairman Hinojosa. Thank you. Thank you. I am going to go
ahead and proceed with concluding remarks because I believe
that those eight votes are going to take quite a while and
instead of recessing we are going to go ahead and try to
conclude this.
So as previously ordered, I want to say that Members will
have 14 days to submit additional materials for the hearing
record.
Any Member who wishes to submit follow-up questions in
writing to our witnesses should coordinate with majority staff
within the requisite time.
Without objection, this hearing is adjourned.
[The Carnegie Report, submitted by Mr. Fallon, follows:]
Teachers for a New Era: A National Initiative to
Improve the Quality of Teaching
Executive summary
Recent research based on thousands of pupil records in many
different cities and states establishes beyond doubt that the quality
of the teacher is the most important cause of student achievement. More
than ever, the nation needs assurance that colleges and universities
are educating prospective teachers of the highest quality possible. The
knowledge base for teacher education is better understood today than in
1983, when an alarm was sounded by the Department of Education's
report, A Nation at Risk. During the past generation, agreement among
teacher educators has been growing on essential principles for
excellence in the standard route by which students in higher education
come to earn credentials enabling them to begin careers as teachers. A
well supported, widely adopted, fully integrated approach, however, has
been elusive.
Carnegie Corporation of New York and other funders are now
undertaking an ambitious reform initiative, Teachers for a New Era, to
stimulate construction of excellent teacher education programs at
selected colleges and universities. Success will require radical change
in allocation of resources, academic organization, criteria for
evaluating participating faculty, internal accountability measures, and
relationships with practicing schools. At the conclusion of the
project, the selected institutions should be regarded by the nation as
administering the best programs possible for the standard primary route
to employment as a beginning professional teacher.
Teachers for a New Era is organized by three design principles
described in detail in an announcement and prospectus. First, a teacher
education program should be guided by a respect for evidence, including
attention to pupil learning gains accomplished under the tutelage of
teachers who are graduates of the program. Second, faculty in the
disciplines of the arts and sciences should be fully engaged in the
education of prospective teachers, especially in the areas of subject
matter understanding and general and liberal education. Finally,
education should be understood as an academically taught clinical
practice profession, requiring close cooperation between colleges of
education and actual practicing schools; master teachers as clinical
faculty in the college of education; and residencies for beginning
teachers during a two-year period of induction.
Participation in Teachers for a New Era will be by invitation. A
national advisory panel will advise the funders, including Carnegie
Corporation of New York, on institutions to be selected. Institutions
that agree to the conditions specified in the prospectus will be
awarded up to $5 million for a period of five years, to be matched by
equal funds provided by the institution. At least six awards will be
made, staggered over three years, beginning with two awards in the 2002
fiscal year. An independent research organization will assist the
national advisory panel by providing descriptive and evaluative
analysis as necessary.
Part One: Announcement
i. rationale
New and convincing evidence that teaching is more important for
schoolchildren than any other condition has been stunning in its
clarity and exciting in its implications. Education leaders have always
known that good teaching brings about learning by pupils. Now, recent
research based upon thousands of pupil records in many different cities
and states establishes beyond doubt that the quality of the teacher is
the most important cause of pupil achievement. Excellent teachers can
bring about remarkable increases in student learning even in the face
of severe economic or social disadvantage. Such new knowledge puts
teacher education squarely in the focus of efforts to improve the
intellectual capacity of schoolchildren in the United States. More than
ever, the nation needs assurance that colleges and universities are
educating prospective teachers of the highest quality possible.
Although many tools for significant improvement of teacher
education are at hand, they have not yet been effectively assembled in
widely used productive models. The knowledge base for teacher education
is better understood today than in 1983, when an alarm was sounded
through release by the Department of Education of its famous report, A
Nation at Risk. During the past generation, agreement among teacher
educators has been growing on essential principles for excellence in
the standard route by which students in higher education come to earn
credentials enabling them to begin careers as teachers. There is a
remarkable convergence of design ideas among reform groups and
professional associations.
Many essential elements have been put in place in a number of
colleges and universities. These include reliance upon courses and
majors in the arts and sciences, close coordination with practicing
schools, and a focus on pupil learning accomplished under teacher
tutelage. Where new design ideas have been applied they have been knit
together with core elements of a good teacher education program in
basic areas such as curriculum, assessment, developmental psychology,
instructional methods, and classroom management. A well supported,
widely adopted, fully integrated approach, however, has been elusive.
What is needed is a thoroughgoing reform engaging institutions of
higher education in all of the academic programs that contribute to the
education of prospective teachers and achieving priority support and
attention by institutional administrative leadership. This kind of
reform will reinforce a growing coherent energizing vision of teaching
as a vital profession, a vision that induces high academic standards.
ii. general description
Carnegie Corporation of New York and other foundations and funding
sources now announce an ambitious reform initiative, Teachers for a New
Era, to stimulate construction of excellent teacher education programs
at selected colleges and universities. We seek a catalytic revision of
teacher education led by colleges and universities committed to a new
future for teaching and learning in the nation's schools.
Through this initiative, Teachers for a New Era, we expect outcomes
implementing radical change. Among these will be different allocation
of resources; academic organization; criteria for evaluating
participating faculty; internal accountability measures; and
relationships with practicing schools. The purpose of Teachers for a
New Era is to assist cooperating institutions in constructing and
securing exemplary programs of education for prospective teachers. At
the conclusion of the project, each of these institutions should be
regarded by the nation as the locus for one of the best programs
possible for the standard primary route to employment as a beginning
professional teacher. The benchmarks of success for this effort will be
evident in the characteristics of the teachers who graduate from these
programs. They will be competent, caring and qualified, will be
actively sought by school districts and schools, and will be known for
the learning gains made by their pupils. The quality of the teachers
prepared is expected to encourage the crafting of supportive public
policy in states and school districts and emulation of the programs by
other institutions.
Teachers for a New Era is organized by three broad design
principles, as described in detail in the attached prospectus. First, a
teacher education program should be guided by a respect for evidence. A
culture of research, inquiry, and data analysis should permeate the
program. Among the features of this culture will be attention to pupil
learning gains accomplished under the tutelage of teachers who are
graduates of the program. Thus, pupil learning will become one measure
of the effectiveness of a teacher education program. Second, faculty in
the disciplines of the arts and sciences must be fully engaged in the
education of prospective teachers, especially in the areas of subject
matter understanding and general and liberal education. Finally,
education should be understood as an academically taught clinical
practice profession. That means that there will be close cooperation
between colleges of education and actual practicing schools; master
teachers in the schools will hold appropriate appointments as clinical
faculty in the college of education; and graduates of teacher education
programs will serve a residency under supervision of a mentor during a
two-year period of induction into the teaching profession.
Participation in Teachers for a New Era will be by invitation. A
panel of experts will advise funding agencies on institutions to be
selected. Colleges and universities are expected to be invitees, but
the initiative leaves open the possibility that special groupings, such
as a consortium of smaller institutions, or a state system of higher
education, or an entire state, might qualify under special conditions.
Included in the full array selected during the course of this
initiative will be differing kinds of institutions, representing the
variety of teacher education programs in the nation. Institutions that
agree to the conditions specified in this announcement and prospectus
will be awarded up to $5 million for a period of five years, to be
matched by equal funds provided by the institution. The Corporation
expects to make six awards, staggered over three years, beginning with
two awards in Spring, 2002. Other foundations and funding sources will
also participate in this historic project and will thus provide awards
to other institutions, expanding the number of participating
institutions beyond six.
Teachers for a New Era is an initiative prepared in the belief that
persuasive construction of high quality teacher education curricula
will significantly improve the quality of teachers. In asserting that a
well-developed program will address the design principles and issues
described in the prospectus, it seeks to consolidate a consensus for
the professional basis of teaching. It aims to acknowledge the rapidly
changing conditions that support the education of prospective teachers
and thus to look forward, anticipating trends and building the
profession for the future. It will strengthen public confidence that
academic institutions are exercising responsibility for quality
education of prospective teachers.
iii. support by foundations and other funding sources
In designing Teachers for a New Era, Carnegie Corporation of New
York has reviewed research and consulted broadly with grant making
colleagues, experts in teacher education, and policy analysts. In the
course of these discussions, other foundations have joined this
initiative and committed resources. Therefore, Teachers for a New Era
will be financed by a coalition of funding agencies. Carnegie
Corporation of New York, with its own resources, is committed to making
six awards through this initiative. Other foundations or funding
sources will provide additional awards and other support.
Because several foundations or funding sources are currently
considering participation in this initiative in light of their
priorities, commitments, and budgets, a complete listing of funding
participants committed to the specific conditions and provisions of
Teachers for a New Era is not fixed at this time. Carnegie Corporation
of New York is acting as coordinator and informant. Where the term
``funding agency'' is used in this announcement and prospectus, it will
refer either to Carnegie Corporation of New York or another foundation
or funding source participating in this initiative.
The basic design principles put forward here are not proprietary.
They are directed at the public interest and can be freely borrowed and
modified by others, including legislative bodies and governmental
agencies.
iv. scope
There are many ways by which teachers acquire and sustain skills in
teaching. Teachers for a New Era is explicitly focused on just one of
these: the standard route by which students in higher education come to
earn credentials enabling them to begin careers as teachers. This is
often called the ``preservice'' teacher education curriculum. For
purposes of this initiative, the conception includes ``induction'' as
part of the standard route. Induction is a system of formal and
informal support provided to licensed beginning teachers during their
first exposure to full-time professional teaching.
Hardly any teacher education program is a single well-defined
entity. Multiple programs, such as special education or early childhood
education, as well as many different elementary and secondary education
programs, may all be housed together in one large administrative home,
but be organized in very different ways to produce specific educational
outcomes. Because local forms of organization differ, it is customary,
as in this initiative, to refer to them conveniently with a single
term: the teacher education program. The basic design principles put
forward in this prospectus, however, are meant to apply fully, as
appropriate, to each of the many specialty subprograms serving the
education of prospective teachers.
Two well-known forms of teacher education are not included in this
request for proposals. The first is ``alternative'' certification,
which provides specialized curricula for college graduates who enter
the profession of teaching directly without having participated in the
standard educational curriculum normally required for licensure. The
second consists of professional development courses and activities for
practicing teachers who need to sustain and render current their skills
as teachers, often called the ``inservice'' teacher education
curriculum. Both of these forms of teacher education are important and
are subjects of philanthropic support through other venues. Neither,
however, is a direct subject of Teachers for a New Era.
v. funding strategy
A. Base Awards
A small number of large awards will be made to selected
institutions. The awards will be for an initial period of three years,
with a contingent renewal for one additional two-year period. Thus,
award funds could extend for program design and implementation over a
period of five years. Each award will be for an amount up to one
million dollars per year, to be matched on a 1:1 basis by the receiving
institution. Matching funds may come from reallocations internal to the
higher education institution's base budget or from newly raised private
or public funds. ``In-kind'' resources, such as supplies, space, or
temporarily apportioned personnel time are, of course, encouraged, but
may not be used to meet the matching requirement.
Renewal awards will be made contingent primarily upon two
satisfactory outcomes: (1) attaining 24-month milestone goals as
described in the awardee's initial proposal; and (2) submission of a
satisfactory plan for matching funds, describing commitments obtained
and planned. At least thirty percent of all matching funds must be
pledged to endowment for support of the new program. Thus, in the case
of a maximum award, ten million dollars will be invested in the
institution for purposes of design and implementation; at least 1.5
million dollars will consist of permanent endowment.
Invited applicants should presume that they would meet the
contingency for renewal. Therefore, an invited proposal will be written
as a five-year comprehensive effort with full engagement from its
initiation. The institution's design will assume progressive and
systematic implementation throughout five years.
B. Partner Support Awards
At the beginning of the third year of support up to $250,000 will
be added to each institution's award budget to assist in the support of
partners. Upon renewal, up to an additional $500,000 will be added for
this purpose. These funds are in addition to the base award. The
awardee institution will be responsible for disbursing these funds to
partner institutions. Partners may be school districts; teacher
education programs at other institutions that agree to adopt the basic
design principles being implemented by the awardee institution; or
other institutions selected by the awardee institution in consultation
with the funding agency. Each award by an awardee institution to
support a partner may not be less than $75,000, nor more than $200,000,
and only one may be awarded to any particular partner institution.
Funding strategies for partner support awards will be developed by the
awardee institutions and implemented in consultation with the funding
agency.
vi. selection procedures and criteria
A panel of advisers will recommend to the funding agencies a set of
institutions to be invited to submit proposals for funding under terms
of the Teachers for aNew Era initiative. The members of the panel will
use their best judgment to propose institutions for selection and
ultimately to recommend specific institutions to be invited. The panel
will be assisted in its work by a research organization under contract
to the funding agencies, which will supply descriptive information,
relevant data, and analytical reports. No particular extant program is
a target for endorsement or exclusion in this initiative. The panel
will consider the universe of all institutions that harbor teacher
education programs. Programs limited to entry only by graduate students
as well as those open to beginning undergraduates are equally eligible.
Criteria for selection will include the following:
The quality of the teacher education program currently in
place at the institution
The capacity of the institution to serve as an exemplar or
model for other institutions
The impact of the institution on the enterprise of teacher
education
The local or regional public policy environment that most
directly affects the institution
The capacity of the institution to engage in leadership
activities to persuade other institutions to adopt successful features
of the design principles
The quality of the faculty and administration
Other criteria may emerge during the analysis that leads to
selection of an institution invited to apply, but those listed here
will be primary and dominant.
Part Two: Prospectus
i. design principles
Institutions invited to participate in Teachers for a New Era will
be asked to submit a proposal in conformity with this design
prospectus. The proposal will set forth how the institution will
address the design principles described here, and how it will engage
the specific issues enumerated in section II, below. The design
principles and engagement issues arise from a process of induction.
They have been shown in most cases by credible demonstration to
contribute to increases in teaching effectiveness. Where the empirical
evidence is weak, they represent consensus views of leading researchers
and practitioners, based upon experience and reason, about a secure
basis for building teaching effectiveness.
The principles and issues fit together comfortably and are not
contradictory. In that sense, they are coherent. Indeed, their
consistency is intended to convey a core understanding of normative
best practice. They suggest a theory of action, as that phrase is
commonly understood. It is that an inclusive academic culture of
research, rigorous standards and respect for evidence provides for a
self-correcting and continually improving teacher education program.
Obviously, the word theory is not used here as the exacting canons of
science define it. There is no fully constructed system. Instead, the
coherence of the principles and issues, taken together, holds promise
for perceiving elements of a general model that can readily be
disseminated nationally and adopted generally by teacher education
programs anywhere. The principles and issues provide considerable
latitude for local circumstances, imaginative approaches, and the
special strengths brought to the enterprise by any specific institution
of higher education.
A. Decisions Driven by Evidence
A teacher education program should be evaluated against the most
credible evidence of best practice. Although the qualitative,
quantitative, and experimental research base for teacher education can
be characterized as modest, it must nonetheless intelligently inform
program design. For each key element, responsible faculty should ask,
what evidence might be brought to bear upon a decision to include or
exclude this element? Adjustments to the program should be regularly
anticipated based upon reviews that confirm promising new findings.
1. Drawing Upon Research
An exemplary teacher education program should begin with a
persuasive scholarly discussion of what constitutes excellence in
teaching. It should be based upon credible evidence, which includes
sound research as well as compelling experience. Flowing from this
research-based treatment, a college or university based program of
instruction can arise from consideration of the means by which teaching
effectiveness can be increased. Of course, not every design decision
can be justified by a specific research finding. No experiment is
perfect. The best experiments point to new experiments that need to be
done. Trying to rule out alternative explanations requires mental
effort of the most demanding kind. Working continually with evidence
and evaluations of research, however, is an efficient means for
clarifying our observations and building our confidence in practice. It
builds a culture that justifies ongoing redesign of work as the program
learns from the very steps it takes to improve. Thus, research not only
precedes and supports experimentation. It accompanies and reinforces
it. The teacher education program should be informed by a broad-ranging
understanding of ongoing local research practice, and what can be
trusted from published results in the research literature.
2. The Role of Pupil Learning
A variety of teacher characteristics can be considered, on the
basis of credible evidence, to constitute criteria for measuring
success as a teacher. In every case, however, an essential criterion
must be evidence for learning accomplished by pupils entrusted to the
care of the teacher. Invited proposals will be considered only if they
contain plans to evaluate the ongoing effectiveness of the teacher
education program based in part on evidence of pupil learning that has
occurred under the tutelage of teachers who are graduates of the
program. This is understandably difficult to arrange, and few teacher
education programs currently make good use of it.
Furthermore, if pupil learning is required as a measure of the
effectiveness of teacher education, one has to allow enough time for a
teacher candidate to complete a program and to practice for several
years as a professional teacher. Therefore, it is not expected that
proposals in this competition will be able to demonstrate the
effectiveness of their proposed design using measures of pupil learning
during the period of grant support. It is required, however, that a
successful proposal contain a method by which such measures will
necessarily in due course assume their proper role in validating the
design. It is expected that data will have begun to be collected before
the period of grant support has terminated. In addition to this long-
term consideration of the role of pupil learning, attention to the
assessment and measurement of pupil learning will be an integral
element of the teacher education program, especially gaining attention
during the student teaching component.
B. Engagement with the Arts and Sciences
Faculty appointed within the disciplines of the arts and sciences
must be fully and functionally engaged in the education of prospective
teachers. Proposals must address the matter forthrightly, because there
are few successful precedents of organizational structures to
facilitate this process. The means by which this may be accomplished
will reflect the particular strengths and traditions of the applicant
institution.
Each proposal must, for example, describe how teacher candidates
will encounter and surmount subject-matter understanding and general
and liberal education, the domains of which lie principally within the
core competencies of faculty in the arts and sciences. When
conscientiously addressed in light of the requirements necessary to
enfranchise a professional teacher, it is likely that fundamental
questions will arise about the adequacy of design of academic major
programs in the arts and sciences, or about the program of general and
liberal education for all students. Such questions are important and
cannot be ignored. At the same time, their complexity and difficulty
must not block the development of a solution that is necessary for the
education of teachers. Therefore, special solutions may be required for
teacher candidates that may have the effect of requiring a particular
kind of rigor for these students beyond that which is normally required
for others.
Some faculty in the arts and sciences will be expected to
participate in the supervision of teacher candidates in clinical
settings, as the candidates learn to teach academic disciplines to
pupils in schools. Further, faculty in the arts and sciences will be
expected to join with their colleagues in professional education to
address the engagement issues described in Part II of this prospectus.
In short, significant effort on the part of arts and sciences faculty
will be required to sustain an excellent program of teacher education.
Each proposal must address how deans, department chairs, and colleagues
in the disciplines will support this effort.
1. Subject Matter Understanding
It is essential for every teacher candidate to possess an academic
major in a discipline of the arts and sciences, but even this may be
insufficient to acquire the content knowledge necessary for excellent
teaching. An evidence driven program can ask, for example, what kind of
synthetic understanding of a discipline a teacher should have in order
to take advantage of the kind of simple questions raised by ordinary
pupils in schools. In addition to specific content mastery, does the
teacher candidate possess integrative knowledge of the nature of the
discipline, its premises, modes of inquiry, and limits of
understanding?
2. General and Liberal Education
Teachers should be perceived as representatives of a profession.
Their professional authority will rest in a significant extent upon
their ability to demonstrate that they are themselves educated persons.
Therefore, teacher candidates must be expected to know more in the way
of subject matter than just what they are charged with teaching.
Teacher candidates must command general education, liberal education,
and the liberal arts. Goals in these areas should be clearly specified,
perhaps in greater detail than for other postsecondary students, and
their competencies should be assessed.
C. Teaching as an Academically Taught Clinical Practice
Profession
Successful proposals will include plans to engage faculty in the
disciplines of education functionally in the teacher education program.
The means by which this may be accomplished will reflect the particular
strengths and traditions of the applicant institution. Each proposal
must, however, address the following concepts, whose domains lie
principally within the core competencies of faculty in education.
Teachers for a New Era assumes that pedagogy lies at the heart of
education as an academic enterprise. Furthermore, it assumes that a
well-designed teacher education program relies upon sound core
principles in the teaching of pedagogy. It adds to this sound core the
implications of conceptualizing teaching as a clinical practice
profession and requires that these become an integral part of the
program design.
Excellent teaching is a clinical skill. It occurs principally with
clients (pupils) in clinics (classrooms or laboratories) arranged to
enhance its efficacy. Just as for any clinical practice profession,
there is a knowledge base for teaching that is taught and learned in
traditional academic settings. This usually includes, for example,
historical, philosophical, sociological, and economic foundations of
education. In addition to academic study, clinical practice in schools
takes place in complex public environments and entails interaction with
pupils, colleagues, administrators, families and communities. Clinical
education is developmental in its conception, and is designed to teach
clinicians not to act upon the client, but to assist the client's
growth and development. Good clinical practice keeps the client's
interests as a central focus at all times. Exemplary teacher education
provides for clinical education in a clinical setting.
1. Pedagogy
Teacher education will equip professional teachers to assess what
pupils already know and can do as the point of departure for new
learning. Teacher candidates should know how to develop a rigorous
curriculum that engages pupils, builds on their prior knowledge, and
fosters deep understanding of content. Teacher candidates should
demonstrate ability to collaborate with colleagues and families to
ensure coherence and ongoing success with pupils. Teacher candidates
will know how to observe and assess children's learning continuously in
order to plan and implement responsive instruction. Teacher candidates
will know how children develop into adults, physically and
psychologically. A professional teacher's repertoire of teaching
strategies will widen over time so that children with a range of
learning styles, abilities, and cultural backgrounds will have
effective access to schooling.
A proposal for Teachers for a New Era will include some means of
measuring the learning of pedagogy accomplished by teacher candidates
as a result of instruction provided within the teacher education
program.
2. Schools as Clinics
An exemplary teacher education program will develop close
functional relationships with a number of practicing schools.
Superintendents, principals, and experienced teachers will have an
appropriate role in advising and shaping the education of teacher
candidates. Faculty from the university or college will be actively
involved in arranging, supervising, and teaching teacher candidates in
the clinical setting of the classrooms of the practicing schools.
During periods of student teaching, teacher candidates will assess
pupil learning that occurs under their tutelage.
3. Teachers on Faculty Appointment
Outstanding experienced teachers are skilled clinicians. They can
contribute to the education of prospective teachers in formal ways in
the higher education setting. Through some appropriate process of
selection, experienced excellent teachers should be recognized as
faculty colleagues along with other teacher educators in higher
education. Some form of qualified faculty appointment may recognize
their status, e.g., clinical faculty, professor of practice, or adjunct
professor.
4. Residency (Induction)
The teacher education program will bring the teacher candidate to a
point where the candidate receives an academic degree and a state
sanctioned license to teach in a school. That has been the traditional
endpoint for teacher education programs. An exemplary teacher education
program, however, will consider the teacher candidate's first two years
of full-time regular service in the teaching profession as a residency
period requiring mentorship and supervision. During this induction
period, faculty from the higher education institution, inclusive of
arts and sciences faculty, will confer with the teacher on a regular
basis, arrange for observation of the teacher's clinical practice, and
provide guidance to improve practice. Successful completion of the
formally structured induction program will be occasion for the teacher
candidate to receive a final document acknowledging full completion of
the program and recognition as a professional teacher.
The majority of teacher education programs in the United States
educate candidates who become teachers within a nearby region, or
within the same state as the teacher education program is located.
There are highly regarded programs, however, the majority of whose
candidates seek and find initial teaching positions throughout the
United States, and well beyond the borders of the state sheltering the
teacher education program. Even those programs most of whose graduates
work nearby also produce some graduates whose first position is in a
setting remote from the locus of the program. Therefore, in designing a
residency component, proposal writers will need to consider mechanisms
for supervision during induction in locations far from the home of the
teacher education faculty. This could include, for example,
arrangements for supervision to be conducted at least in part by a
corresponding institution near to the practicing teacher. Other
solutions are possible. Distance learning technologies, structured
email accounts, interactive software programs, special courses designed
for the summer following the first year of teaching, and traveling
faculty monitors are representative ideas that could be employed.
Institutions are encouraged to seek designs for residency that provide
capable regular clinical supervision, coaching, and assistance, while
taking advantage of the special strengths and circumstances of the
teacher education program.
5. Preparation of Candidates for Professional Growth
Professional growth begins in the earliest stages of a teacher
education program with the cultivation of communities of colleagues
sharing professional interests in teaching and in the intellectual
exploration of subject matter domains. Teacher candidates should be
encouraged to participate with peers from whom they can learn
informally about professional advances, interesting ideas about subject
matter, and how to improve their teaching. They should be taught how to
join or construct informal support groups of colleague teachers in the
school environments where they will be teaching. When the professional
teacher has completed an exemplary teacher education program, the
teacher will be well prepared to engage in regular professional
development activities to sustain and develop further the skills of
clinical practice. This could include such activities as embarking upon
activities leading to certification by the National Board for
Professional Teaching Standards, or applying for fellowship support for
competitive programs of professional renewal, or designing a program
for further graduate study, or participating regularly in workshops
offered by the school district.
ii. issues to be addressed jointly by faculties in education and in
arts and sciences
Section I describes three basic design principles: reliance upon
credible evidence; engagement with the arts and sciences; and teaching
as an academically taught clinical practice profession. They cut across
most elements of teacher education. Some issues should be specifically
considered by faculties in education working jointly with faculties in
arts and sciences in preparing a proposal for consideration in this
competition.
A. Pedagogical Content Knowledge
There is a kind of knowledge essential to teaching that arises not
from subject matter understanding alone, nor from pedagogy alone, but
requires competence in both for its formation. This pedagogical content
knowledge, or subject-specific pedagogy, must be treated as an integral
part of an exemplary teacher education program, and it requires the
joint effort of faculties in the arts and sciences and in education. A
deep understanding of subject matter is necessary, enabling the teacher
to develop a rich repertoire of metaphors, sufficient to reach pupils
whose range of experience may be quite different than the teacher's.
Fashioning effective metaphors permits the teacher to build a bridge
between the knowledge possessed by the teacher and the implicit
understandings brought into the learning situation by the pupil.
Pedagogical content knowledge is more than the ability to find
effective metaphors. It is a breadth, depth and flexibility of
understanding in a field that allows a person to teach imaginatively
and productively. It recognizes the cognitive world of the potential
learner as a fundamental part of an equation for teaching, thus linking
the learner to the subject-matter mastery of the teacher.
B. Literacy/Numeracy Skills
Essential requirements for effective citizenship remain the ability
to read well, to write clearly, effectively, and in accord with
conventional standards of grammar and spelling, and to perform simple
arithmetic operations quickly and correctly. Many postsecondary
students lack some or all of these skills. Teachers, however, must not
only demonstrate mastery of them, but also be prepared to bring about
mastery in the pupils they teach. An exemplary program of teacher
education will, therefore, have some means to ensure that teacher
candidates acquire and demonstrate mastery of literacy/numeracy skills,
and that they are prepared to teach them, irrespective of the level at
which they will be teaching.
C. Elementary and Middle School Education
A broad consensus exists that teachers preparing to teach at the
secondary level ought to possess an academic major in the discipline
they intend to teach. There is no similar consensus, however, for the
more complex and academically engaging question of what should be the
appropriate academic major for a candidate preparing to teach at the
elementary level. At present, plausible cases are made for arbitrary
selection of any major in the arts and sciences, for a major in
developmental psychology, for an interdisciplinary major in the arts
and sciences, for a specialized curriculum in pedagogy, or for other
possibilities.
The question of the academic concentration for a candidate
intending to become an elementary school teacher deserves early
attention in the construction of an exemplary program of teacher
education. It should be addressed in a rigorous way, with close
attention to credible evidence from the research literature, and in
intensive discussion with faculty representing disciplines of the arts
and sciences. How can elementary teachers learn the core structure of
multiple disciplines so they are prepared to teach a wide variety of
content knowledge? What is the core structure of disciplines central to
an elementary teacher's ability to react to student understanding with
agile manipulation of content in ways that make it understandable? How
can an elementary teacher develop subject matter understanding that
goes beyond the ability to recall information from introductory survey
courses? How can synthetic understanding of a discipline be helpful to
an elementary school teacher?
Similar concerns may also apply to the question of an appropriate
academic major for a prospective middle-school teacher and should,
therefore, also be directly addressed and resolved.
D. Technology
The basic processes of teaching and learning do not require much
more than pupils and teachers. New technologies often appear, however,
that can facilitate both teaching and learning, and historically
excellent teachers have welcomed them. Knowing how to use facilitative
technologies effectively is an essential skill in the teacher's
repertoire. Our current era has placed enormous demands upon this
requirement, however, because the economy is producing extraordinary
new technologies at a very high rate. Potentially effective but
unproven technologies exist along with excellent older ones, obsolete
ones, and ineffective ones. An exemplary teacher education program will
integrate instruction about technology throughout the program. It will
be focused upon building the knowledge teachers need to evaluate which
technologies have proven effective and how to use these technologies
for teaching and for learning.
E. Cultural Considerations in Teaching and Learning
There are today in the United States more adherents of Islam than
there are Episcopalians. More than 70 percent of the pupils in the Los
Angeles unified school district are immigrants from Latin America, as
are more than 50 percent of the pupils in Dodge City, Kansas. In many
of the nation's largest cities, some districts are composed by
majorities of more than 90 percent of pupils whose parents are
Americans with family histories hundreds of years old on this continent
and of African descent. In many communities Asian families form an
imposing majority, and everywhere a current tide of immigration from
throughout the world is affecting the makeup of the nation's
classrooms. Given the current and projected future teaching force, the
cultural composition of the body of teachers will continue to be very
different from the cultural composition of pupils for the foreseeable
future. To recognize the implicit understandings of the world brought
into the classroom by the learner, teachers need to comprehend basic
elements of the cultures in which the pupils live. An exemplary program
of teacher education will devote attention to considerations of
national culture, representative cultures, and how sensitivity to
culture works as an ally to effective teaching. Curriculum materials
and teaching strategies must aim at accuracy with respect to what
accepted research findings have reported on differing cultural
traditions and their effects upon learning.
F. Recruitment of Under-Represented Groups into Teaching
The national need for teachers of high quality is great. In many
settings salaries are increasing and working conditions are good.
Teacher candidates come from a variety of backgrounds and
circumstances. There is an especially pressing need for teacher
candidates who represent minority communities, for those who can teach
science and mathematics, and for those who can develop the special
skills to teach pupils who face unusual challenges to learning.
Faculties in the arts and sciences as well as in education should
encourage and support postsecondary students who express an interest in
teaching as a profession. Talented students should be especially
encouraged.
G. Late Deciders in an Undergraduate Program
Many excellent teachers arrive at a decision to adopt the
profession late in their undergraduate careers. Furthermore, many
teacher candidates begin study at one institution and then transfer to
another where they plan to continue. In many cases the point of entry
is a two-year community college that provides the teacher candidate
with subject matter instruction in key areas, such as mathematics and
science. Late deciders and transfer students can pose problems for
programs that admit teacher candidates as undergraduate students. An
exemplary undergraduate program leading to primary certification will
anticipate that some teacher candidates will seek to enter the program
after the point that the program considers optimal for the ideal
beginning candidate. Late deciders are often very strong candidates who
can develop into excellent teachers. Therefore, specific provisions
should be developed within the program to ease the entry of candidates
who come to the program later than the normally indicated point of
admission. Such candidates should not be penalized by undue delay in
prospects for graduation, but rather should be given allowance
appropriately for coursework already taken or knowledge gained outside
the program. Proposal writers should not conceive this option as a form
of alternative certification, but rather of late entry by qualified
candidates into a program of primary certification.
iii. accountability
A. Project Manager
The project manager for an award from Teachers for a New Era must
be an officer within the office of the Chief Executive Officer or of
the Chief Academic Officer of a college or university maintaining a
program of teacher education. The award will not be made to a nested
school or college, or to a dean, but only to an officer with
administrative authority that extends throughout all academic units of
the institution. The project manager will be accountable for
implementing the initiative, managing its details, and bringing it to
successful completion.
B. Approval by the Governing Board
After selection and submission of a proposal, upon notification by
the funding agency of approval for an award, the Chief Executive
Officer will be requested to take the proposal to the institution's
governing board for its formal approval. Award of a grant under the
conditions of Teachers for a New Era will be conditional upon approval
of the final proposal by the governing board of the institution.
C. Coordinating Council
Proposals prepared for consideration under the conditions of
Teachers for a New Era will be required to contain provision for a
coordinating council. The purpose of the council will be to receive
reports on the status of the teacher education redesign initiative, to
monitor its ongoing progress, to facilitate its success, to publicize
its achievements, and to offer advice. In order to perform these
functions, the council will probably need to meet at least quarterly,
and should be apprised of budgetary status and curricular developments.
The council should be convened by the project manager, and chaired by
the Chief Academic Officer. The proposing institution will design the
composition and specific charge of the coordinating council. The
following representatives, or their equivalents, may be considered
appropriate: a school board member; a practicing teacher; a school
principal; a superintendent; a representative from a professional
association representing teachers; a representative from an appropriate
community-based organization; a representative from local business or
industry; a member of the State Board of Education; a faculty member
from the School of Education; a faculty member from the Arts and
Sciences; the Dean of Education, ex officio; and the Dean of Arts and
Sciences, ex officio.
D. Dissemination
Institutions selected for awards under the conditions of Teachers
for a New Era will be national exemplars of best practice in the field
of teacher education. This imposes a responsibility for dissemination
of lessons learned, successful innovations, and difficulties
encountered. The funding agencies will undertake to bring the grant
recipients together at least once annually for a participatory
conference for as long as any grants are active. Proposal writers
should describe efforts they plan to encourage other institutions to
follow their lead. These could include, for example, residencies for
teacher educators from other institutions; newsletters; plans for
regular presentations at local, state, regional, and national
conferences; and invitational conferences to other institutions to
visit the grantee institution for discussions of teacher education. The
partner support grant funds, which will become available in the third
year of the award, will be helpful for this purpose. Proposal writers
should also include budgeted amounts from the base grants to promote
dissemination of successful design.
iv. proposal specifications
A. Format
Proposals may be organized in any form that the writer feels will
most effectively present the proposed ideas, subject only to the
following constraints. The proposal should consist of a narrative, plus
appendices. The total length of the narrative may not exceed 7,500
words, a measure that can be calibrated with most word processing
programs. Each page should include a header that contains the name of
the institution on whose behalf the proposal is submitted, in addition
to the page number. The narrative should specify the current status of
the teacher education program, which can be viewed as a baseline from
which change will be measured. It should then include sections that
address each of the lettered and numbered paragraphs described in
section I (Design Principles) and section II (Issues to be Addressed
Jointly) of this design prospectus, indicating how and where change is
expected as a result of activities sponsored by the award. These may
later be used as benchmarks for success. The first appendix should
address each of the lettered paragraphs described in section III
(Accountability). The second appendix should describe milestone goals
that the awardee institution expects to meet by the end of the first 24
months of grant-supported activity. The degree of success in meeting
these goals will be one of the criteria used for determining whether to
award a renewal grant for an additional two years beyond the first
three years of grant-supported activity. Other appendices may be
included at the discretion of the writer, for informational purposes.
B. Budget
1. Foundation Funds
Although the design initiative is expected to extend over a five-
year period, grants will be awarded first for a three-year period, with
a contingent renewal possible for an additional two years. A detailed
budget is required for the first three years of the proposed grant, and
may not exceed $3 million from foundation funds for this period. A
general outline of proposed expenditures for the two-year contingent
renewal grant should be included as part of the proposal, in the
context of an anticipated five-year grant period. Total expenditures
from funds supplied by the funding agency may not exceed $5 million
over five years. The budget can be presented in narrative form as a
summary in a budget appendix, although the specific proposed spending
plan for the first three years should be detailed in the standard
budget request template supplied by Carnegie Corporation of New York or
another funder. Guidelines, including limitations on indirect costs,
are provided with the budget request template.
2. Matching Funds
It is expected that receipts and secure pledges for $5 million in
matching funds will have been secured by the conclusion of an
anticipated five-year grant period. At least 30 percent of the matching
funds must be pledged to permanently endowed accounts. No matching
funds are required in advance, and a detailed fundraising strategy is
not required until the grantee submits a renewal proposal about 30
months after the start of grant-supported activity. At the time of
submission of the renewal proposal, it is expected that substantial
matching funds will have been received. The kinds of funds that can be
considered as matching funds for purposes of this grant proposal are
described in Part One, Announcement, section V (A) of this announcement
and prospectus. Carnegie Corporation of New York will provide, upon
request, limited assistance and advice to institutions seeking help in
raising funds. The commitment to secure matching funds should be signed
by the institution's chief executive officer and submitted with the
initial three-year grant proposal. At the time of submission of the
renewal proposal, a separate budget appendix will be required
containing a brief narrative description of plans for the use of the
matching funds, including the apportionment for endowment purposes.
C. External Evaluation
Each proposal must contain a provision, financed by grant-provided
funds, for an evaluation of the conduct and success of the program. The
evaluation should be conducted by an agency external to the teacher
education program and contain provision both for formative evaluation
and summative evaluation. The formative evaluation should begin with
the initiation of grant-supported activity, providing for continuous
improvement of the design initiatives as experience is gained from
their implementation. The summative evaluation can begin before the
cessation of grant-supported activity. Although the summative
evaluation can conclude after expiration of the grant, the funding
agency will expect to receive the final report of the evaluation.
D. Timeline, Submission, and Selection
Assisted by an independent research agency under contract to
Carnegie Corporation of New York a panel of expert external evaluators
will advise funding agencies of institutions to be invited to submit
proposals for Teachers for a New Era. Once an institution has submitted
a proposal, evaluation will begin immediately. Acting with benefit of
advice from the panel, negotiations will be undertaken with the
submitting institution aimed at strengthening the proposal. The
Corporation plans to make the first two awards by May 1, 2002. The same
cycle will be repeated for the following two years, until six awards
have been made. Other funding agencies will be making awards on
differing schedules in accordance with their own procedures and
requirements.
general references
Boston Public Schools. (1998). ``High school restructuring.''
Newsletter, March 9, 1998.
Coleman, J. S., et al. (1996). Equality of educational opportunity.
Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A
review of state policy evidence. Education policy analysis
archives, 8(1), http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/
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. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Ferguson, R. F., & Ladd, H. F. (1996). How and why money matters: an
analysis of Alabama schools. In H. F. Ladd (ed.), Holding
schools accountable: performance-based reform in education.
Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Goldhaber, D. D., & Brewer, D. J. (1997). Evaluating the effect of
teacher degree level on educational performance. In W. J.
Fowler (ed.), Developments in school finance, 1996. Washington,
DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Goldhaber, D. D., & Brewer, D. J. (1999). Teacher licensing and student
achievement. In M. Kanstoroom & C. E. Finn (eds.), Better
teachers, better schools. Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham
Foundation.
Kain, J. F. (1998). The impact of individual teachers and peers on
individual student achievement. Paper presented at the 20th
annual research conference of the Association for Public
Policy Analysis and Management. New York City, October 31.
Monk, D. H. (1994). Subject area preparation of secondary math and
science teachers and student achievement. Economics of
education review, 13(2), 125-145.
Rivkin, S. G., Hanushek, E. A., & Kain,
J. F. (1998). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. National
bureau of economic research, working paper number 6691.
Sanders, W. L., & Rivers, J. C. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects
of teachers on future academic achievement. Knoxville, TN:
University of Tennessee Value-Added Research and Assessment
Center.
Wilson, S. M., Floden, R. E., & Ferrini-Mundy, J. (2001). Teacher
preparation research: Current knowledge, gaps, and
recommendations (U.S. Department of Education Research Report
Doc. R-01-3). Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and
Policy.
______
[Whereupon, at 11:30 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]