1 highly qualified teachers new results for 2005-2006

1

Highly Qualified Teachers

New Results for 2005-2006

2

Closing the Gap• The Board of Regents is focused on improving

student achievement and closing the gap.• Increasing the number of highly qualified

teachers is an important part of that.• Students have higher standards, from pre-

kindergarten through high school. Teachers must also meet higher standards.

• The Regents have also required that students get extra help to meet those standards. Teachers also need help to reach higher standards.

3

The Board of Regents has enacted reforms to improve teacher quality and

eliminate shortages:• Eliminated 16,000 uncertified teachers.• Created alternative pathways to recruit experienced

professionals.• Required all teacher education programs to meet higher

standards and be accredited.• Required new teachers to have a major in the subject for

which they are certified.• Required new teachers to pass the Content Specialty Test.• Required that teachers get 175 hours of professional

development tied to the learning standards every 5 years.

4


• New York raised the percent of core classes taught by highly qualified teachers in every subject except the arts between 2004-05 and 2005-06.

• New York also narrowed, but did not close, the teacher quality gap between high and low poverty schools.

5

What Is a Highly Qualified Teacher?

• Federal law requires that highly qualified teachers must:

• Have a bachelor’s or higher degree• Meet State certification standards• Demonstrate subject matter

knowledge in their teaching assignments in one of the ways required by law.

6


• Improvement was statewide, with improvement in all subjects except the arts. New York City especially improved in all subjects.

• Results were uneven in some districts, with an improvement in the percent of highly qualified teachers in some subjects and a decline in others.

7

Changes in Data from Year to Year• The federal government required changes in how each

state counts highly qualified teachers this year. In 2004-05, an elementary teacher was counted once for all classes taught. In 2005-06, each of the 5 or so classes taught by each elementary teacher counted separately.

• To the extent that elementary teachers are often more highly qualified, that additional weighting this year could affect some overall district totals.

• Therefore, the best comparison is within subjects (English, math, etc.) and within categories (elementary, middle/high school), where there was NO relative change in the federal rules for counting highly qualified teachers.

8

Bottom Line:Changes in Data from Year to Year

• The improvement is real, as can be seen by comparing results by subject (English, math, etc.) and by category (high poverty elementary vs. low poverty elementary, etc.) within each district and in the State as a whole.

• But some overall improvement in some districts may be caused by federally-required changes in counting.

9

Why the Improvement?• Regents reforms are working.• In addition, school districts have used more

intensive and effective recruiting, often starting earlier in the year.

• Some districts have also worked with innovative programs like Teach for America and Math for America to recruit experienced individuals. New York City has its Teaching Fellows program.

• School districts have also more carefully assigned teachers to classes for which they are qualified.

10

Percent of Core Academic Classes Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers

2004-05 2005-06 Improvement

Elementary High Poverty Quartile

81.7% 91.9% +10.2%

Low Poverty Quartile

98.1% 99.1% +1.0%

Gap 16.4% 7.2% -9.2%

Middle/High School

High Poverty Quartile

80.3% 82.6% +2.3%

Low Poverty Quartile

97.2% 97.8% +0.6%

Gap 16.9% 15.2% -1.7%

The gap between high and low poverty schools narrowed but did not close.

11

All Subjects: Percent of Core Classes Not Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers 2005-06

(Numbers in parentheses show the percent in 2004-05)

Core

Subject Areas

New York State-All Public Schools

Need/Resource Capacity (N/RC Category)

High N/RC Districts

New York

City Buffalo Rochester Syracuse Yonkers

Elementary (one or more subjects)

(4.3) 3.1% (9.6) 6.4% (1.0) 0.8% (6.4) 6.0% (4.7) 7.4% (0.6) 0.2%

English (8.7) 4.9% (24.7) 13.3% (3.0) 0.8% (1.6) 7.1% (4.3) 8.8% (1.2) 0.0%

Mathematics (7.9) 5.7% (21.9) 15.2% (3.7) 1.4% (15.8) 17.2% (8.8) 7.3% (3.7) 1.7%

Reading (7.5) 4.7% (31.4) 18.2% (2.0) 1.8% (34.1) 44.9% (4.4) 16.1% (----) 0.0%

Science (9.7) 8.0% (25.1) 20.3% (13.1) 9.8% (5.8) 16.0% (9.3) 9.7% (6.5) 1.7%

Social Studies (4.6) 3.9% (12.9) 9.9% (3.1) 1.0% (7.3) 8.0% (1.8) 3.3% (----) 0.0%

Arts (6.9) 7.8% (31.3) 30.8% (5.9) 0.7% (7.4) 9.4% (7.9) 9.1% (1.1) 1.4%

Foreign Languages (11.2) 8.7% (24.4) 17.4% (28.4) 12.9% (19.4) 21.5% (40.7) 48.3% (2.6) 0.0%

All other core classes (career and technical, special education, bilingual, multiple subjects, unspecified subjects)

(10.2) 9.0% (24.4) 20.1% (7.6) 5.9% (15.3) 16.2% (10.6) 13.4% (2.9) 0.5%

Total (7.9) 5.5% (21.4) 13.0% (6.8) 2.8% (11.6) 10.6% (9.3) 10.6% (2.9) 0.6%

Statewide and the Big Five Cities: The percent of core classes NOT taught by highly qualified teachers varied from subject to subject and between districts.

12

All Subjects: Percent of Core Classes Not Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers


Core

Subject Areas



High Need Urban/

Suburban

High Need

Rural Districts

Average N/RC

Districts

Low

N/RC

Districts

Charters, BOCES & State Schools

Elementary (one or more subjects)

(4.3) 3.1% (2.2) 1.5% (0.8) 0.8% (0.9) 0.9% (1.2) 0.8% (8.8) 17.3%

English (8.7) 4.9% (4.2) 2.4% (2.3) 1.7% (2.1) 1.4% (2.0) 1.2% (8.7) 9.0%

Mathematics (7.9) 5.7% (3.9) 2.3% (3.2) 2.3% (2.1) 1.5% (1.8) 0.9% (12.3) 12.1%

Reading (7.5) 4.7% (3.4) 1.5% (4.7) 2.9% (2.1) 1.7% (1.1) 0.6% (3.9) 10.2%

Science (9.7) 8.0% (5.0) 3.0% (4.6) 3.4% (2.8) 1.9% (2.2) 1.7% (11.8) 17.9%

Social Studies (4.6) 3.9% (2.0) 1.7% (1.5) 1.7% (1.5) 1.2% (1.3) 1.3% (4.2) 13.8%

Arts (6.9) 7.8% (10.8) 2.2% (2.2) 2.0% (1.6) 1.7% (1.6) 1.7% (9.6) 27.0%

Foreign Languages (11.2) 8.7% (5.5) 7.0% (12.8) 9.4% (6.4) 5.1% (2.7) 4.5% (33.2) 44.7%

All other core classes (career and technical, special education, bilingual, multiple subjects, unspecified subjects)

(10.2) 9.0% (5.5) 3.7% (4.5) 3.5% (2.6) 2.5% (2.2) 2.6% (6.7) 7.1%

Total (7.9) 5.5% (4.2) 2.4% (3.5) 2.2% (2.3) 1.6% (2.2) 1.5% (8.2) 13.3%

Rest of the State: The percent of core classes NOT taught by highly qualified teachers varied from subject to subject and between districts.

13

Percent of “Special Classes” for Students with Disabilities

Not Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers 2005-06


Special Classes for Students with Disabilities in Core Subjects



High N/RC Districts

New York


Elementary (8.8) 7.9 (16.7) 14.0 (0.6) 7.7 (14.5) 12.1 (6.0) 8.9 (1.1) 0.0

Middle/High School (9.5) 10.3 (24.8) 24.6 (3.8) 3.8 (6.7) 15.2 (9.8) 15.4 (2.8) 0.3

Other (2.7) 1.7 (4.7) 2.9 (0.6) 0.6 ( 7.8) 7.4 (4.0) 3.5 (3.4) 0.0

Total (8.1) 8.2 (20.6) 19.0 (2.4) 3.8 (11.5)13.4 (7.5) 10.6 (2.7) 0.2

Note: Elementary assignments are special classes in Grades K-6 or special classes in which all students are eligible to take the New York State Alternative Assessment.

Middle/secondary assignments are special classes in Grades 7-12.

Big 5 Cities: Many special classes for students with disabilities were taught by teachers who were NOT highly qualified in some districts.

14

Percent of “Special Classes” for Students with Disabilities

Not Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers 2005-06





High Need Urban/

Suburban

Districts

High Need Rural Districts

Average

N/RC

Districts

Low

N/RC

Districts

Charters,

BOCES and State Schools

Elementary (8.8) 7.9 (2.8) 3.3 (3.4) 3.5 (1.5) 1.5 (1.5) 1.6 (1.6) 3.0

Middle/High School ( 9.5) 10.3 (3.6) 2.5 (5.7) 2.7 (2.2) 2.5 (3.1) 5.3 (2.0) 3.2

Other (2.7) 1.7 (2.0) 1.3 (0.9) 0.2 (2.0) 0.8 (0.5) 1.7 (4.5) 3.3

Total (8.1) 8.2 (3.2) 2.4 (4.1) 2.4 (2.0) 1.9 (2.1) 3.6 (2.6) 3.2

Note: Elementary assignments are special classes in Grades K-6 or when all students are eligible to take the New York State Alternative Assessment.

Middle/secondary assignments are special classes in Grades 7-12.

Rest of the State: The number of special classes for students with disabilities taught by teachers who were NOT highly qualified is low in many districts.

15

Science: Percent of Core Classes Not Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers 2005-06

((Numbers in parentheses show the percent in 2004-05)

Science



High N/RC Districts

New York


Biology (7.5) 6.2 (17.6) 14.4 (10.0) 5.5 (6.3) 8.5 (2.0) 4.3 (7.2) 3.3

Chemistry (7.2) 7.0 (21.3) 20.4 (27.6) 32.1 (---) 7.3 (19.0) 14.8 (16.2) 0.0

Earth Science (17.5) 15.6 (43.5) 51.8 (18.5) 22.4 (8.0) 21.7 (15.4) 13.3 (--) 6.5

Physics (11.2) 10.2 (30.8) 28.6 (10.7) 6.1 (15.0) 11.5 (33.3) 28.6 (--) 0.0

Other Sciences (8.0) 6.8 (27.0) 16.5 (8.8) 2.1 (5.1) 21.3 (8.7) 10.1 (4.6) 0.0

Total (9.7) 8.0 (27.5) 20.3 (13.1) 9.8 (6.3) 16.0 (9.5) 9.7 (7.4) 1.7

Note: “Other sciences” includes general science, life science, and physical science as well as science electives such as astronomy.

Big 5 Cities: In the sciences, more earth science and physics classes were taught by teachers who were NOT highly qualified, but many districts improved.

16

Science: Percent of Core Classes Not Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers 2005-06





High Need Urban/

Suburban

Districts

High Need Rural Districts

Average

N/RC

Districts

Low

N/RC

Districts

Charters,

BOCES and State Schools

Biology (7.5) 6.2 (5.0) 2.6 (3.7) 2.5 (2.6) 1.7 (1.7) 1.2 (8.1) 9.4

Chemistry (7.2) 7.0 (3.9) 2.7 (2.8) 2.9 (2.3) 2.3 (2.4) 1.2 (8.9) 17.6

Earth Science (17.5) 15.6 (6.3) 5.0 (8.7) 5.9 (5.1) 3.8 (4.4) 2.5 (10.0) 17.0

Physics (11.2) 10.2 (14.4) 2.2 15.4) 11.8 (4.4) 4.3 (3.3) 3.6 (3.6) 11.1

Other Sciences (8.0) 6.8 (4.0) 2.7 (2.7) 2.2 (1.9) 1.0 (1.3) 1.4 (11.8) 22.6

Total (9.7) 8.0 (5.1) 3.0 (4.6) 3.4 (2.8) 1.9 (2.2) 1.7 (9.8) 17.9

Note: “Other sciences” includes general science, life science, and physical science as well as science electives such as astronomy.

Rest of the State: In the sciences, more earth science and physics classes were taught by teachers who were NOT highly qualified, but many districts improved.

17

Reforms in Teaching To Come• Expand the pool of qualified teachers in areas

where they’re needed most. Use supply and demand data to connect colleges with local districts. Identify targets.

• Expand alternative teacher preparation programs, new pathways to certification to recruit and retain teachers. Create a path for paraprofessionals to become teachers.

• Evaluate the quality of professional development, ensure current teachers get knowledge, skills on how to teach reading, other key areas.

18

Reforms in Teaching To Come• Improve environmental conditions that affect

teacher retention. Investigate incentives.• Strengthen teacher education to ensure all

teachers get the skills they need to teach reading, math, students with disabilities, English Language Learners.

• Bring retired teachers back into the workforce without pension penalty where they are needed.

• Expand Teachers of Tomorrow, Teacher Opportunity Corps.

19


New Results for 2005-2006

1 highly qualified teachers new results for 2005-2006

Documents