75p.document resume. ed 415 183 sp 037 689. author darling-hammond, linda title doing what matters...

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 415 183 SP 037 689

AUTHOR Darling-Hammond, LindaTITLE Doing What Matters Most: Investing in Quality Teaching.INSTITUTION National Commission on Teaching & America's Future, New

York, NY.ISBN ISBN-0-9654535-3-7PUB DATE 1997-11-00NOTE 75p.

AVAILABLE FROM National Commission on Teaching & America's Future, KutztownDistribution Center, 15076 Kutztown Road, P.O. Box 326,Kutztown, PA 19530-0326 ($15.00).

PUB TYPE Reports Research (143)EDRS PRICE MF01/PC03 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Beginning Teacher Induction; Change Strategies; Educational

Change; *Educational Quality; Elementary School Teachers;Elementary Secondary Education; Faculty Development;Government School Relationship; Higher Education; InserviceTeacher Education; *Knowledge Base for Teaching; PreserviceTeacher Education; Public Schools; Secondary SchoolT,:a,..1,,rs; State GL=nment; State Standards; TeacherCertification; *Teacher Effectiveness; TeacherQualifications; Teacher Recruitment; Teacher Salaries;Teacher Shortage; *Teacher Supply and Demand; TeachingConditions

ABSTRACTThis report gauges progress toward achieving high quality

teaching in every classroom, using data about teaching conditions that are,new since publication of an earlier report by the National Commission onTeaching and America's Future. Section 1, "Doing What Matters Most: Investingin Quality Teaching," describes the Commission's original findings andrecommendations following two years of study. Findings indicate that mostschools and teachers cannot achieve new educational goals because they do notknow how and do not receive support to do so. Recommendations include linkingteacher standards to student standards, reinventing teacher preparation andprofessional development, overhauling teacher recruitment, putting qualifiedteachers in every classroom, and organizing schools for success for all.Section 2, "America's Agenda for Education," discusses new standards and newstudents in America's schools, examining why and how teaching matters.Section 3, "Lessons from Last Decade's Reforms," discusses major initiativesin North Carolina, Connecticut, and other states for improving teachingquality. Section 4, "The Current Status of Teaching," discusses teacherrecruitment and teacher supply and demand; salaries and working conditions;retention; qualifications and training; reform of teacher education andinduction; access to professional development; and progress in school reform.Section 5, "Evidence of Progress," describes federal, state, and localinitiatives to improve quality. Six appendixes offer state report cards onteacher quality; state-by-state data tables; National Council for theAccreditation of Teacher Education, Interstate New Teacher Assessment andSupport Consortium, and National Board standards; Commission staff, advisors,and consultants; partner state contact persons; and national organizationpartners and contact persons. (SM)

DoingMatters Most:Investing inQ T

, i.

*AV

U S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educational Research and Improvement

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

This document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organizationoriginating it.Minor changes have been made toimprove reproduction quality.

Points of view or opinions stated in thisdocument do not necessarily representofficial OERI position or policy.

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS

BEEN GRANTED BY

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)

1

Prepared for The National Commissionon Teaching and erica's Future

November, 1997

BEST COPY MBA 17,LE

Published by the National Commission on Teaching & America's Future

The work of the National Commission on Teaching & America's Future, initiated in 1994, hasbeen supported by grants from the Rockefeller Foundation, Carnegie Corporation of New York,the AT&T Foundation, the BellSouth Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the William R. KenanJr. Charitable Trust, the Philip Morris Companies Inc., and the National Center for EducationalGovernance, Finance, Policy Making, and Management of the US Department of Education'sOffice of Educational Research and Improvement.

The Commission was created to identify the implications for teaching embodied in currentschool reforms; to examine what steps need to be taken to guarantee all children access toskilled, knowledgeable, and committed teachers; and to develop a comprehensive blueprint forrecruiting, preparing, and supporting a teaching force that can meet 21st-century standards ofhigh educational performance. The Commission's report, What Matter Most: Teaching forAmerica's Future, was released in September 1996.

© 1997 National Commission on Teaching & America's FutureNew York, New York.All rights reserved.Printed in the United States of America.First Edition.

ISBN 0-9654535-3-7

Portions of this work may be reproduced without permission, provided that acknowledgement isgiven to the National Commission on Teaching & America's Future. Limited permission is alsogranted for larger portions to be reproduced by nonprofit and public agencies and institutionsonly, solely for noncommercial purposes and provided that acknowledgment as expressed aboveis prominently given. Reproduction or storage in any form of electronic retrieval system for anycommercial purpose is prohibited without the express written permission of the Commission.

Additional copies of this publication may be ordered for $15 each. Orders can be prepaid bycheck or money order, payable to the National Commission on Teaching & America's Future, orcan be charged to major credit cards. Contact:

National Commission on Teaching & America's FutureKutztown Distribution Center

15076 Kutztown Road, P.O. Box 326Kutztown, PA 19530-0326

Tel: 888-492-1241

Please call for bulk rates.

Visit the Commission's Web site: www.tc.columbia.edu/-teachcomm

Doing WhatMatters Most:Investing inQuality Teaching

Prepared for The National Commissionon Teaching and America's Future

by Linda Darling-HammondExecutive Director

November, 1997

4

Table of Contents

Commission Members

Preface and Acknowledgments

Doing What Matters Most: Investing in Quality Teaching

The Commission's FindingsThe Commission's Recommendations

iv

1

23

America's Agenda for EducationNew Standards and New StudentsWhy Teaching MattersHow Teaching Matters

Lessons from Last Decade's Reforms

5

578

11

The Current Status of Teaching: Where Are We Now?Will We Have Enough Teachers?Salaries and Working ConditionsTeacher RetentionQualifications and TrainingReforms in Teacher Education and InductionAccess to Professional DevelopmentProgress in School Reform

1515202224303436

Evidence of Progress: Federal, State, and Local InitiativesFederal InitiativesState Actions

Conclusion

373839

43

Endnotes 44

Appendix A State-by-state Report Card:Indicators of Attention to Teaching Quality, October 1997 48

Appendix B State-by-State Data Tables 51

Appendix C NCATE, INTASC, and National Board Standards 63

Appendix D Commission Staff, Advisors, & Consultants 64

Appendix E Partner State Contact Persons 65

Appendix F National Organization Partners and Contact Persons 66

5

Commission MembersCHAIRJames B. Hunt Jr.Governor, State of North Carolina

Anthony J. AlvaradoSuperintendent, Community School District 2New York, New York

David L. BorenPresident, University of Oklahoma

Ivy H. ChanSpecial Education TeacherGarfield Elementary SchoolOlympia, Washington

Robert F. Chase (Continuing Member)PresidentNational Education AssociationKeith Geiger (Initial Member)Former President, NEA

James P. Corner, M.D.Director, School Development ProgramYale University Child Study Center

Ernesto Cortes Jr.Southwest Regional DirectorIndustrial Areas FoundationAustin, Texas

William G. Demmert Jr.Visiting Professor, Woodring College of EducationWestern Washington University

Jim EdgarGovernor, State of Illinois

Dolores EscobarDean, College of EducationSan Jose State University

Sandra Feldman (Continuing Member)PresidentAmerican Federation of TeachersAlbert Shanker (Initial Member)Former President, AFT

Norman C. FrancisPresidentXavier University of Louisiana

Christine GutierrezInterdisciplinary Studies TeacherThomas Jefferson High SchoolLos Angeles, California

James A. KellyPresident & Chief Executive OfficerNational Board for Professional Teaching Standards

Juanita Millender-McDonaldU.S. Congresswoman, CaliforniaWashington, D.C.

Lynne MillerProfessor of Education Administration & LeadershipUniversity of Southern Maine

Damon P. MooreScience Teacher, Dennis Middle SchoolRichmond, Indiana

Annette N. MorganFormer Representative, District 39Missouri House of Representatives

J. Richard MunroChairman,Executive Committee of the Board of DirectorsTime Warner Inc.

Hugh B. PricePresident and Chief Executive OfficerNational Urban League, Inc.

David Rockefeller Jr.ChairmanRockefeller Financial Services, Inc.

Ted SandersPresidentSouthern Illinois University

Lynn StuartPrincipal, Cambridgeport SchoolCarlisle, Massachusetts

Robert WeldingSenior Vice PresidentThe Procter & Gamble Company

Arthur E. WisePresidentNational Council for Accreditationof Teacher Education

Richard WisniewskiDirector, Institute for Educational InnovationUniversity of Tennessee - Knoxville

DOING WHAT MATTERS MOST INVESTING IN QUALITY TEACHING

IV 6

Preface andAcknowledgments

ne year ago the National Com-mission on Teaching and Amer-ica's Future issued its report,What Matters Most: Teaching forAmerica's Future. Like most

reports of its kind, this one was launched at apress conference which received substantialattention from the media. Since then, however,the report has not been abandoned to a dustyshelf. Much more has occurred. A group ofstates have joined forces to seek to implementthe report's recommendations. National orga-nizations of policymakers and practitioners,having endorsed the report, are working withtheir members on strategies to improve teach-ing standards and teacher professional develop-ment. Commissions on teaching have beenformed in many communities, and steps areunderway to change policies, programs, andpractices in statehouses and schoolhouses.

The National Governors Association andthe National Conference of State Legislatureshave helped their members examine policystrategies to improve the quality of teaching.The National Education Association has en-dorsed peer review and assistance programs toimprove teaching and strengthen teacher ac-countability. The American Federation ofTeachers had worked to link student standardsto teaching standards. The Council for BasicEducation and the American Association ofColleges for Teacher Education have launcheda project to redesign teacher education in lightof student content standards. The Association

for Teacher Educators has developed standardsfor teacher educators. Local school districtshave developed initiatives to improve teacherrecruitment and teaching conditions as well asteachers' access to knowledge. The AmericanAssociation of School Personnel Administra-tors has begun studies of effective teacherrecruitment and personnel practices. RecruitingNew Teachers, the Council of Great CitySchools, the Holmes Partnership, the TeacherUnion Reform Network, and the NationalUrban League are developing collaborativeprojects with the Commission to improveteacher recruitment and development in urbanand poor rural school districts. And the U.S.Department of Education has launched twomajor research centers to study how to enhanceteaching excellence.

This follow-up report, Doing What MattersMost: Investing in Quality Teaching, seeks togauge the nation's progress toward the goal ofhigh-quality teaching in every classroom inevery community. It draws on data about theconditions of teaching that have become avail-able since the original Commission report wasreleased, and it examines policy changes thathave occurred.

The research presented here is the product ofmany people's efforts. Deborah Ball co-authored portions of this text. Ronald Fergusonof the Harvard Kennedy School graciously pro-vided detailed information about his analysesof student achievement. Richard Ingersoll con-ducted extensive analyses of the U.S. Depart-


ment of Education's Schools and Staffing Sur-veys. Barnett Berry collected and analyzed dataon state policies and practices. Dylan Johnsonof the Commission's staff and Craig Jerald,Bridget Curran, Nancy Waymack, KarenAbercrombie, Kimberley Campbell, and Rach-el Henighan of Education Week assisted indata collection. Eric Hirsch of the NationalConference of State Legislatures assembleddata on state legislation related to teaching.Marilyn Rauth, Ellalinda Rustique-Forrester,and Jon Snyder contributed to data analysesand writing. Stephen Broughman and KerryGruber of the National Center on EducationStatistics ferreted out NCES data andanswered critical questions. Flynn MariePritchard designed a panoply of tables andgraphics. Deanna Knickerbocker of the Centerfor Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciencesdeveloped additional beautiful graphics. AndyBornstein designed the report with great speedand skill. Matthew Forrester designed theappendices. Margaret Garigan and ConnieSimon assisted in assembling portions of thereport.

The Rockefeller Foundation and CarnegieCorporation of New York have continued to

provide major financial support for ongoingimplementation of the Commission's work.The Ford Foundation has provided funds for anintensive nationwide effort to improve teachingin urban and poor rural schools. The U.S. De-partment of Education's National Institute onEducational Governance, Finance, Policy-making and Management has supportedresearch and networking among the Commis-sion's partner states. The AT&T Foundationsupported the Commission's website and vid-eotape. Support for specific state and regionalefforts has been provided by the BellsouthFoundation, the Georgia Power Company, theJohn D. and Catherine T MacArthur Founda-tion, the Pew Charitable Trust, Philip MorrisCompanies Inc., and the William R. Kenan Jr.Charitable Trust.

All of these organizations and individualshave made important contributions to thiswork. The most important contributions, how-ever, were and will be made by the teachers,parents, students, and community leaders andpolicy makers who are doing what mattersmost: working with each other to improveteaching and learning.


VI 8

Doing What Matteis Most:Investing in Quality Teaching

"We propose an audacious goal.... By the year2006, America will provide every student withwhat should be his or her educational birthright:access to competent, caring and qualified teaching."

What Matters Most: Teaching for America's Future'

With these words, the Na-tional Commission onTeaching and America'sFuture summarized itschallenge to the American

public in September, 1996. The Commissionsounded a clarion call to place the issue ofteaching quality squarely at the center of ournation's education reform agenda, arguing thatwithout a sustained commitment to teachers'learning and school redesign, the goal of dra-matically enhancing school performance for allof America's children will remain unfulfilled.

Following two years of intense study and dis-cussion, this blue-ribbon panel of education,community, and business leaders concludedthat an impasse has been reached in schoolreform: Most schools and teachers cannotachieve the goals set forth in new educationalstandards, not because they are unwilling, butbecause they do not know how, and the systemsthey work in do not support them in doing so.The Commission's report offered a blueprintfor transforming how teachers and principalsare prepared, recruited, selected, and inducted,and how schools support, assess, and rewardtheir work.

The publication of the Commission's reportmarked the tenth anniversary of a set of reportsthat first drew the nation's attention to the

importance of teachers and teaching, includingthe Carnegie Forum's A Nation Prepared: Teach-ers for the 21st Century and the Holmes Group'sTomorrow's Teachers. The Commission's recom-mendations built upon these prior reformefforts, highlighted initiatives that work, anddescribed how these can become buildingblocks for a comprehensive system that sup-ports high quality teaching.

Since that time, the report and theCommission's subsequent work have stimulat-ed dozens of pieces of federal and state legisla-tion, a wide array of local initiatives to improveteaching, more than 1500 news articles andeditorials nationally and abroad, and at leasttwo federally-funded research and develop-ment initiatives which bring together research-ers, professional associations, policy makers,and practitioners to enhance knowledge andpractice in the fields of teaching and policy.'

Twelve states are working with the supportof the Commission and the participation oftheir governors, state education departments,legislative leaders, and business and educationleaders to develop strategies for improving thequality of teaching. They include: Georgia,Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine,Maryland, Missouri, Montana, North Caro-lina, Ohio, and Oklahoma. Several others willjoin this group of partner states in the comingyear.

This report revisits the Commission's recom-mendations, offers new data about how invest-ments in teaching influence student achieve-ment, and provides an overview of the nation'sprogress toward quality teaching.


1

The Commission's FindingsIn What Matters Most: Teaching and America's

Future, the Commission described aspects ofteaching in the United States that had barelybeen known to the public. While teachers'knowledge and skills powerfully influence stu-dent learning, the United States has no real sys-tem in place to ensure that teachers get accessto the kinds of knowledge they need to helptheir students succeed. At the same time, de-mand for new teachers is escalatingmorethan two million teachers will need to be hiredover the next decadeso the nation's ability toplace highly-qualified teachers in all classroomswill depend on proactive policies that increaseboth the quantity and quality of teachers.

The Commission revealed that more thanone-quarter of newly hired public school teach-ers in 1991 lacked the qualifications for theirjobs, and nearly one-fourth (23%) of all sec-ondary teachers did not have even a minor intheir main teaching field. Fifty-six percent ofhigh school students taking physical sciencewere being taught by out-of-field teachers, aswere 27% of those taking mathematics and21% of those taking English. The least quali-fied teachers were most likely to be found inhigh-poverty and predominantly minorityschools and in lower-track classes. In fact, inschools with the highest minority enrollments,students had less than a 50% chance of gettinga science or mathematics teacher who held alicense and a degree in the field he or shetaught.

At the same time, the Commission's analysisrevealed that many states' and districts' licen-sing and hiring practices are out of synch withnew student standards and with the expandingdiversity of students entering our schools.Furthermore, the nation lacks systems to attractand retain the kinds of teachers needed for highdemand fields and locations. Rather than creat-ing policies to address shortages, standards aretoo often waived or lowered to admit peoplewithout qualifications to teach. Much preser-

vice teacher education is thin and fragmented;standards for schools of education are unevenlyapplied; many beginning teachers receive littleor no mentoring; and teacher evaluation andreward systems are disconnected from thenation's education goals.

In addition, professional development in-vestments are fairly paltry, and most districts'offerings, limited to "hit and run" workshops,do not help teachers learn the sophisticatedteaching strategies they need to address verychallenging learning goals with very diversepopulations of students. Most school districtsdo not direct their professional developmentdollars in a coherent way toward sustained,practically useful learning opportunities forteachers. And teachers have little time to learnfrom one another: In U.S. schools, most teach-ers have only 3 to 5 hours a week in which toprepare their lessons, usually in isolation fromtheir colleagues. They rarely have opportunitiesto plan or collaborate with other teachers, toobserve and study teaching, or to talk togetherabout how to improve curriculum and meet theneeds of students. In short, many U.S. teachersenter the profession with inadequate prepara-tion, and few have many opportunities toenhance their knowledge and skills over thecourse of their careers.

By contrast, most nations we might considerpeers or competitors hire far more teachers,prepare them more extensively, pay them morein relation to competing professional occupa-tions, give them broader decision-making re-sponsibility, and provide them with many morehours each week for joint planning and profes-sional development. Many European andAsian countries support high-quality teachingby:

pegging teachers' salaries to those of profes-sionals like engineers or civil servants toavoid shortages of qualified personnel;

subsidizing teacher preparation so that tal-ented candidates can be recruited andoffered a rigorous program of studies;


2

requiring or encouraging graduate-levelpreparation in education on top of a bache-lor's degree with one or more disciplinarymajors;

ensuring a year-long internship under theguidance of master teachers, in a schoolthat works closely with the universityteacher education program;

requiring examinations of subject matterand teaching knowledge before entry intothe profession;

building extensive time for learning andcollaborative planning into teachers' sched-ules so that they can work on teachingtogether.

In countries like Japan and China, teachersroutinely work with their colleagues on deve-loping curriculum, polishing lessons, observingeach other's teaching, participating in studygroups, and conducting research on teaching.In many countries, these activities are organ-ized around a state or national curriculumframework, which is typically a lean instrumentthat outlines a relatively small number of majorconcepts and ideas to be treated, leaving toteachers the job of figuring out strategies fordoing so that will work for their own students.(It is worth noting that U.S. texts and curricu-lum guides require the coverage of many moretopics much more superficially than do curricu-lum frameworks in other countries, whichemphasize in-depth learning about a smallerrange of topics each year.)' In these countries,teachers have both a curriculum context andregular time to compare notes about particularlessons and problems, conduct demonstrationlessons for one another, discuss how their stu-dents respond to specific tasks, and developplans together.'

These nations are able to provide this kind ofsupport for teachers because they allocate moreof their organizational resources to teaching. Inthe United States, only 52% of education dol-lars are spent on instruction and only 43% of

education staff are classroom teachers. In otherindustrialized nations, about three-fourths ofeducation resources are spent directly on in-struction, and classroom teachers representfrom 60 to 80 percent of all staff' Some re-structured schools are beginning to reallocatetheir staff and other expenditures more directlyto the classroom, with noteworthy results forstudent learning.6 Resources are available inU.S. school systems to focus more effectively onquality teaching. They need to be redirectedtoward this end if America is to achieve its edu-cation goals.

The Commission'sRecommendations

Drawing on a wide range of research find-ings and on examples of best practices from theU.S. and abroad, the Commission proposed acomprehensive set of recommendations thatcover the entire continuum of teacher develop-ment. These proposals are intended to put thenation on a path to serious, long-term improve-ments in teaching and learning. They include:

I. Standards for teachers linked to standardsfor students. Clearly, if students are to achievehigh standards, we can expect no less from theirteachers and other educators. The first priorityis reaching agreement on what teachers shouldknow and be able to do in order to help stu-dents succeed at meeting the new standards.This task has recently been undertaken by threeprofessional bodies that set standards forteacher education (the National Council forAccreditation of Teacher Education), begin-ning teacher licensing (the Interstate NewTeacher Assessment and Support Consor-tium), and the advanced certification of accom-plished veteran teachers (the National Boardfor Professional Teaching Standards). Theircombined efforts to set standards for teachinglinked to new student standards outline acoherent continuum of teacher developmentthroughout the career. (See Appendix C for asummary of the standards.) To advance these


3

standards, the Commission recommends thatstates:

Establish professional standards boards.

Insist on professional accreditation for allschools of education.

License teachers based on demonstratedperformance of ability to teach to the newstandards, including tests of subject matterknowledge, teaching knowledge, and teach-ing skill.

Use National Board standards as thebenchmark for accomplished teaching.

II. Reinvent teacher preparation and profes-sional development. For teachers to have con-tinuous access to the latest knowledge aboutteaching and learning, the Commission recom-mends that states, schools, and colleges:

Organize teacher education and profession-al development around standards for stu-dents and teachers.

Institute extended, graduate-level teacherpreparation programs that provide year-long internships in a professional develop-ment school.

Create and fund mentoring programs forbeginning teachers that provide supportand assess teaching skills.

Create stable, high-quality sources of pro-fessional development; then allocate onepercent of state and local spending to sup-port them, along with additional matchingfunds to school districts.

Embed professional development in teach-ers' daily work through joint planning,study groups, peer coaching, and research.

III. Overhaul teacher recruitment and putqualified teachers in every classroom. To ad-dress teacher recruitment problems, the Com-mission urged states and districts to:

Increase the ability of financially disadvan-taged districts to pay for qualified teachersand insisting that school districts hire onlyqualified teachers.

Redesign and streamline district hiring.

Eliminate barriers to teacher mobility, bypromoting reciprocal interstate licensingand working with states to develop portablepension systems.

Provide scholarships and forgivable loans torecruit teachers for high-need subjects andlocations.

Develop high-quality pathways into teach-ing for recent graduates, mid-career chang-ers, and paraprofessionals already in theclassroom.

IV. Encourage and reward knowledge andskill. Schools have few means for encouragingoutstanding teaching or rewarding increases inknowledge and skill. Uncertified entrants arepaid at the same levels as those who enter withhighly developed skills. Novices take on exact-ly the same kind of work as 30-year veterans.Mediocre teachers receive the same rewards asoutstanding ones. Teachers must leave theclassroom to get promoted. To address theseissues, the Commission recommends thatstates and districts:

Develop a career continuum and compen-sation systems that reward knowledge andskill.

Enact incentives for National BoardCertification.

Remove incompetent teachers through peerassistance and review programs that providenecessary supports and due process.


4

V. Create schools that are organized for stu-dent and teacher success. In order to be able todirect their energies around a common pur-pose, schools need to adopt shared standardsfor student learning that become the basis forcommon efforts of teachers, parents, and thecommunity. Then, schools must be freed of thetyrannies of time and tradition to permit morepowerful student and teacher learning. Thisincludes restructuring time and staffing so thatteachers have regular time to work with oneanother and with shared groups of students;rethinking schedules so that students andteachers have more extended time togetherover the course of the day, week, and years; andreducing barriers to the involvement of parentsso that families and schools can work together.To accomplish this, the Commission recom-mends that state and local boards work to:

Reallocate resources to invest more inteachers and technology and less in non-teaching personnel.

Select, prepare, and retain principals whounderstand teaching and learning and whocan lead high-performing schools.

Rethink schedules and staffing so that stu-dents have more time for in-depth learningand teachers have time to work with andlearn from one another.

More recent evidence suggests that theserecommendations are as germane today as theywere a year ago, and ever more pressing if theUnited States is going to accomplish its goalsfor education.

America's Agendafor EducationNew Standards and New Students

The education reform movement in theUnited States has focused increasingly on thedevelopment of new standards for students:Virtually all states have begun the process ofcreating more academically challenging stan-dards for graduation, new curriculum frame-works to guide instruction, and new assess-ments to test students' knowledge. PresidentClinton has proposed a new national test, andmany school districts across the country areweighing in with their own versions of stan-dards-based reform, including new curricula,testing systems, accountability mechanisms,and promotion or graduation requirements.

These efforts are stimulated by growing evi-dence that students will not succeed in meetingthe demands of a knowledge-based society andeconomy if they do not encounter and mastermuch more challenging work in school. By thefirst decade of the 21st century, nearly 50% ofall jobs will require the higher levels of knowl-edge and skill once reserved for the educationof the few. Only about 10% of jobs will offerthe kind of routine work factories once provid-ed for low-skilled workers, and these will payfar less than what such jobs offered only 20years ago.' As figure 1 shows, only college-edu-cated workers have come close to holding theirown economically over the last two . decades,while those with a high school education or lesshave steadily lost real income as previouslywell-paid factory jobs have become automatedor moved overseas. Even among individualswith the same degrees, those with higher levelsof skill increasingly have greater earning capac-ity Surveys of employers indicate that evenentry-level jobs require workers who have mas-tered higher levels of basic skills, are technolo-gically literate, and can plan and monitor much


513

of their own work.'Many workers have great dif-

ficulty moving into the more in-tellectually and interpersonallydemanding jobs the new econo-my has to offer. As Peter Druck-er notes:

The great majority of the new jobsrequire qualifications the industrialworker does not possess and is poorlyequipped to acquire. They require agood deal of formal education and theability to acquire and to apply theoret-ical and analytical knowledge. Theyrequire a different approach to workand a different mind-set. Above all,they require a habit of continuouslearning. Displaced industrial workersthus cannot simply move into knowl-edge work or services the way displacedfarmers and domestic workers movedinto industrial work.'

More than ever before in ournation's history, education is theticket not only to economic suc-cess but to basic survival.Because the economy can nolonger absorb many unskilledworkers at decent wages, lack ofeducation is increasingly linkedto crime and welfare dependen-cy. Women who have not fin-ished high school are muchmore likely than others to be onwelfare (figure 2), while menwho have not succeeded educa-tionally are much more likely tobe incarcerated. Most inmates

137800 00

$32.00080

52781:080

Z2000.80

$17800.00

Figure 1

Trends in Wages, 1975-1993

(Median earnings of male wage and salary workers 25 to 34 years old,in 1994 constant dollars)

siz00000ram

0 or more years 01college

1-3 years .0160118ga

High school graduates

9-11 years of school

1980 1985 1990

Source: National Center for Educational Statistics. The Condition 01 Educaton.1998 pp. 292-294

Percent

Figure 2

Education and Welfare Dependency(P-ertent of 25-34 year olds receiving AFDC or publiCassistarice,

by years of schooling completed)

1972 1992 1992

g 9-11 years

912yeare13-15 years

p 16 years 0,710,0

Scores: U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census. March Current Poputehon Surveys,Published MNCES. The Condition of Education. 1995. p.96.

have literacyskills below those required by the labor mar-ket," and nearly 40 percent of juvenile delin-quents have learning disabilities that wentuntreated in school."

National investments in the last decade havetipped heavily toward imprisonment ratherthan education. During the 1980s, prison pop-ulations more than doubled while expendituresfor prosecution and corrections grew by over

900 percent.' During the same decade, perpupil expenditures for schools grew by onlyabout 26% in real dollar terms."

Meanwhile, schools have changed slowly.Most are still organized to prepare only about20% of their students for "thinking work"those students who are tracked very early intogifted and talented, "advanced," or honorscourses. And most teachers have had little op-portunity to learn to teach in the way new aca-


614

demic standards and a much more diverse stu-dent body demand. As the National Commis-sion described in its report, a large proportionof teachers do not have adequate background inthe fields they are asked to teach or sufficientskills for the students they need to reach.

More recent data suggest that the picture hasimproved little in the first half of this decade.In 1994, 21 percent of all public secondaryteachers had less than a minor in their mainassignment field, and 59% had less than aminor in their secondary teaching field.' Morethan 20% of public school teachers hired thatyearand 27% of new entrants to teachinghad not met the requirements to enter teachingand were practicing with a substandard licensein their main field or none at all.' And, evenamong those with preparation to teach, rela-tively few are well-prepared for the studentsthey meet in today's classrooms, especially ifthey completed their training many years ago.

The American classroom requires teacherswith high levels of knowledge and a broadrange of skills. In 1996, for example, about 11percent of U.S. students were identified as dis-abled,' and the vast majority of them (73 per-cent) were served in regular classrooms.' How-ever, few teachers have had any opportunity tolearn how to teach students with disabilities. Atthe same time, about 5 percent of Americanstudents were identified as limited English pro-ficient,' yet just one-fourth of the teachersserving these children had received any trainingin strategies for teaching new English languagelearners." In addition to these specific needs,more than one-third of students in the averageclassroom will be members of racial/ethnicminority groups or recent immigrants from awide variety of cultures; more than one-fourthwill live in households below the poverty line;and more than half will live in families thathave experienced divorce, absence, or death ofat least one parent.

Thus, in a typical classroom of 25 students,today's teacher will serve at least 4 or 5 studentswith specific educational needs that she has not

been prepared to meet. In addition, she willneed considerable knowledge to develop cur-riculum and teaching strategies that address thewide range of learning approaches, experiences,and prior levels of knowledge the other stu-dents bring with them as well. And she willneed to know how to help these studentsacquire much more complex skills and types ofknowledge than ever before.

Why Teaching MattersFor many decades, the United States educa-

tion system has tried to improve studentachievement by tinkering with various levers inthe great machinery of schooling: New courserequirements, curriculum packages, testingpolicies, management schemes, centralizationinitiatives, decentralization initiatives, and awide array of regulations and special programshave been tried, all with the same effect.Reforms, we have learned over and over again,are rendered effective or ineffective by theknowledge, skills, and commitments of those inschools. Without know-how and buy-in, inno-vations do not succeed. Neither can they suc-ceed without appropriate supports, includingsuch resources as high-quality curriculum guid-ance and materials, time, and opportunities tolearn.

Over the last decade, reforms have sought toincrease the amount of academic courseworkand the numbers of tests students take, inhopes of improving achievement. These initia-tives have made a great difference in coursetak-ing: In 1983, only 14% of high school studentstook the number of academic courses recom-mended in A Nation at Risk-4 units inEnglish and 3 each in mathematics, science,and social studies. By 1994, more than half(51%) had taken this set of recommendedcourses.

Despite these changes, achievement scoreshave improved little, and have actually declinedslightly for high school students in reading andwriting since 1988 (see figure 3). Meanwhile,the proportion of higher education institutions


7 5

offering remedial courses has increased, reach-ing 78% in 1995.20 While the courses weretaught, the overall quality of learning seems notto have improved. Clearly, the quality of teach-ing students receive must be as much a focus ofattention as the number of courses they take.

Teacher expertisewhat teachers know andcan do affects all the core tasks of teaching.What teachers understand about content andstudents shapes how judiciously they selectfrom texts and other materials and how effec-tively they present material in class. Their skillin assessing their students' progress alsodepends on how deeply they understand learn-ing, and how well they can interpret students'discussions and written work. No other inter-vention can make the difference that a knowl-edgeable, skillful teacher can make in the learn-ing process. At the same time, nothing can fullycompensate for weak teaching that, despitegood intentions, can result from a teacher's lackof opportunity to acquire the knowledge andskill needed to help students master the cur-riculum.

How Teaching MattersStudies discover again and again that teacher

expertise is one of the most important factorsin determining student achievement, followedby the smaller but generally positive influencesof small schools and small class sizes. That is,teachers who know a lot about teaching andlearning and who work in environments thatallow them to know students well are the criti-cal elements of successful learning.

In an analysis of 900 Texas school districts,Ronald Ferguson found that teachers' exper-tiseas measured by scores on a licensingexamination, master's degrees, and experi-enceaccounted for about 40% of the meas-ured variance in students' reading and mathe-matics achievement at grades 1 through 11,more than any other single factor. He alsofound that every additional dollar spent onmore highly qualified teachers netted greaterincreases in student achievement than did less

Figure 3

TRENDS IN STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT(National Assessment of Educational Progress, scale scores)

Proficiency400- Average Reading Proficiency350-300-250:

A

200- a150.:

0 11111111111980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994

40 AverageWriting Proficiency

35

30

25

20

15

0 .111980 1982

I

1984lit ill]

1986 1988 1990 1992 199

40 Average Mathematics Proficiency

353025

2015

0

1980 1982 19' 84 19' 86 1988 1990 1992 199

40 Average Science Proficiency

353025

2015

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 199

A- Age 17 0 Age 13 -IS- Age 9Source: NCES, The Condition of Education. 1997, pp. 8088.

instructionally focusedcesn (see figure 4).

The effects were so strong, and the variationsin teacher expertise so great that, after control-ling for socioeconomic status, the large dispar-ities in achievement between black and whitestudents were almost entirely accounted for bydifferences in the qualifications of their teach-ers. An additional contribution to studentachievement was made by lower pupil-teacherratios in the elementary grades. In combina-tion, differences in teacher expertise and classsizes accounted for as much of the measuredvariance in achievement as did student andfamily background factors.

Ferguson and Helen Ladd repeated thisanalysis with a less extensive data set in

uses of school resour-

DOING WHAT MATTERS MOST: INVESTING IN QUALITY TEACHING

816

Alabama that included much rougher proxiesfor teacher knowledge (master's degrees andACT scores instead of teacher licensing exam-ination scores)," and still found sizable influ-ences of teacher qualifications and smaller classsizes on student achievement gains in mathe-matics and reading. These influences held upwhen the data were analyzed at both the dis-trict and school levels. In an analysis illustrat-ing the contributions of these variables to thepredicted differences between districts scoringin the top and bottom quartiles in mathemat-ics, they found that 31% of the predicted dif-ference was explained by teacher qualificationsand class sizes, while 29.5% was explained bypoverty, race, and parent education.

These findings are reinforced by those of arecent review of 60 production function stud-ies' which found that teacher education, abili-ty, and experience, along with small schools andlower teacher-pupil ratios, are associated withsignificant increases in student achievement. Inthis study's estimate of the achievement gains

Figure 4

Influence of Teacher Qualifications onStudent Achievement

Proportion of Explained Variance in Math Test Score Gains(from Grades 3 to 5) Due To:

Favor; ;-**kora

, kitootggonikmoi>,innsuaget bactwafflef; non

latalit*

GlassSize8%

"Teacher

Qualifications43%

(licensing examinationscores, education,

expenence)

Developed from data presented in Ronald F. Ferguson, "Paying for PublicEducation: New Evidence of How and Why Money Matters, Harvard Journal onLegislation. 28 (Summer 1991): 465-98

associated with expenditure increments, spend-ing on teacher education swamped other vari-ables as the most productive investment forschools (see figure 5).

The Commission reviewed many other stud-ies that came to similar conclusions. For exam-ple, a study of high- and low-achieving schoolswith similar student populations in New YorkCity found that differences in teacher qualifica-tions accounted for more than 90% of the vari-ation in student achievement in reading andmathematics at all grade levels tested." Re-search using national data and studies in Geor-gia, Michigan, and Virginia have found thatstudents achieve at higher levels and are lesslikely to drop out when they are taught byteachers with certification in their teachingfield, by those with master's degrees, and byteachers enrolled in graduate studies."

A Tennessee study of the effects of teacherson student learning found that elementaryschool students who are assigned to ineffectiveteachers for three years in a row score signifi-

TestScoreUnits'

Figure 5

Effects of Educational Investments

Size of Increase in Student Achievement foEvery $500 Spent on:

nu

Cl04

inenirlm1101&YAW.

'Achievement gains were calculated as standard deviation units on a range of achievement testsin the 60 studies reviews.

Source: Rob Greenwald, Larry V. Hedges, & Richard D. Laine (1996). The Effect of SchoolResources on Student Achievement. Review of Educational Research 66(3), pp. 361.396.


BEST COPY AVAILABLE 917

candy lower on achievement tests than thoseassigned to the most effective teachers over thesame period of time" (see figure 6). This studyalso found troubling indicators for educationalequity: African American students were almosttwice as likely to be assigned to the most inef-fective teachers and about half as likely to beassigned to the most effective teachers. Clearly,teachers' knowledge and skills make a differ-ence for both educational quality and equality.

What matters for teacher effectiveness? Re-search confirms that teacher knowledge of sub-ject matter, student learning and development,and teaching methods are all important ele-ments of teacher effectiveness. Reviews of morethan two hundred studies contradict the long-standing myths that "anyone can teach" andthat "teachers are born and not made." Thisresearch also makes it clear that teachers needto know much more than the subject matterthey teach. Teacher education, as it turns out,

Figure 6Cumulative Effects of Teacher Effectiveness

Student test scores (5th grade math) by effectiveness levelof teachers over a three-year period, for two metropolitan school systems

799

113760 4. 90

65740 m

m. se

720 m

-ta71:0

030

Low oeoplaw hop

yg. Mg

Teacher Sequence

S y St M :

/Ng

Demi.thecoreemeeapersonue(Crinrceme+ba.1930.1,0.10.-116).

&.w: W.1- Samign aral .I.0grow.: umagnavg11,nnagage.90.

matters a great deal. In fields ranging frommathematics and science to early childhood,elementary, vocational, and gifted education,teachers who are fully prepared and certified inboth their discipline and in education are morehighly rated and are more successful with stu-dents than are teachers without preparation,and those with greater training in learning,child development, teaching methods, and cur-riculum are found to be more effective thanthose with less."

Not only does teacher education matter, butmore teacher education appears to be betterthan lessparticularly when it includes care-fully planned clinical experiences that are inter-woven with coursework on learning and teach-ing. Recent studies of redesigned teacher edu-cation programsthose that offer a five-yearprogram including an extended internshipfind their graduates are more successful andmore likely to enter and remain in teachingthan graduates of traditional undergraduateprograms."

The kind and quality of inservice educationalso makes a difference. A recent large-scalestudy by David Cohen and Heather Hill"found that mathematics teachers who partici-pated in sustained professional developmentbased on the curriculum they were learning toteach were much more likely than those whoengaged in other kinds of professional develop-ment to report reform-oriented teaching prac-tices. These practices and this professionaldevelopment participation were, in turn, associ-ated with higher mathematics achievement forstudents on the state assessment, after takingstudent characteristics and school conditionsinto account. The professional developmentwhich proved effective involved teachers inworking directly with one another and withexperts on new student curriculum materialsrelated to specific concepts in California'smathematics framework. Teachers collabora-tively studied these materials, developed andtried lessons, and discussed the results withtheir colleagues, raising issues of mathematics


content, instruction, and learning together.Other studies have found similar results for

intensive curriculum-based professional devel-opment. A study of student achievement on the1993 California Learning Assessment System(CLAS) found performance higher at all gradelevels when teachers had extended opportuni-ties to learn about mathematics curriculum andinstruction." A study of mathematics reformsin Pittsburgh's QUASAR schools found thatstudents achieved at higher levels where theirteachers had greater opportunities to study acoherent curriculum that focused on enhancingteachers' understanding of mathematics teach-ing strategies and on their implementation ofnew approaches with systematic reflection onthe outcomes of instruction."

The National Assessment of EducationalProgress has documented that the qualifica-tions and training of students' teachers are alsoamong the correlates of reading achievement:Students of teachers who are fully certified,who have master's degrees, and who have hadprofessional coursework in literature-basedinstruction, whole language approaches, studystrategies, and motivational strategies do betteron reading assessments (see table 1). Further-more, teachers who have had more profession-al coursework are more likely to use the litera-ture-based and writing-based approaches toteaching reading and writing that are associat-ed with stronger achievement. For example,teachers with more staff development hours inreading are much more likely to use a widevariety of books, newspapers, and materialsfrom other subject areas and to engage studentsin regular writing, all of which are associatedwith higher reading achievement; they are lesslikely to use reading kits, basal readers, andworkbooks which are associated with lower lev-els of reading achievement."

These studies and others are gradually help-ing to build a foundation for professionaldevelopment investments associated with pro-ductive teaching piactices that can support stu-dent achievement on a wide scale.

Lessons from LastDecade's Reforms

The critical importance of investments inteaching is demonstrated by states' experiencesover the past ten years. Over that decade ofreform, a few states undertook major initiativesaimed at improving the quality of teaching.

Notable among them for the size and scopeof investments were North Carolina andConnecticut. Both of these states coupledmajor statewide increases in teacher salarieswith intensive recruitment efforts and initia-tives to improve preservice teacher education,licensing, beginning teacher mentoring, andongoing professional development. Since then,North Carolina has posted among the largeststudent achievement gains in mathematics andreading of any state in the nation, now scoringwell above the national average in 4th gradereading and mathematics, although it enteredthe 1990s near the bottom of the state rank-ings. (See figures 7-9). Connecticut has alsoposted significant gains, becoming one of thetop scoring states in the nation in mathematicsand reading, despite an increase in the propor-tion of students with special needs during thattime."

North Carolina's reforms boosted minimumsalaries, launched an aggressive fellowship pro-gram to recruit able students into teacherpreparation by subsidizing their college educa-tion, required schools of education to becomeprofessionally accredited, invested in improve-ments in teacher education curriculum, createdprofessional development academies and aNorth Carolina Center for the Advancement ofTeaching, developed local sites to support net-works like the National Writing Project,launched a beginning teacher mentoring pro-gram, and introduced the most wide-rangingset of incentives in the nation for teachers topursue National Board Certification. NorthCarolina now boasts more Board-Certified


Table 1

Correlates of Reading Achievement(Average Student Proficiency Scores, National Assessment of Education Progress, 1992)

Correlates of Reading Achievement Lower Scores Higher Scores

TEACHER QUALIFICATIONS

Level of Certification Substandard or none214

Highest level219

Levels of Education Bachelor's Degree215

Master's degree220

Coursework in literature-basedinstruction

No coursework214

Yes coursework218

Coursework in whole languageapproaches

No coursework214

Yes coursework218

TEACHING PRACTICES

Types of materials used Primarily basal readers Primarily trade books214 224

Instructional Approaches Structured Subskills Integrative language200 220

Emphasis on Integrative Little/no emphasis Heavy emphasisReading and Writing 211 220

Emphasis on Literature-based Little/no emphasis Heavy emphasisreading 208 220

Frequency of use of reading Almost every day Less than weeklyworkbooks and worksheets 214 222

Frequency with which students Less than weekly Almost every daywrite about what they have read 214 221

Frequency with which teachers use At least once a week Never or rarelyreading kits to teach reading 211 219

Frequency with which teachers takeclass to library

Never or rarely209

At least once a week219

Use of multiple choice tests toassess students in reading


Less than monthly222

Use of short-answer tests toassess students in reading


Less than monthly222

Using of written assignments to Less than monthlyassess students in reading 210


Source: 1992 NAEP Trial State Assessment

teachers than any other state. Recently, thestate has created a professional standards boardfor teaching and has passed legislation that willcreate professional development school part-

nerships associated with all schools of educa-tion, develop a more intensive beginningteacher mentoring program, further upgradelicensing standards, create pay incentives for


1220

teachers who pursue master's degrees andBoard Certification, and raise teacher salariesto the national average.

Connecticut spent over $300 million in 1986to boost minimum beginning teacher salaries inan equalizing fashion that made it possible forlow-wealth districts to compete in the marketfor qualified teachers. This initiative eliminatedteacher shortages in the state, even in the cities,and created surpluses of teachers. At the sametime, the state raised licensing standards, insti-tuted performance-based examinations forlicensing and a state-funded beginning teachermentoring program, required teachers to earn amaster's degree in education for a continuinglicense, invested in training for mentors, andsupported new professional developmentstrategies in universities and school districts.Recently, the state has further extended its per-formance-based licensing system to incorpo-rate the new INTASC standards and to devel-op portfolio assessments modeled on those of

Figure 7State Trends in Mathematics Achievement, Grade 4

(NAEP scores, 1992-1996)

1992 1996

,Source: U.S. Department. National Center for Education Statistics.:NAEP 1996 Mathematics Report Card for the Nation and the States, Table 2.2. p. 28.

the National Board for Professional TeachingStandards. Connecticut is also supporting thecreation of professional development schoolslinked to local universities.

During the 1990s, substantial gains werealso realized by states like West Virginia andArkansas, which raised teachers' salaries andlicensing standards and required accreditationof teacher education schools, and Kentucky,which funded extensive professional develop-ment in support of its curriculum and assess-ment reforms.

Meanwhile, there are a number of states thatrepeatedly lead the nation in achievement, eachof which has made longstanding investments inthe quality of teaching. The three long-timeleadersMinnesota, North Dakota, andIowahave all had a long history of profes-sional teacher policy and are among the 12states that have state professional standardsboards which enacted high standards for enter-

Figure 8State Trends in Mathematics Achievement, Grade 8


N.9.P.9kroadnot09.6c9.69i-,1990. Scant is lof ,992 assessment.

Source: U.S. Department, National Center for Education Statistics,NAEP 1996 Mathematics Report Card for the Nation and the States, Table 2.3, p. 30.


BEST COPY AVAILABLE 132 1

215

ZD

Figure 9State Trends in Reading Achievement, Grade 4


226 ND

224WI

at. 222 CT

225ND

224WI

A. 222 CT

Source: U.S. Department. National Center for Education Statistics.NAEP 1994 Reading Report Card for the Nation and the States. Table 2.3. p. 25.

boards which enacted high standards for enter-ing teaching. Other high-scoring states likeWisconsin, Maine, and Montana have also en-acted rigorous standards for teaching and areamong the few that rarely hire unqualifiedteachers on substandard licenses (see AppendixB). Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota,and Wisconsin have among the lowest rates ofout-of-field teaching in the country and amongthe highest proportions of secondary teachersholding both certification and a major in thefield they teach.34 Maine joined these states inrequiring certification plus a disciplinary majorwhen it revised its licensing standards in 1988.

These states have also been leaders inredefining teacher education and licensing.Minnesota was the first state to develop perfor-mance-based standards for licensing teachersand approving schools of education during themid-1980s, and has developed a beginningteacher residency program in the years since."

Wisconsin was one of the first states to requirehigh school teachers to earn a major in theirsubject area in addition to extensive preparationfor teaching. Thus, teacher education inWisconsin is typically a 41/3 to 5 year process.(The Wisconsin approach contrasts with thatof states that reduced preparation for teachingwhen they required students to gain a discipli-nary major at the bachelor's degree level.)Maine, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Minnesota haveall incorporated the INTASC standards intotheir licensing standards and have encourageduniversities to pilot performance-based assess-ments of teaching using these standards.

By contrast, state reform strategies duringthe 1980s that did not include substantial ef-forts to improve teaching have been much lesssuccessful. States that instituted new tests inthe 1980s without investing in teaching did notexperience improved achievement. For exam-ple, the first two states to organize theirreforms around a student testing strategy wereGeorgia, with its Quality Basic Education Actof 1985, and South Carolina, with its Educa-tion Improvement Act of 1984. These statesdeveloped extensive testing systems attached tohigh stakes consequences for students, teachers,and schools. Although both states also mandat-ed tests for teachers, they did not link theseassessments to emerging knowledge aboutteaching or to new learning standards, nor didthey invest in improving schools of educationor ongoing professional development. As fig-ures 7-9 show, student achievement in mathe-matics has been flat in these states whileachievement in reading declined since 1990.Changes in tests and curriculum were notenough to overcome the effects of low stan-dards for teacher education and licensing andthe hiring of large numbers of uncertifiedteachers.36 As described later, both states haverecently undertaken major reforms of teachingthat may make an important difference in thefuture.


142 2

The Current Statusof Teaching: Whereare We Now?

The Commission's recommendations consti-tute a long-term agenda for American educa-tion. Later in this report we describe how manyof them have been pursued in a number ofstates and districts. Here we discuss recenttrends that characterize the current status ofteaching, and suggest the kinds of continuingefforts that are needed to support improve-ments in the supply of teachers and the qualityof teaching.

Will We Have Enough Teachers?The nation has never before hired as many

teachers in a decade as it will between now andthe year 2007. The demand for teachers willcontinue to grow sharply as student enroll-ments reach their highest level ever, andteacher retirements and attrition create largenumbers of vacancies. By 2007, student enroll-ments will grow to 54.3 million, up from about50 million in 1995,3' stoked bythe baby "boomlet" and grow-ing immigration rates. The sizeof the teaching force is project-ed to exceed 3.3 million by2007, up from 2.5 million in1982 (see figure 10).

Meanwhile, a large numberof teachers are nearing retire-ment age. In 1994, teachers'average age was 43, up fromabout 40 in 1988. Fully one-fourth of all public schoolteachers are 50 years old orolder, a sign that retirementscan be expected to increase."Even greater rates of retirementcan be anticipated in fields like

bilingual education and vocational educationand in states like California, Michigan, andNew Jersey which have the largest proportionsof older teachers.

Recruitment needs to focus not only onensuring that we have enough teachers, but alsoon recruiting a diverse teaching force that rep-resents the American population if majorityand minority students are to experience diverserole models. The proportion of minority teach-ers (about 13%) continues to be far less thanthe proportion of minority students (just over33% in public schools) and far less than mostschool districts would like to hire. The sharpdecrease in the number of college students ofcolor choosing teaching during the 1970s and`80s, when other occupations with highersalaries became open to minorities, has beenreversed in recent years, but not nearly enoughto meet demand. In 1994, teachers of colorcomprised 15% of beginners with 1 to 3 yearsof experience. However, improvements in therecruitment of Native American, Asian, andHispanic teachers were offset by continuingdeclines in the numbers of African Americanteachers entering teaching (see table 2).

Using the most conservative estimates, thenation will need to hire at least 2 million teach-

Figure 10

Demand for Elementary andSecondary Teachers

(Public and private K-12, with alternative projections: 1983-2007)

0

1982 19871

1992

1 1

1995 1997 2002 2007

Source: National Center for Education Statistics. Projections of Education Statistics to 2007, p. 68.


BEST COPY AVAILABLE15

23

ers over the next ten years." While all statesand regions will experience these increases,much of the demand for teachers will occur inthe South and the West, and in port cities onboth coasts.

Although this level of demand is daunting,the country has for many years graduated morenew teachers than it hires. In recent years, onlyone-third to one-half of all newly hired teach-ers have been new to teaching, since many dis-tricts prefer to hire experienced teachers and fillvacancies with teachers transferring from otherschools or returning to the profession. Usuallyonly about three-quarters of prospective begin-ners who apply for jobs get offers of employ-ment, and only two-thirds of newly preparedteachers take full-time teaching jobs in the yearafter they graduate.' In 1993, there were over140,000 bachelor's degree recipients who grad-uated with preparation for teaching (not all ofwhom applied to teach), and about 20,000 whoprepared to teach in master's degree programs."This was more than enough for the number ofvacancies to be filled by beginning teachers.

Although there are many new teachers whocannot find jobs, there are also many job open-ings for which schools have difficulty findingteachers. For example, in 1994, more than 50%of schools with vacancies in special education,

bilingual education or English as a second lan-guage, physical science, life science, or foreignlanguagesand more than 40% of schools withvacancies in mathematicshad difficulty fill-ing the positions (see figure 11). In almostevery field, schools with the largest numbers oflow-income and minority students were muchmore likely than other schools to report thatthey had difficulty filling vacancies." Theseschools were also much more likely than othersto fill vacancies with unqualified teachers, sub-stitutes, or teachers from other fields, or toexpand class sizes or cancel course offeringswhen they could not find teachers (see figure12).

These "shortages," though, are largely aproblem of distribution rather than of absolutenumbers. Wealthy districts that pay highsalaries and offer pleasant working conditionsrarely experience shortages in any field.Districts that serve low-income students tendto pay teachers less and offer larger class sizesand pupil loads, fewer materials, and less de-sirable teaching conditions, including less pro-fessional autonomy. For obvious reasons, theyhave more difficulty recruiting teachers. Statesthat produce large numbers of teachers or haveslow enrollment growth have surpluses ofteachers, while those that have fewer teacher

Table 2

Teacher Characteristics(Percentage distribution of teachers according to race-ethnicity, by years of teaching experience)

American Indian/Alaskan Native

Asian/Pacific Islander

Black,

non-Hispanic HispanicWhite,

non-Hispanic

Total 0.7 1.1 6.7 4.1 87.3

Teaching experience3 or fewer years 0.9 1.6 6.0 6.8 84.74-9 years 0.8 1.3 5.8 5.1 86.910-19 years 0.7 0.9 6.4 4.0 88.120 or more years 0.7 1.0 8.0 2.5 87.8

Note: Percentage distributions may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey:1993-94 (Teacher Questionnaire) America's Teachers, p. 10.


16 24

preparation programsor rapid enrollmentgrowth must importteachers from else-where.

There are three ma-jor problems to be ad-dressed. One is thatfew states have equal-ized school funding orteachers' salaries so thatall districts can com-pete equally in themarket for well-pre-pared teachers. Statesthat have taken steps toraise and equalize sal-ary levelssuch asConnecticut and Ken-tuckyhave greatly re-duced shortages in cen-tral cities and ruralcommunities."

A second problem isthat most states stillhave licensing policieswhich assume that la-bor markets for teach-ers are local. State stan-dards vary widely; thereis little reciprocityamong states; and moststates still licenseteachers based on theirgraduation from state-approved programs ra-ther than more compa-rable, national stan-dards. In many cases,neither licenses norseniority and pensionsare portable. As a con-sequence, teachers can-not easily get from thestates that have largesurpluses to those that

Figure 11

Difficulty in Filling Teaching Vacancies100- (Percent of schools with teaching vacancies, by field, and

90- 87 percent who found them difficult to fill)

80-

70-

60-53

50-43 42

40- 3632 31

30- 2520

20- 15

10-

0General Special Mathematics English Physical Foreign Life Music ESL/

elementary education science language science bilingual

Schools with positions in a given field that had vacancies in 1993-94

Schools finding it somewhat difficult, very difficult, or impossible to fill vacancy

Source: NCES, America's Teachers: Profile of a Profession, 1993-94, 1997, Tables A13.11a-e.

Figure 12

Strategies for Filling Teaching Vacancies, by School Type,1993-1994

30-

25-rn00-5 20-rn0080 5-

ZB 10-a_

5- 3.6

0Percentage of

schools withvacancies that:

14.6

Hiredunqualifiedteacher(s)

1-10% minority students

>50% minority students

2.60.1E

Canceledcourse

offerings

8.1

5.3

Expandedclasssizes

6.1

3.5

9.5

28.7

I Assigned I Usedteacher of substitutesanothersubject

Source: NCES, America's Teachers: Profile of a Profession, 1993-94, 1997, Table A8.12.


dEST COPY AVAILABLE 17 25

have large shortages.in the last two years, morethan 20 states have taken steps that shouldeventually improve reciprocity by adoptingcommon standards through the Interstate NewTeacher Assessment and Support Consortium(INTASC) and beginning to develop examina-tions linked to these standards. At least 13states have also adopted policies that will makeit possible for teachers who have achievedNational Board certification to become li-censed without additional requirements if theymove into a state.'

A third problem is that some large districtshave had hiring procedures that are so cumber-some, dysfunctional, and untimely that theychase the best-prepared candidates awayinstead of aggressively recruiting them. Theseprocedures can be changed. In What MattersMost, we highlighted a successful initiative inFairfax County, Virginia to streamline andoverhaul what had been a 62-step hiring pro-cess that took months to complete into a com-puterized, carefully managed two-week pro-cess. Other large districts have also taken stepsto become proactive in recruiting well-prepared

candidates. A commitment to teaching qualityis the first step. Over the past two years, NewYork Cityonce a hiring source for thousandsof unlicensed teachers annuallyhas worked toensure qualified teachers for all of its studentsby streamlining hiring procedures and aggres-sively recruiting well prepared teachersthrough partnerships with local universities. In1997, New York filled two-thirds of its 5500vacancies with fully qualified teachers, in con-trast with only one-third of a smaller numberin 1992. It meanwhile reduced the total num-ber of uncertified teachers in the city by morethan half. (See below.)

More districts have experimented in recentyears with bonuses or salary increments toattract recruits for shortage fields or hard-to-staff schools, although the number trying anyof these strategies still represents only about 10percent of all school districts" (see figure 13).About 19 percent of private schools offer somekind of financial incentive to attract teachers inspecific fields. Public schools are more likely tooffer free retraining to help teachers prepare inshortage fields like special education, bilingual

Figure 13

Use of Financial Incentives to Address Shortages(Percentage of public school districts that offered various financial incentives

to recruit and retain teachers in less desirable locations or in fields of shortage,1987-88 and 1993-94)

Percent Lessdesirable locations

0 1987-88 ®1993.94

Fields of shortage

4.84.2

01987 -88 al 1993-94

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey: 1987-88 and 1993-94 (Teacher Demand andShortage Questionnaires). Published in National Center for Education Statistics,America's Teachers, p. 101.


18 26

Recruiting the BestLocal school districts and teacher education programs are redoubling their effortsto solve the persistent problems of teacher recruitment and preparation. Oneremarkable example of progress can be seen in New York City; highlighted in lastyear's Commission report for its difficulties in recruiting qualified teachers. TheBig Apple, which has struggled for years with cumbersome and dysfunctional

hiring procedures that have led to the hiring of thousands of uncertified teachers annually,has made a commitment to placing a qualified teacher in every classroom. With a set ofwide-ranging efforts by its personnel department, New York had come much closer toachieving its goal by the opening of school in 1997 when two-thirds of its 5500 vacancieswere filled with fully qualified teachers, as compared to one-third of a smaller number in1992.

Key to this success are a series of efforts that bring the city's recruiters directly to studentsin local preparation programs each spring; offer interviews and tests on-site at college cam-puses; recruit teachers in high-need areas like bilingual and special education through schol-arships and forgivable loans as well as strategically located recruitment fairs; work with uni-versities and local districts to bring well-trained prospective teachers into hard-to-staffschools as student teachers, interns, and visitors; make offers to well-qualified candidatesmuch earlier in the year; and streamline the exchange of information and the processing ofapplications. More efforts are underway to create automated systems for projecting vacanciesand processing information, decentralize interviews to principals and committees of teachersin local schools, and strengthen partnerships with local colleges. With expansion of theseefforts, the city hopes to fill all of its vacancies with caring, competent, well-qualified teachersby the year 2000.

education or English as a Second Language,mathematics, science, and computer science.School districts offering this retraining aremost often those serving large proportions oflow-income students."

Whether these efforts will prove sufficient toensure that all students have access to a diverse,well-qualified teaching force depends on anumber of other factors that will take shapeover the coming years. These include attrac-tions to teaching, such as salaries and workingconditions, and supports that could improvethe retention of beginning and mid-careerteachers.

Salaries and Working ConditionsThe Commission noted that teachers are less

well-paid than similarly educated workers, andthat the share of the education dollar spent on

teachers' salaries dipped below 40% more thana decade ago, as schools became more bureau-cratic and spent less of their funds on teaching.One recommendation urged much greaterinvestment in teachingin a greater number ofbetter-prepared and better-paid teachersbyreallocating to classroom teaching positionssome of the funds currently spent on add-onand pull-out programs as well as nonteachingpositions that are intended to oversee or sup-plement the work of teachers. Few states havemade much progress on this agenda (seeAppendix A), but some individual schools anddistricts, along with organizations like the NewAmerican Schools Corporation, have takensteps to redesign schools so that they focusmore of their resources on teaching.'

Competitive salaries for teachers have madea greater difference in supply and quality since


19 27

the 1970s, when the nation lost its once captivelabor market for teaching, which had long beenmaintained by lack of employment opportuni-ties for women and minorities. The opening upof other professional jobs to these groups, cou-pled with a steady drop in salaries and teacherdemand, led to a large decrease in both thenumbers of college students choosing teachingand in the academic ability of candidates. By1983, entrants to teaching were among theleast academically well-prepared college stu-dents. Furthermore, the most able among themdefected from teaching sooner and in greaternumbers."

Teachers' salaries climbed during the 1980s,stimulating increases in the supply of teachersas well as the academic ability of new candi-dates, who now hold better academic recordsthan the average college student.' However,salaries have leveled off again since 1990, re-maining about 25 percent below those of simi-

larly educated workers at the entry level andnearly 20 percent below average salaries ofthose with at least a bachelor's degree" (see fig-ure 14). Taking into account their vacation timeand income possibilities during the summer,teachers still earn 10 to 15 percent less thantheir similarly educated colleagues in otheroccupations. The differential is highest in fieldsthat require strong backgrounds in mathemat-ics and science, such as engineering and thehealth professions, where there is a 30 to 50percent differential in beginning pay. However,there is also a growing gap between the begin-ning salaries of teachers and individuals whoenter the social sciences."

Meanwhile, teachers are working harderthan ever before. In 1996, teachers' averagework week of 49 hours, which included 11hours of noncompensated time after schoolhours, was longer than it had ever been sincetrend data were first collected in 1961.52

Average class sizesremain at about 24,with secondary schoolteachers carryingcourse loads of between5 and 6 periods dailyand pupil loads of 124students at a time.Class sizes and pupilloads were highest inschools with the largestproportions of minori-ty students."

An ongoing problemin recruiting well-pre-pared teachers to poorschool districts is thecontinued inequality infunding that plaguesAmerican schools. In1994, the best-paidteachers in low-povertyschools earned over35% more than thosein high-poverty schools

Figure 14

Teachers' Salaries Compared to Those of Other Workers(Average Annual Salaries (in 1996 constant dollars)

Average salary

$45,00

$40.00

Secondary$35,00 teachers

$30,

$25,

All workers withBachelors degree---

or higher/

$20,00

$0 ,

1960

Elementaryteachers Beginning

teache

IIIIIII111111964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984

School year ending1988 1992

$50,000

$45,000

$40,000

$35,000

$30,000

$25,000

$20,000

, $01996

Source: NCES, Digest of Education Statistics, 1966 and Schools and Staffing Survey, 1993-94 (Teacher Questionnaire). U.S.

Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P-60. American Federation of Teachers,

Survey and Analysis of Salary Trends 1996, December 1996.


2928

(see figure 15). Furthermore, teachers in moreadvantaged communities have much easierworking conditions, including smaller classsizes and pupil loads, and much more controlover decision making in their schools."Teachers in high-poverty schools are much lesslikely to say they that they have influence overdecisions concerning curriculum, texts, materi-als, or teaching policies. They are also much lesslikely to be satisfied with their salaries or to feelthey have the necessary materials available tothem to do their job."

Teacher RetentionWorking conditions, including influence

over professional decisions, play an importantrole in determining who stays in teaching.Between 1988 and 1994, teacher attrition ratesclimbed from 5.6% to 6.6% of all teachers."This was partly due to growing retirements andpartly due to the continuing high rates of attri-tion for beginning teachers, more than 30 per-cent of whom leave within the first 5 years ofteaching." Of those who left, about 27%retired; 37% left for family or personal reasons;and 26% were dissatisfied with teaching orsought another career." The major areas of dis-

Figure 15

Top public school teacher salaries(By poverty status of students: 1993-94)

Students receivingfree/reduced-price lunch

10% or less

11-20%

21-40%

More than 40%

$49,100

$42,800

$37,900

$36,100

10,000 50,000

Source: National Center for Education Statistics. Schools and Staffing Survey:

1993-94 (Public School and Teacher Demand and Shortage Questionnaires).

America's Teachers, p. 71.

satisfaction concerned student motivation anddiscipline, on the one hand, and lack of recog-nition and support from administration, on theother. Salaries were also a factor, but a some-what less prominent one. Not surprisingly,attrition rates in 1994 were higher in high-poverty than low-poverty schools, and thosewho left high-poverty schools were more thantwice as likely as those in low-poverty schoolsto leave because of dissatisfaction with teach-ing."

Control over salient elements of the workingenvironment is an important factor in teacherretention. Those who left teaching in 1994were much more satisfied with all of the aspectsof their new, nonteaching employment thanwere those who stayed in teaching. Ex-teacherswere most noticeably more satisfied than cur-rent teachers with their influence over policy,professional prestige, resources available, sup-port from administrators, and manageability ofwork. Those who had left also viewed their cur-rent salaries, general working conditions, andopportunities for advancement much morefavorably than did those who stayed in teaching(see figure 16).

Recent reforms may be improving teachers'satisfaction with some aspects of their work.The proportions of teachers saying they weresatisfied with the intellectual challenges ofteaching and with their opportunities foradvancement increased significantly between1988 and 1995,60 as did the proportions ofteachers saying they would advise a young per-son to pursue a career in teaching (see figure17). It is possible that teachers' growinginvolvement in curriculum and school reforms,along with greater opportunities for broaderprofessional rolesfor example, as mentor andconsulting teachers and instructional leadershave contributed to these changes.

Teachers also feel more positively than theydid a decade ago about the quality of prepara-tion their entering colleagues have received,and they feel better about their own salariesand recognition. Fewer report that they have


21 0

100-

90-

80-

70-

60-

50-

40-

30-

20-

10-

0

Figure 16

Job Satisfaction of Current and Former Teachers(Percentage of respondents who were somewhat or very satisfied)

Overall Evaluation Support from Influence Professional Manageability Opportunity Resources Salarysatisfaction from over prestige of work for available

administrators policy advancement

Former teachers' satisfaction with current nonteaching job

Current teachers' satisfaction with current teaching job

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Teacher Follow-up Survey: 1994-95. America's Teachers, pp. 90-

91, Tables 7.5a and 7.5b.

Figure 17

Trends in Teachers' Views of Teaching

I love to teach

I am usually recognized for good performance

I have to spend too much time on administrative tasks

I would advise a young person to pursue a career in teaching

My job allows me the opportunity to earn a decent salary

The preparation teachers receive today prepares then well for the classroom

As a teacher, I feel respected in today's society

Yes, I have seriously considered leaving

I am likely to leave within the next five years

70

67

37

46

47

41

26=1.124

57

54

51

63

77

7374

97

97

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

1984 or '85 1995

Source: National Center for Education Statistics Digest of Education Statistics, 1996, Tables 73 and 75.


22 30

seriously considered leaving teaching. Con-firming these trends is the fact that the propor-tion of teachers who report they would certain-ly become teachers again if they had the chanceincreased from 33 to 40% between 1988 and1994.61 This is part of a continuing upwardtrend since 1981, when the attractiveness ofteaching hit its lowest point. Women, elemen-tary teachers, and teachers in small school sys-tems feel most positively about their careerchoice." It is noteworthy, though, that mostteachers are not entirely sure that they wouldmake the same career choice if they had it to doover again.

Teachers' plans to remain in teaching arehighly sensitive to their perceptions of theirworking conditions. About 33 percent of pub-lic school teachers and 49 per-cent of private school teachersplan to remain in teaching aslong as they are able. These pro-portions, though, vary widelydepending on how teachers feelabout administrative support,faculty cooperation, resourceprovision, and teacher influenceover policy in their schools (seefigure 18).

In general, teachers feel theyhave much more control overclassroom decisionssuch asselecting teaching techniques ordetermining homework andgradesthan they do overschool policy decisions, such ascurriculum and disciplinarypolicies, the content of inserviceprograms, or the hiring andevaluation of teachers. Teachersin public schools feel they havefar less influence over importantdecisions than do teachers inprivate schools (see figure 19).Teachers in central city andhigh-minority schools feel theyhave the least decision making

authority. This compounds the other disincen-tives for teaching in these schoolsdisincen-tives that include lower salaries and larger classsizeswhich feed, in turn, into the disparitiesin teacher qualifications and teaching qualitythat students in different schools experience."

Qualifications and TrainingThe story regarding teachers' qualifications

is one of tremendous unevenness. The goodnews is that many new teachers are better pre-pared for teaching than ever before. Recentdata indicate that more new teachers are beingprepared in redesigned teacher education pro-grams that allow them to get a degree in theirfield while completing their training in educa-tion at the graduate level. In 1994, about 20%

Figure 18

Teachers' Views of Teaching and Plans to StayPercentage of teachers who plan to remain in teaching as long as they

are able by perceptions of their work environments: 1993-94

Resource provision in school

Faculty cooperation in school

Administrative support

Influence over teacher evaluation

Influence over budget

Influence on school discipline policy

Control over discipline in classroom

Student interest and involvement

Students' respect for teachers

Control over teaching techniques

45.231 4

43.430

40.129 4

4032 3

38.131 9

29 737.9

35.625 8

34.725 4

25 334.2

33.426 8

20 40

III High

El Not High

60

Source: National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey: 1993-94

(Public School Teacher Questionnaire). America's Teachers, p. 93.


23 3 1

Figure 19

Levels of Teacher Control and Influence(Percentage of teachers reporting a lot of control or influence over

classroom and school decisions)100-

91.490- 86.9

80-

70-

60-

50-

40-

30-

20-

10-

0

91.886.5 86.7 87 84.2

68.974.6

68.7

60.555.2

100-

90-

80-

70-

60-

50-

40-

30-

20-

10-

0

Evaluating and Selectinggrading teaching

students techniques

59.155.5

Determiningamount ofhomework

D scipliningstudents

Creating Establishingdisciplinary curriculum

policy

Choosinginserviceprograms

Selectingcontent

Selectingmaterials

Public

Private

8.1 8.3 8.5E. 1221111 I

Setting Hiring Evaluatingbudget teachers teachers

of all new entrants to teaching were hired witha master's degree as compared to 9% in 1991.'4In addition, as we noted above, more able indi-viduals are being attracted to teacher trainingprograms than was the case in the 1980s.

The bad news is that the number of newly

hired teachers entering the field without ade-quate training has not declined. In 1991, 25%of new entrants to public school teaching hadnot completed the requirements for a license intheir main assignment field. This proportionincreased to 27% in 1994, including nearly 11


24

Figure 20

Qualifications of Newly Hired'Public School Teachers, 1993-94

(Type of state license in main assignment field)

No license

Substandard licensee

Regular or Advanced license

Probationary license 3

1Newly hired teachers include all those hired by schools in 1993-94, excluding those who moved or

transferred from one school to another.

2A substandard license is an emergency, temporary, provisional, or altemative license issued to

someone who has not met the requirements for a standard license.

3A probationary license is a license issued to a new teacher who has met all requirements and is

completing an initial probationary period.

percent who had no license at all in their mainfield" (see figure 20). These teachers continuedto be disproportionately assigned to students inlow-income and high-minority schools. Mean-while, the most highly educated new teacherswere hired largely by schools serving thewealthiest students (see figure 21). This contin-ues the habit of assigning the least preparedteachers to students with the least clout and thegreatest learning needs while the best preparedteachers are hired by schools serving the mostadvantaged students.

On virtually every measure, teachers' qualifi-

cations vary by the status of the children theyserve. Students in high-poverty schools are stillthe least likely to have teachers who are fullyqualified, and are most likely to have teacherswithout a license or a degree in the field theyteach. They are also least likely to have teacherswith higher levels of educationa master's,specialist, or doctoral degree." Whereas only8% of public school teachers in low-povertyschools taught without a minor in their mainacademic assignment field, fully one-third ofteachers in high poverty schools taught withouta minor in their main field and nearly 70%


BEST COPY AVAILABILE

33

What Does It Take To Be A Teacher?parents might be surprised to learn that the qualifications of their children's teach-ers are likely to be dramatically different depending on where they live.In Wisconsin or Minnesota, for example, a prospective high school teacher mustcomplete a bachelor's degree that includes a full major in the subject area to betaught, plus coursework covering subject matter teaching methods, curriculum,

learning and development, teaching strategies, uses of technology, classroom management,human relations, and the education of students with special needs. In the course of this work,she would complete at least 18 weeks of student teaching in Wisconsin (a full college quarteror semester in Minnesota) under the supervision of a cooperating teacher who meets mini-mum standards. In Minnesota, this experience would include work in a multicultural settingand with special needs students. If a teacher were asked to teach outside the field of hermajor for part of the day, she must already be licensed with at least a minor in that field, andcould receive a temporary license in the new field only briefly while completing a major.

As a consequence of this preparation, parents in Wisconsin and Minnesota can be verysure that their children's teachers will know well the subject they are teaching, and they willunderstand how to present it in a way that takes account of how children learn, how theydevelop and what they are ready to learn at different stages. They can also have reasonableconfidence that their child's teacher will know about teaching techniques that are effectiveand up-to-date, that motivate students, that use new technologies, and that enable a smooth-running classroom. And they can bet that if their child has a learning difficulty, the teacherwill have some idea of how to diagnose the problem and address it.

By contrast, in Louisiana, a prospective high school teacher could be licensed with neithera major nor a minor in the field she was going to teach. The state would not require her tohave studied curriculum, teaching strategies, classroom management, uses of technology, orthe needs of special education students, and she could receive a license with as little as sixweeks of student teaching. If these constraints were too onerous, the aspiring teacher couldbe hired as one of the 15 percent of entering teachers who receive a license which does notmeet the minimal standards that exist. Or she could be hired as one of the 31 percent of newteachers who enter with no license at all.

Parents in Louisiana cannot really be sure what their child's teacher knows about subjectmatter, children, or the learning process. If a child attends a low-income or predominantlyminority school, the odds that his teacher will know little about subjects or students are espe-cially great.

It is no accident that students in Wisconsin and Minnesota score at the top of the countryin achievement, while those in Louisiana score near the bottom. As Will Rogers once said:"You can't teach what you don't know any more than you can come back from where you ain'tbeen." Parents might want to know what their child's teacher actually knows.

taught without a minor in their secondaryteaching field67 (See figures 22-24).

Out-of-field teaching remains a serious con-cern nationwide. Among public high schoolteachers in academic fields, 21 percent lacked a

minor in their main assignment field," includ-ing 28 percent of mathematics and 22 percentof English teachersa slight improvementsince 1991and 18 percent of science andsocial studies teachersslightly worse since


26 oC"1A

Figure 21

Qualifications of Newly Hired Teachers,* by School Type,1994

Unlicensed in main teaching field Masters degree

<5% low-income students EA 1-10% minority

111 >50% low-income students 5%.5 >50% minority

'Newly tired teachers excluding transfers

Source: Schools and Staffing Surveys, 1993.94. Tabulations conducted by the

National Commission on Teaching and ArneliCeS Future.

Figure 24

Teacher Qualifications by School Type

(Proportion Of Teachers with a License and a Degree'in the Field They Teach, 1994)

Main Assignment Field

El 1.10% minority students

<50% minority students

55% low-income students

>40% low-income students

'College ma* or graduate degree

Other Assignment Field

Source: LACES. knefica's Teachers: Profile of a Prolossion. 1993-94.1997. Tables 48.12. Asisa

end A3.15o.

Figure 22

Teacher Qualifications by School Type1994

Masters degree At least a minorin main academicassignment field

<5% low-income students

II >40% low-income students

At least a minorin other academicassignment field

Source: National Center for Education Statistics, America's reecho's. Tables 3.5 and A3.2.

0

Figure 24

Teacher Qualifications by School Type

(Percentage of feathers lacking full certification, 1994)

12.9

7.7

8M%

8.8

14.5

34.5

50.0

Main AssignmentField

(At teachers)

Main AssignmentField

(Academic teachers)

Ei No minority students

<50% minority students

Other Assignment Field(All teachers)

Soo-ca: NOES, AmericaY Teachers: Prof* of a Professor; 199394. 1997. Tobias 43.14a. A3.15a

and 43.14b.


35

Figure 25

Trends in Out-of-Field Teaching

(Percent of public high school teachers in each field without a majoror minor in that field)

35-

30-

10-

5-

30.5

27. 8.1

0Mathematics

1987-88

1990-91

El 1993-94

23.41.921.5

16 16

18.217.4 17.8

English Science Social Studies

Scarce: Schools and Staffing Surveys. 1987-88. 1990-91. and 1993-94. Teacher

auentienriaill. Tabulations by R. Ingersoll for the National Commission on Teaching and

America's Future.

1991 (see figure 25). Roughly 20% of second-ary teachers in each academic area also lackedstate certification in that field, ranging from17% of science teachers to 24% of mathematicsteachers." Proportions of teachers in somekinds of private schools teaching without certi-fication and without a minor in their mainassignment area are even larger.' This is prob-lematic given the studies that show lower levelsof achievement for students whose teachers arenot prepared and certified in their subject area.

These problems in the preparation and li-censing of teachers are reflected in the per-formance of U.S. students on internationalassessments. For example, the U.S. has experi-enced chronic shortages of mathematics andphysical science teachers for more than 40 yearsand has typically met these problems by lower-ing standards rather than by increasing theincentives to teach. Between one-fourth andone-third of U.S. mathematics teachers havebeen teaching out of field for many years. In

1994, just over half of U.S. math teachers hadboth a license and a major in their field (seefigure 27). Given the large number of teacherswho are underprepared in mathematics, itshould be no surprise that U.S. students con-tinue to compare least favorably with theirinternational peers in this subject, with 8thgraders ranking 18th out of 25 countries thatmet the guidelines for the Third InternationalMathematics and Science Studies (TIMSS)(see table 3).

U.S. students rank 12th in science out of 25countries that met the TIMSS guidelines, but17th in physics. These rankings also appear tobe associated with levels of teacher preparation.While general science teachers are relativelywell-qualified (only 18% have less than a minorin the field), more than half of physical scienceteachers are out-of-field by this criterion. As aconsequence, 48% of U.S. high school studentswho take a physical science course are taught byteachers who did not prepare in that field."

On the other hand, U.S. students have com-pared favorably with students in other coun-tries in reading, ranking at or above the medi-an in 4th and 8th grades. This is partly due tothe fact that there have been large investmentsin teachers' preparation to teach reading at theelementary levelfor both reading specialistsand "regular" classroom teachersand there islittle hiring of unqualified teachers in thesefields. Most districts and schools provide sub-stantial expert support in reading for bothteachers and students, while they allocate dra-matically fewer resources to similar support inmathematics."

Nationally, there has been little progress inreducing the extent of out-of-field teachingover the last two decades." However, somestates have made tremendous strides in contin-uing to upgrade the qualifications of theirteachers. For example, in states like Wisconsin,Iowa, Minnesota, and Montana, at least 80% ofteachers in most fields have both full certifica-tion and a major in the field they teach, andvery few are teaching out-of-field (with less


28 36

Table 3

Results from the Third International Mathematics and Science Study

(International Rankings of Countries that met the TIMSS Guidelines)

NATION MATH NATION SCIENCE NATION PHYSICSAVERAGE AVERAGE PERCENT

CORRECT

Singapore 643 Singapore 607 Singapore 69Korea 607 Czech Republic 574 Japan 67Japan 605 Japan 571 Korea 65Hong Kong 588 Korea 565 Czech Republic 60Belgium-Flemish 565 Hungary 554 Hungary 60Czech Republic 564 England 552 England 62Slovak Republic 547 Belgium-Flemish 550 Slovak Republic 61

Switzerland 545 Slovak Republic 544 Hungary 60France 538 Ireland 538 Canada 59Hungary 537 Russian Federation 538 Hong Kong 58Russian Federation 535 Sweden 535 New Zealand 58Canada 527 United States 534 Switzerland 58Ireland 527 Canada 531 Russian Federation 57Iran, Islamic Republic 428 Norway 527 Sweden 57Sweden 519 New Zealand 525 Norway 57New Zealand 508 Hong Kong 522 Ireland 56England 506 Switzerland 522 United States 56Norway 503 Spain 517 Spain 55United States 500 France 498 France 54Latvia (LSS) 493 Iceland 494 Iceland 53Spain 487 Latvia (LSS) 485 Latvia (LSS) 51

Iceland 487 Portugal 480 Lithuania 51

Lithuania 477 Lithuania 476 Portugal 48Cyprus 474 Iran, Islamic Republic 470 Iran, Islamic Republic 48Portugal 454 Cyprus 463 Cyprus 46

Source: U.S. Dept. of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Pursuing Excellence: A Study of U.S.Eighth Grade Mathematics and Science Teaching, Learning, Curriculum, and Achievement in International Context,by Lois Peak, 1996.

than a minor)." Not surprisingly, students inthese states have also ranked at the top of thedistribution in mathematics and readingachievement on the National Assessment ofEducational Progress for many years. By con-trast, states like Alaska, California, and Louisi-ana, which rank much lower, have many fewerteachers who hold certification plus a major intheir field (generally no more than 60%), andlarge numbers of teachers teaching with lessthan a minor (more than 40 percent in somefields) (see Appendix B).

In addition to the fact that states have wide-ly varying requirements for licensing, schooldistricts do not always insist on qualificationsfor teaching. Nationwide, only two-thirds ofdistricts require their new hires to hold at leasta college minor in the field to be taught, alongwith full certification and preparation from astate-approved institution. In some states, likeGeorgia, fewer than half of all districts insistupon these hiring requirements!' In others, likeIowa, Minnesota, Kentucky, and Wisconsin,almost all of them do. On the other hand, some

DOING WHAT MATTERS MOST: INVESTING IN (DUALITY TEACHING

29

districts, like New Haven, California, are creat-ing comprehensive systems of recruitment,preparation, and induction to ensure that theyget and keep the best-qualified teachers, evenin difficult labor markets. (See below.)

Reform ofTeacher Educationand Induction

In its report, the National Commissionnoted that a sizable number of universities haveundertaken major reforms of their educationprograms, adding a 5th year of study, creatingextensive internships with master teachers inprofessional development schools, andstrengthening coursework in both subject mat-ter disciplines and pedagogy. During the pastyear, the Commission completed a study ofseven extraordinary teacher education pro-grams that prepare teachers who are successfulat teaching diverse learners effectively." Basedon external evaluations and observations oftheir practice, the graduates of these programshave also developed pedagogical skills thatenable them to teach the challenging materialenvisioned by new subject matter standardsaimed at higher levels of performance andgreater understanding.

These teacher education programs are locat-ed in public and private universities, across allregions of the country, and at the undergradu-ate and graduate levels. They share several fea-tures that directly confront the limitations oftraditional teacher education programs:

a common, clear vision of good teachingthat is apparent in all coursework and clin-ical experiences;

a curriculum grounded in substantialknowledge of child and adolescent develop-ment, learning theory, cognition, motiva-tion, and subject matter pedagogy, taught inthe context of practice;

extended clinical experiences (at least 30weeks) which are carefully chosen to sup-port the ideas and practices presented in

simultaneous, closely interwoven course-work;

well-defined standards of practice and per-formance that are used to guide and evalu-ate coursework and clinical work;

strong relationships, common knowledge,and shared beliefs among school- and uni-versity-based faculty;

extensive use of case study methods, teacherresearch, performance assessments, andportfolio evaluation to ensure that learningis applied to real problems of practice.

Over the past few years, many other pro-grams have been engaged in redesigning theirwork to include these features. A growingnumber of institutions are creating 5-year or5th-year programs that ensure both a bachelor'sdegree in a disciplinary field and intensivestudy of teaching at the graduate level forentering teachersincluding a year-long

Figure 26

Trends in Teacher Qualifications

(Percent of Public School Teachers with Full Certification and a College Major inTheir Main Assignment Field)

80-

70-

so-

so-

I

g," 30-

20-

10-

65

59 :44,Ar:

4:4

..41

Ih4.4

54

61 61

.or

686968

104te4

1044.4

'44'44

4.4

76

7140-

4:4

.4!

t*:h44.h4.

$

0

English Mathematics Science Social Studies ForeignLanguage

1988

1991

1994eti

'There was a small change in coding tor science teachers between 1991 and 1944,

which could account for the sharp change.

Source: S. Bobbin and M. lAdAilen. Qualifications ol The Public School Teacher

Wohdorco: 1988 and 1991, NCES, 1995, p. 15. NCES, America's Teachers. 1993-

1994, Table A3.l5a (corrected).


school-based internship connected to educa-tion coursework. In doing so, they resolve sev-eral traditional dilemmas of teacher education:They create time for study of both subject mat-ter and pedagogy, rather than trading off oneagainst the other. They create room for muchmore extensive clinical experiencetypically30 weeks or more rather than the traditional 8to 10 weeks of student teaching. And theyreduce fragmentation of the curriculum byinterweaving coursework with practical experi-ences, rather than frontloading theory discon-nected from practice.

These institutions join a growing number ofcountries whose teachers are now prepared inprograms that extend to the graduate level,among them France, Finland, Germany, Ire-land (secondary), Italy (secondary), Luxem-bourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, andPortugal." Many U.S. institutions are takingthis step because they believe it will enablethem to prepare more effective teachers, but

Figure 27

Expenditures in Professional Programs(Per Undergraduate Student Credit Hour)

Engineering Nursing Accounting Architecture Social Work Education

Research universities

II Doctoral universities

Comprehensive universities

Source: Richard Havarti. Randy Hirt. and Lany Baker. Comparative Study of

Expenditures per Student Credit Hour of Education Programs to Programs of Other

Disciplines and Professions, t997.

they lack the systemic supports by state govern-ments that their counterparts in other countriesenjoy.

At the same time, there are still many pro-grams that operate with inadequate resources,knowledge, and motivation to improve. TheCommission report noted the longstandingproblem that many universities have treatedteacher education as a "cash cow" which is con-ducted on a shoestring and used to fund pro-grams in other fields. This problem continuesto exist. A 1997 study confirms earlier researchwhich found that education programs are fund-ed well below the average, generally near thebottom ranks of departments and well belowthe level of other professional preparation pro-grams's (see figure 27). In addition, theNational Center for Education Statisticsreports that teacher educators receive lowersalaries than other education faculty, who inturn, earn significantly lower salaries thannoneducation faculty" (see figure 28).

Figure 28

Average Faculty Salaries by Field

Teacher educators

Other education professo

Noneducation professo

$41,092

$44,442

$52,305

10,000 50,000

Source: National Center for Education Statistics. America's Teachers, p. 31.

DOING WHAT MATTERS MOST: INVESTING IN QUALITY TEACHING

31 3 9

EST COPY AVAILABLE

These conditions make it hard to improvethe quality of teacher education, while the lackof enforcement of quality standards in manystates removes much leverage for change. As we

noted in What Matters Most, only three stateshave required professional accreditation of alleducation schools, and few state agencies havethe resources or capacity to evaluate programs

Doing What Matters MostThe New Haven Unified School District, located midway between Oakland andSan Jose, California, serves approximately 14,000 students from Union City andsouth Hayward, most of them working class. Twenty years ago, the district wasthe lowest wealth district in a low wealth county, and it had a reputation tomatch. Today, New Haven Unified School District, while still a low-wealth dis-

trict, has a well deserved reputation for excellent schools.Twenty years ago, students who could manage to do so went elsewhere to school. Now, the

district has to close its doors to out-of-district transfers because schools are bulging at theseams. Still, families try every trick in the book to establish a New Haven District address.The district has received so many state and national awards that one board member quippedthey needed to build a new central office to display all the banners. And when school districtsacross California scrambled last year to hire qualified teachers, often failing to do so, NewHaven had in place an aggressive recruitment system and a high quality training programwith local universities that allowed it to continue its long-term habit of hiring well-prepared,committed, and diverse teachers to staff its schools.

Of the many factors contributing to the district's success with students, one key was anearly recognition of the essential role of teachers and a set of systemic policies in support ofquality teaching. Although the district's work began decades before the publication of WhatMatters Most, New Haven has, in its own way, met most of the challenges laid out in thatreport.

First, New Haven got serious about standards. One of several things the district did morethan 20 years ago was to establish high expectations for teachers in terms of both hiring andongoing performance. They then got serious about assessing teachingand provided neces-sary supports for teachers to meet the expectations. The move drew criticism, but it sent anunwavering message that the district was committed to assuring students the teachers theydeserved.

Second, the district invested in teacher education. Alongside the required EducationalLeadership journal in the personnel director's office are well worn copies of the The Journal ofTeacher Education and Teacher Education Quarterly. The district was one of the first in thestate to implement a Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment Program that provides sup-port for teachers in their first two years in the classroom. In addition, district leaders foresawstudent population growth and California's 20:1 class size initiative. With the support ofCalifornia State University, Hayward, the district designed an innovative teacher educationprogram that combines college coursework and an intensive internship conducted under theclose supervision of school-based educators. Because interns function as student teachers whowork directly with master teachers, rather than as teachers of record, the program simultane-ously educates teachers while protecting students and providing quality education.

Third, New Haven recruits quality teachers. With the wise and humane use of technology,


324 0

and enforce high standards through their pro-gram approval process. Candidates are licensedif they graduate from a state-approved pro-gram, and virtually all programs, regardless of

their quality, are state-approved. Several morestates have taken steps this year to intervene inthis vicious cycle by upgrading their standardsfor licensing and accreditation of programs, and

Ensuring Qiality Teaching at the District Level

the school district recruits from a national pool of exceptional teachers. The district justreceived the prestigious C. S. Robinson Award from the American Association of SchoolPersonnel Administrators for exemplary use of technology in recruiting. The district's use oftechnology actually personalizes the entire personnel function. For instance, their engagingand educational web site draws inquiries from around the country. Each inquiry receives apersonal e-mail response. With the use of electronic information transfer (for example, thepersonnel office can send applicant files to the desktop of any administrator electronically),the district can provide information to people urban districts might never think would beavailable to themlet alone immediately with a stroke on the keyboard. Despite the horrorstories one often hears about the difficulty of out-of-state teachers earning a California teach-ing credential, New Haven's credential analyst in the personnel office has yet to lose a teacherrecruited from out-of-state in the state's credentialing maze.

Fourth, the school system rewards knowledge and skill. The district provides multipleintangible rewards for teachersnot the least of which is broad-based community support ofschools. The district also puts its money where its mouth is. Although it remains one of thetwo lowest wealth districts in its county, New Haven offers the highest salary scale in the area.In addition, the district staffs classrooms creatively and flexibly so that classroom teachers,while working with children, also enact the internship program and the beginning teachersupport and assessment program; develop curriculum; design technological supports; and cre-ate student standards, assessments, and indicators of student learning. Teaching in NewHaven is conceived as truly professional work.

Finally, New Haven organizes schools around student and teacher learning. With the infor-mation the district can gather and analyze with its technological capacities, the district imple-mented a district-wide extended day program offered on a sliding scale so that all families canparticipate. The schools are open from dawn until dark providing educational experiencesconnected with the school program, as well as traditional enrichment activities and clubs. Toensure opportunities for teacher learning, the district opens schools 90 minutes late onWednesday mornings. Each Wednesday morning, in every school in the district, teachersgather in collaborative teams to teach and learn with each other. As another example of thedistrict putting its money where its mouth is, New Haven's computer expert estimates that forevery dollar spent on machinery and software, the district invests another dollar in supportingthe teachers' use of those tools.

Taken together, these actions have helped create a district that succeeds with students andinspires confidence from parents. The results of these investments in what matters most haveresulted in extraordinary support from the community, which has passed the past three bondlevies with more than a two-thirds vote. In a state that has been voting down school taxes formore than twenty years, New Haven voters believe in their schoolsand in the benefit theyprovide to both children and the community.


33 41_

by creating resources and incentives to encour-age universities to take seriously the educationof prospective teachers. Fifteen states now useNCATE's national professional standards asthe basis for state program decisions.

In addition, more states are creating induc-tion programs to provide mentoring and sup-port for beginning teachers. Among teacherswith less than 5 years of experience, 55 percentreport that they experienced some kind of for-mal induction program during their first year ofteaching." By contrast, only 16 to 17 percent ofteachers with more than 10 years of experiencehad had such help when they entered the pro-fession." Like all other education policies,however, access to induction programs varieswidely across the country. More than 3/4 ofbeginners report having experienced inductionsupports in states that put such programs inplace several years agoConnecticut, Florida,Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina,Oklahoma, and Pennsylvania. However, instates like Rhode Island and Massachusettsthat have relied only on local initiatives, fewerthan 15% of beginning teachers have receivedany kind of systematic mentoring.

Access to ProfessionalDevelopment

Teachers' later access to professional learningopportunities also varies substantially. Nation-ally, relatively few teachers have access to sus-tained, intensive professional developmentabout their subject matter, teaching methods,or new technologies. In 1994, about half of allteachers had some exposure to professionaldevelopment regarding the uses of educationaltechnology, student assessment, or cooperativelearning; however, most of these learning op-portunities were extremely short-termusual-ly one-time workshops. Only a small fractionof teachers (15% or fewer) spent at least ninehours engaged in any of these areas of learning(see figure 29). This is probably because thevast majority of professional development op-

portunities were district-sponsored workshopsthat are typically delivered as one-day events."

In addition, while more teachers (about64%) had at least brief exposure to some studyof teaching methods, only about 30 percentengaged in in-depth study in their subject mat-ter field. This is particularly important giventhe current emphasis on new student standardsin the disciplines and the critical need forteachers to develop a broad repertoire of meth-ods for teaching a wider range of students tosucceed with much more challenging material.

Teachers are remarkably positive about anyand all opportunities for learning. The greatmajority (85%) report that whatever profes-sional development they encountered providedthem with new and useful information. Al-though somewhat fewer report that the learn-ing opportunities they experienced changedtheir practice (65%), almost none report thatthey were a waste of time (11%).83

Access to professional development varies

70-

60-

-5 50-

E

:

"6

m30-

e. 20-

to-

0

Figure 29Teacher Participation in Professional

Development 1993-94

50

15

64

2830

52 52

1512

Uses of Subject matter In-depth Studenteducational methods study in assessmenttechnology specific field

0 Any professional development

Nine hours or more

13

Cooperativeearning

Source: National Center for Education Statistics. Schools and Staffing Surveys. Pubic School

Teacher questionnaire. Tatutations by National Commission on Teaching an dAmenca's Future.


34 4 2

substantially across states. In recent years,Kentucky has had the most widespread profes-sional development opportunities of any state:In 1994, more than 70 percent of teachers inKentucky reported that they had pursued pro-fessional development opportunities regardinguses of technology, teaching methods, studentassessment, and cooperative learning. Kentuckyteachers were also more likely than most othersto say that the professional development theyexperienced changed their practice." By con-trast, only one-third of teachers in Arkansasand Nevada had had any opportunity to learnabout uses of technology; and only 10 percentof teachers in Illinois, New Mexico, or Tenn-essee had the chance to spend more than oneday studying their subject area (see AppendixB).

In recent years, participation in certain kindsof professional development seems to have in-creased, while engagement in other kinds hasdeclined. More teachers participated in profes-sional development sponsored by their schooldistrict during the school year in 1996 than in1994 (up to 77% from 70%), but fewer partici-pated in such professional development duringthe summer. Between 1994 and 1996, a grow-ing number of teachers worked on curriculumcommittees, engaged in learning activitiessponsored by professional associations, andparticipated in professional development aimedat National Board Certification (see figure 30).The fact that 6% of public school teachers par-ticipated in professional development related toNational Board Certification means that, al-though fewer than 1,000 teachers have thus far

80-

70-

60-

50-

30-

20-

10-

32

Figure 30

Participation in Professional Growth Activities(Percent of Teachers, 1994 to 1996)

System-sponsored System-sponsored

professional professional

development during development during

school year summer

43

328

3033

Work on Curriculum Professional association

committee sponsored professional

development

Source: NEA, Status of the American Public School Teacher, 1995-96, pp. 248-252.

Co lege courses in

education during

school year

25

16

Co lege courses in

education during

summer

pi 1993-1994

1995-1996

Professional development

for National Board

Certification


35 4 3

BEST COPY MARIAM

received certification, at least 160,000 havetaken steps to prepare for it. Meanwhile, anumber of universities have begun to developadvanced Master's degree programs based onthe National Board's Standards which will sup-port teachers in developing more accomplishedteaching practice.

At the same time, the proportion of teacherstaking college courses in education or in otherfields during the school year and during thesummer has declined noticeably." Whetherthis is because teachers were less interested intaking such courses, because more teachers areentering having already completed their mas-ter's degree, or because school districts offeredless support for college course-taking is notknown. The 40 percent of teachers who didtake college coursework over the last three yearsspent an average of about $2,000 of their ownmoney for tuition and expenses."

There are promising signs that, at least insome schools, teachers have growing access toopportunities to learn which are helpful tothem and their students. The continuing issuefor professional development is how to makemore sustained, in-depth opportunities forteacher learning more widely and routinelyavailable in schools across the country.

Progress in School ReformTeachers need not only knowledge

and skills but also conditions in whichthey can teach well. These includecommon standards for student learn-ing, more continuous and extendedtime for working with students andfamilies, and more time for collabora-tive planning and learning with othercolleagues. As we described in WhatMatters Most, schools that focus on in-depth learning for students and teach-ers have enacted curriculum changes,redesigned schedules, and new patternsof staffing and resource use, includinginvestments in teaching and technolo-gy rather than nonteaching functions.

In order to afford both smaller pupil loads forteachers and greater time for collegial work,more of the staff who are now working in pull-out programs, administrative roles, and supportoffices need to be working in the classroom, asthey do in most other industrialized countries.

The extremely bureaucratic organization ofU.S. schools seems to be changing slowly, if atall. In 1994, the proportion of school staff whowere teachers had continued its steady declinesince 1950 (see figure 31). Among the 52% ofstaff who were classified as teachers, only about43% were regularly assigned as classroomteachers. This explains why, even though theratio of pupils to instructional staff is 13 to 1,average class sizes remain at about 24 and reach35 or more in many central cities, and teachersstill have almost no time to consult with oneanother."

Despite these constraints, most teachersreport that their schools are working on a vari-ety of school reforms, including the use of abroader range of teaching methods and assess-ment methods, an expansion of the "basics" toinclude computer literacy and problem solving,and the greater involvement of teachers andprincipals in decision making concerning

80-

70-

60-

50-

40-

30-

20-

10-

0

Figure 31

Proportions of Staff by Functional Area

Teachers

Support Staff

Instructional Aides

Administrators

1950 1960 1970

Source: NCES. Digest of Education Statistics, 1996, Table 81.

1980 1990 1994


36

scheduling, curriculum, personnel, and bud-gets. Over 70% of teachers report at least par-tial implementation of reforms in these areas,but many fewer see their schools as having fullyimplemented these changes, and fewer stillreport much progress on flexible schedulingdesigned to promoted more in-depth, integrat-ed learning or the use of criteria for masteryrather than seat time as the basis for gaugingstudent progress" (see figure 32).

The use of technology in school is alsoincreasing slowly. In 1995, only about one-fourth of teachers were using computers or cal-culators in the classroom" while over 87% usedthe blackboard. Teachers and students were lesslikely to use computers in secondary schoolsthan in elementary schools. As we noted earli-er, teachers are still not getting enough inser-vice training to use technology A recent reviewof state policies found that, while 44 statesreported that they require or recommend inte-grating technology into the curriculum, onlyAlabama and the District of Columbia requireinservice training in technology for all teachers.State budgets for technology supports varygreatly: some state educational technologybudgets amount to several million dollars,while other state budgets would not cover morethan a single staff person.

When asked what would help them usetechnology better, teachers who responded to asurvey by the Office of Technology Assess-ment% cited the need for more knowledgeabout how to use technologies and more know-ledge about how to organize and manage theirstudents in technology-based school environ-ments. Several factors were found to influenceteachers' use of technology: 1) access to tech-nology; 2) on-site technical support; 3) tech-nology training; and 4) school time for instruc-tional integration and planning. Several newstate and federal initiatives tackle these condi-tions head-on, and may make an important dif-ference for bringing schools into the informa-tion age in ways that really transform students'and teachers' opportunities to learn.

Evidence of Progress:Federal, State, andLocal Initiatives

While there is a long way to go, importantprogress is being made in all of these areas withthe leadership of policymakers, practitioners,and concerned public members across thecountry. Organizations like the NationalGovernors Association, the National Confer-ence of State Legislatures, the EducationCommission of the States, the National Edu-cation Association, the American Federation ofTeachers, the American Association of Col-leges for Teacher Education, the National Ur-ban League, and a wide range of associationsrepresenting state and local boards, administra-tors, subject matter teachers, and parents haveengaged their members in serious considera-tion of the issues associated with teaching stan-dards, teacher accountability, and support forteacher learning and performance. Almostevery major metropolitan news outlet featuredstories about teaching quality when childrenreturned to school this fall, a sign that the pub-lic is getting serious about what matters most.Most states and many school districts under-took renewed steps to focus on teaching quali-ty, as did the United States Congress.Americans seem ready to work on this agenda.

Federal Initiatives: Investing inRecruitment and Preparation

The National Commission's recommenda-tions are reflected in five federal legislative pro-posals in the current (1997) Congressional ses-sion and a bevy of enactments in state and localdistricts. All of the federal proposals reviseTitle V of the Higher Education Reauthoriza-tion Act, a compendium of 20 teacher educa-tion and recruitment provisions of which onlyone, a $2.2 million teacher recruitment pro-


45

Figure 32

Implementation of School Reforms(Percent of Teachers Reporting Reforms Implemented

in Their Schools, 1996)

76

23

74

28

Use of a variety of

teaching methods in

addition to lecturing

(e.g. cooperative

learning, hands-on

methods)

72

42

Fully implemented

1111 Partially implemented

Teachers and principals Use of a variety of Expansion of 'basics' to

have decision making

authority over

scheduling, curriculum,

personnel, budget

assessment methods in

addition to tests

include computer

literacy and problem

solving

Source: NEA, Status of the American Public School Teacher, 1995-96, P. 89.

Flexible scheduling to

allow for integrated

learning

20

6

Allowing students to

progress based on

mastery rather than seat

time

gram, has ever been previously funded.The Clinton Administration included in its

legislative package a bill aimed at improvedteacher preparation and recruitment in urbanand rural schools." The Lighthouse Partner-ships for Teacher Preparation and TeacherRecruitment for Underserved Areas bill (S.1209) authorizes $350 million to subsidize thepreparation of 35,000 teachers who agree towork for at least three years in hard-to-staffurban and rural schools in high-poverty areas.Their preparation would be supported throughcompetitive grants to colleges and universitieswith exemplary teacher education programs.

The TEACH Act (Teacher Excellence inAmerica Challenge Act of 1997, S. 1169), in-troduced by Senator Jack Reed (RI), wouldprovide competitive grants for school-universi-ty partnerships that launch professional devel-opment schools to improve teacher prepara-

tion, induction, and professional development.Priority would be given to schools serving highpercentages of low-income children and toefforts that help teachers work with diverse stu-dent populations, implement research-basedpractices that improve student achievement,prepare teachers to use technology to help stu-dents achieve to high standards; and involveparents.

America's Teacher Education ImprovementAct (S.1201), introduced by Senator WilliamFrist (TN), is designed to replace Title Vexcept for the existing minority recruitmentprovision. S. 1201 authorizes $250 million ayear over four years to fund educator recruit-ment, preservice education, and induction. Thebill encourages partnerships among teacherpreparation programs and other campus units,community colleges, schools, and communityorganizations, among others.


The Teaching Excellence for All ChildrenAct (H.R. 2228) was introduced by Represen-tative George Miller (CA). The bill would giveparents the right to know the qualifications oftheir child's teacher and would require collegesreceiving federal funds for teacher training tobecome nationally accredited or provide evi-dence that at least 90 percent of their graduatespass state licensing requirements. Graduateswho teach in high-poverty schools could havestudent loans forgiven, and school districts inhigh-poverty areas could form partnershipswith colleges to provide intensive teacher train-ing through a Beginning Teacher Recruitmentand Support Program.

The Technology for Teachers Act (S. 839),introduced by Senator Jeff Bingaman (NM), isaimed at ensuring that teachers get the trainingthey need to make effective use of technologyin the classroom. It would fund partnershipsamong colleges, school districts, state educationdepartments, and the private sector to improvethe preparation of both preservice and inserviceteachers in the use of the latest educationresearch and the most current technology avail-able.

Each of these bills tackles different aspects ofthe Commission's recommendations concern-ing standards, recruitment, preparation, profes-sional development, and school restructuring.Action on all of them would move the countrya giant step closer to meeting the goal of assur-ing each student a qualified, competent, caringteacher by the year 2006.

State Actions:Transforming Standards andSystems for Teaching

States are getting serious about standards forteaching. By the fall of 1997, 41 states hadentered into partnerships with the NationalCouncil for the Accreditation of Teacher Edu-cation (NCATE) and nine had required ac-creditation of all public institutions. In part be-cause of these actions, 51 teacher education

institutions decided to undertake accreditationreview this year, joining the 500 already accred-ited. Meanwhile, NCATE announced its plansto move to performance-based accreditation bythe year 2000, revamping standards so that theyfocus more on evidence of candidate knowl-edge and demonstrated teaching skill and lesson measures of inputs and process.

More than 20 states had adopted or adaptedINTASC standards for licensing beginningteachers, and 18 were engaged in developing orpiloting new assessments based on these stan-dards. Twenty-six states and more than 70 dis-tricts had enacted incentives for teachers topursue National Board certification. The num-ber of Board-certified teachers reached 911 byNovember, 1997. Meanwhile, more than150,000 teachers participated in professionaldevelopment aimed at Board certification.Increased federal appropriations have allowedthe Board to launch 5 more certificates for the1998-99 school year and complete 26 certifi-cates (covering 95% of all teachers) by the year2000.

The Commission's twelve partner statesundertook a wide-ranging set of reforms affect-ing almost all aspects of teaching. NorthCarolina passed the ambitious ExcellentSchools Act of 1997, which enacted nearly allof the recommendations of the National Com-mission that were not already in place in thestate. The Act ties higher salaries for teachersto higher standards and creates greater learningopportunities as it:

increases salaries by an average of 33 percentover 4 years;strengthens licensing by creating a three-tiered system of initial, continuing, and ad-vanced certification tied to performance as-sessments;establishes rewards for knowledge and skills byproviding additional salary increments forpassing assessments for a continuing li-cense after 3 years, passing tenure reviewafter 4 years, obtaining National Board cer-tification (for which teachers earn a 12%


39 47

increase), and earning a master's degree;improves teacher education by raising entrystandards, establishing school-universitypartnerships to create clinical school set-tings, requiring special education trainingfor all newly prepared teachers, and revisingmaster's degree programs;enhances mentoring of beginning teachers bysetting standards for the selection of men-tor teachers and providing funds to trainand compensate mentors; and

funds professional development tied to studentstandards.

Another initiative will create professional de-velopment school partnerships for the clinicaltraining of beginning and veteran teachers at all15 North Carolina public teacher educationinstitutions by the year 2000, a far-reaching en-deavor that is already well underway.

Since September of 1996, Ohio has also putin place a comprehensive new infrastructure forpreparing, licensing, and promoting the profes-sional development of teachers. Followingextensive groundwork laid by public commit-tees, the State Board and legislature enactedpolicies' that:

adopt performance-based standards for teacherlicensing compatible with INTASC andNational Board standards. These rigorousstandards spell out what teachers shouldknow and be able to do; they will be tied toperformance assessments for an initial andcontinuing license.require teacher education programs to meetNC/1TE standards and to demonstrate thattheir graduates can meet the new licensingstandards and performance assessments;provide mentors for all beginning teachers andprincipals and require that beginners passperformance assessments evaluated by stateassessors to receive a professional license;require license renewal every five years basedon professional development approved bynewly-established local professional deve-lopment committees comprised of teachersand administrators;

require a master's degree or the equivalentwithin 10 years of entry into the profession;support National Board certification by un-derwriting fees for 400 teachers in 1997-98, allocating $30,000 to each of 10 highereducation institutions providing assistanceto candidates, and paying an annual $2500stipend to those who are certified;encouragepeer review and assistance throughcompetitive grants to school systems thatimplement peer review programs and fundtraining for mentor teachers at regionalprofessional development centers.

In addition, the state has taken steps toenable schools to develop new forms of organi-zation and scheduling that will better supportstudent and teacher learning. The Venture Cap-ital program has provided funds for more than500 schools to create fresh approaches to cur-riculum, teaching, scheduling, governance, andprofessional development. This school year, 11school districts have been selected to launch anew Standards Deregulation Pilot Program thatwill give them greater freedom to innovate inexchange for continued high performance andimprovement under the proposed Standards forOhio's Schools. Finally, the State Board of Ed-ucation has authorized the waiver of rules thatconstrain scheduling and school structure toprovide flexibility needed to create time for pro-fessional development.

Oklahoma sharply expanded its appropria-tions to the Commission for Teacher Prepara-tion for implementing a competency-based pro-gram of teacher licensure and for launching pro-fessional development institutes, the first of whichwill focus on the teaching of reading. Subse-quent institutes will be established to focus onthe teaching of mathematics, the teaching ofinquiry-based science, the use of technology inthe classroom, and the training of mentors forbeginning teachers. The state also establishedan Education Leadership Program to assistteachers in seeking National Board Certificationby creating training programs in universities;paying for assessment fees and scholarships to


48

support released time, travel, and other costs;and paying a $5,000 salary increment forBoard-certified teachers.

A number of states have redesigned teachingstandards and created partnerships with uni-versities and schools to incorporate the newstandards into preparation and professionaldevelopment programs. Maryland's State Boardof Education has launched a Redesign ofTeacher Education which includes adoption ofNCATE standards for accreditation of educa-tion programs, INTASC-based standards as thebasis for new performance assessments forlicensure, and National Board standards forongoing professional development. The Boardapproved a budget request to launch 240 newprofessional development schools to expand uponthe current efforts of its thirteen universities.All prospective teachers will ultimately beexpected to complete a year-long internship insuch a school. The legislature also enacted feeincentives and continuing education credits forteachers pursuing National Board Certification.

Kansas completed a plan for the redesign ofteacher licensure that is also standards-based,compatible with the INTASC and NationalBoard standards, and embedded in a continu-um of teaching standards and ongoing profes-sional development. It will create a new induc-tion program and hold teacher education pro-grams accountable for the performance of theirgraduates. The Kansas Teacher DevelopmentCoalition housed at the University of Kansas, acollaboration of state agencies, higher educa-tion institutions, and other educators, is work-ing on aligning preservice education and induc-tion-related professional development with thisredesign. Meanwhile, each of the six Regentsinstitutions has established professional devel-opment school partnerships for the clinicalpreparation of new teachers.

Indiana's Professional Standards Board hasalso adopted a set of interlocking standards basedon NCATE, INTASC, and National Boardstandards for accreditation, licensing, and pro-fessional development. These will be linked to

performance-based assessments. In June 1997,the Board approved the design of an assess-ment system for preservice education, licensure,and relicensure. The Indiana Alliance, a net-work of six school-university partnerships, isworking to align preservice education with theNCATE and INTASC standards, and to stim-ulate professional development and assess-ments of teachers in schools consistent with theNational Board standards.

Maine also developed new standards forteacher licensing that are based on the INTASCstandards and tied to Maine's Learning Resultsfor Children. Eight colleges are developing andpiloting performance-based assessments of thestandards. Kentucky began implemention in1996 of its new performance-based licensing andaccreditation requirements with performance as-sessments in schools of education. These as-sessments and the Kentucky Teacher Intern-ship program, which provides a trained mentorteacher for each beginner, are based on stan-dards that reflect the Kentucky EducationReform Act (KERA) reforms.

The Illinois State Board of Educationadopted a standards-based framework for re-designing preparation, licensing, and profes-sional development relying on INTASC andNational Board standards. Six advisory groupsof over 200 educators, parents, business andcommunity leaders developed specific strate-gies to implement the framework. Nine pilotsites are aligning preservice education withINTASC standards, and funds have been pro-vided to create school-univeristy partnerships.Schools receiving technology funds mustdevote at least 25% to professional develop-ment. Institutes on student and teacher stan-dards in the areas of reading, math, and scienceare being initiated this year, along with sup-ports for National Board Certification.

Montana's Commission on Teaching has alsoapproved recommendations for supportingNational Board Certification, including renewalunits toward state recertification, scholarshipsto support fees, and a salary bonus for success-


41 4 9

ful candidates. Several universities have createdsupport programs for teachers pursuing certifi-cation and are aligning their preparation pro-grams with National Board standards. Thestate has developed a pilot program for teachermentoring and a guide for teacher mentors.

Georgia's Board of Regents has made teacherpreparation its top priority for the 1997-98year. The Board already requires all publicschools of education to be nationally accredit-ed. This past year, the state took further stepstoward systemic teacher education reformthrough challenge grants to local P-16 councilsthat work on the co-reform of schools andteacher education. Three of these sites will bepilots for a national initiative to link K-12 con-tent standards with standards for teacher edu-cation and the strengthening of content peda-gogy in collaboration with the Council forBasic Education and the American Associationof Colleges for Teacher Education.

Missouri has added new incentives for schoolreform to the initiatives launched in 1993 bythe Outstanding Schools Act, which allocated1 percent of state appropriations and another 1percent of local funds to professional develop-ment. This past year, the Missouri Associationof School Administrators and the University ofMissouri-Columbia, in collaboration with thestate, created a Superintendents' Institute to helpprepare leaders as change agents who areknowledgeable about innovation, the process ofchange, and successful practices. New incentivegrants for innovation will also help schools anddistricts implement programs based on power-ful theories of teaching and learning, adaptinnovations proven successful elsewhere, anddisseminate practical solutions to persistentproblems. The state continues to deepen itsteacher education reforms by creating profes-sional development schools (PDS) through itsRegional Professional Development Centers.The Commission on Teaching is consideringPDS standards, a statewide support network,and a stable funding structure for professionaldevelopment schools.

Many other states enacted policies in 1997 insupport of higher quality teaching. Alabamaraised teacher salaries; Arkansas passed ambi-tious legislation that raised teacher salaries andimproved benefits, created supports forNational Board Certification, and increasedteacher planning time; California expanded itsbeginning teacher program, created supportsfor National Board Certification, and expandedrecruitment incentives for teachers; Coloradoauthorized the issuance of a license to anyNational Board Certified teacher; Connecticutdeveloped new performance-based licensingrules, became a partner state with NCATE,and expanded its requirements for inserviceprofessional development; Florida revised itsstate licensing requirements to incorporate evi-dence of teacher proficiency; Massachusettsenacted new testing requirements for teacherlicensure and provided grants to districts formentoring and assessing beginning teachers;New Jersey passed the Education TechnologyTeacher Training Program, strengtheningteachers' preservice and inservice preparation inthe use of new technologies; North Dakota im-proved teachers' retirement benefits; RhodeIsland has introduced new, INTASC-compati-ble standards for beginning teachers andrequirements for portfolio assessments of pre-service teachers; South Carolina raised teachers'salaries, enacted incentives for National BoardCertification, and charged the State Boardwith upgrading standards for teacher educationprograms, enacting tests for licensure, anddeveloping an induction program for beginningteachers; Virginia passed supports for teachertechnology training and created a scholarshipprogram for recruiting minorities to teaching;Washington strengthened standards governingthe probationary period for beginning teachersand the relevance to teaching of professionaldevelopment courses pursued for experiencecredits; and West Virginia created a scholarshipprogram to recruit teachers in high-needareas.93


42 50

ConclusionEvery September, parents ask the same,

important questions. Who is teaching mychild? Will my child's teacher inspire her? Willshe look after his individual needs? Will thisteacher help her learn all the necessary basicskills, as well as how to think and problem solveas she will need to in the years ahead? Will mychild's teacher be knowledgeable not only aboutthe subjects he teaches, but about the childrenhe teaches as well?

Much progress has been made over the lastyear toward answering these questions in theaffirmative. However, much more work needsto be done. More parents need to demand thattheir children and other children are taught bywell-prepared and qualified teachers. Morebusiness leaders need to demand that schoolsinvest in teacher development, just as theyinvest in their own employees. More policy

makers need to make quality teaching and therecruitment of well-prepared teachers theirnumber one education priority. More collegefaculty need to redesign their preparation pro-grams, and more college presidents need toinvest in the quality of training they provideprospective teachers and principals. Moreschool leaders need to draw upon the best prac-tices available to create a coherent system ofteacher development at the state and local lev-els. And more teachers need to insist that theiroccupation become a true professiona profes-sion that supports their commitment by guar-enteeing them access to the knowledge theyneed to help their students succeed.

With perseverance and determination, wecan take the remaining steps needed to ensurethat our students have a genuine right tolearna right made real by their opportunity tostudy with a caring, competent, and committedteacher.


43 51

Endnotes' National Commission on Teaching and America's Future,

What Matters Most: Teachingfor America's Future. NY: Author,1996.

'These include the National Center for the Study of Teachingand Policy to be housed at the University of Washington,working in collaboration with Columbia University, TeachersCollege, Stanford University, and the University of Michigan,and the National Partnership for Excellence and Accountability in Teaching, organized by the University of Maryland incollaboration with several major universities and a large num-ber of professional associations who will work together toconnect research and practice on behalf of improved teaching.

' William Schmidt, Curtis McKnight, and Senta Raizen, ASplintered Vision. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1996.

' Lynne Paine and L. Ma, "Teachers Working Together: ADialogue on Organizational and Cultural Perspectives ofChinese Teachers," International Journal of EducationalResearch (1993), pp. 675-697.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development,Education at a Glance: OECD Indicators. Paris: Author, 1995.

6 For examples, see Linda Darling-Hammond, The Right toLearn: A Blueprint for Creating Schools that Work. San Francis-co: Jossey Bass, 1997; Karen Hawley Miles and LindaDarling-Hammond, "Rethinking the Allocation of TeachingResources: Some Lessons from High Performing Schools,"Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, in press.

' Peter F. Drucker, "The Age of Social Transformation,"Atlantic Monthly, November 1994, pp. 53-80.

Richard Murnane and Frank Levy, Teaching the new basicskills. NY: The Free Press, 1996.

9 Peter F. Drucker, The Frontiers of Management. NY: Harperand Row, 1986.

" Paul E. Barton and Richard J. Coley, Captive Students:Education and Training in America's Prisons. Princeton, N.J.:Educational Testing Service, 1996.

11 Robert J. Gemignani, "Juvenile Correctional Education: ATime for Change." Update on Research. Juvenile JusticeBulletin. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of JuvenileJustice and Delinquency Prevention, October 1994.

" Jerome G. Miller, "African American Males in the CriminalJustice System," Phi Delta Kappan, June 1997, pp. Kl-K12,U.S. Department of Commerce, Statistical Abstract of theUnited States, 1996. 116th edition. Washington, D.C.:Bureau of the Census, 1996, p. 219.

13 National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of EducationStatistics, 1994. Washington, D.C: U.S. Department ofEducation, 1994.

" National Center for Education Statistics, America's Teachers:Profile of a Profession, 1993-94. Washington, D.C.: U.S.Department of Education, 1997, table A3.2.

" Newly hired teachers in a given year include new teachersand those who moved or transferred to another school. "New

entrants" are those who were not teaching in the previousyear (i.e. new hires exclusive of migrants or transfers).National Center for Education Statistics, Schools andStaffing Surveys, 1993-94, Public School Teacher Question-naire. Tabulations conducted by the National Commission onTeaching and America's Future.

16 National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessmentof Educational Progress 1996 Mathematics Report Card for theNation and the States. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department ofEducation, 1997, Table D.1.

" National Center for Education Statistics, Condition of Educa-tion, 1997. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Educa-tion, 1997, pp. 294-296.

" National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffingin the United States: A Statistical Profile, 1993-94. Washing-ton, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, 1996, Table A3, p.154.

" 9 NCES, America's Teachers, p. 143.

" NCES, The Condition of Education, 1997, pp. 78-79.

21 Ronald Ferguson, "Paying for Public Education: New Evi-dence on How and Why Money Matters," Harvard Journal ofLegislation 28 (Summer 1991), pp. 465-98.

Ronald F. Ferguson and Helen F. Ladd, "How and WhyMoney Matters: An Analysis of Alabama Schools." In HelenLadd (ed.) Holding Schools Accountable, pp. 265-298. Wash-ington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1996.

23 Rob Greenwald, Larry V. Hedges, Richard D. Laine, "TheEffect of School Resources on Student Achievement," Re-view of Educational Research, 66 (Fall 1996), pp. 361-396.

24 Eleanor Armour-Thomas, Camille Clay, Raymond Domani-co, K. Bruno, and Barbara Allen, An Outlier Study of Elemen-tary and Middle Schools in New York City: Final Report. NewYork: New York City Board of Education, 1989.

National Assessment of Educational Progress, 1992 NAEPTrial State Assessment. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Departmentof Education, 1994; Council for School Performance, Teach-ers with Advanced Degrees Advance Student Learning. Atlanta:Council for School Performance, Georgia State University,1997; G.A.Knoblock, Continuing Professional Education forTeachers and its Relationship to Teacher Effectiveness. Unpub-lished dissertation. Western Michigan University. Disserta-tion Abstracts International, 46(02), 3325A (UniversityMicrofilms No. AAC 8529729), 1986; S.L. Sanders, S.D.Skonie-Hardin, and W.H. Phelps, The Effects ofTeacher Edu-cational Attainment on Student Educational Attainment in FourRegions of Virginia: Implications for Administrators. Paper pre-sented at the Annual Meeting of the Mid-South EducationalResearch Association, November 1994.

" William L. Sanders and June C. Rivers, Cumulative andResidual Effects of Teachers on Future Student AcademicAchievement. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Value-Add-ed Research and Assessment Center, November 1996; seealso, S. Paul Wright, Sandra P. Horn, and William L. Sand-ers, "Teacher and Classroom Context Effects on StudentAchievement: Implications for Teacher Evaluation," Journalof Personnel Evaluation in Education (1997), pp. 57-67.

" For reviews, see Patricia Ashton and Linda Crocker, "Sys-


44 52

27

temic Study of Planned Variation: The Essential Focus ofTeacher Education Reform," Journal of Teacher Education,Vol. 38 (May/June 1987), pp. 2-8; Carolyn Evertson, WillisHawley, and M.Zlotnick, "Making a Difference inEducational Quality through Teacher Education," Journal ofTeacher Education, Vol. 36 (May/June, 1985), pp. 2-12; LindaDarling-Hammond, "Teaching and Knowledge: Policy IssuesPosed by Alternative Certification of Teachers," PeabodyJournal of Education, Vol. 67 (Spring 1992), pp. 123-154;Martin Haberman, An Evaluation of the Rationale forRequired Teacher Education: Beginning Teachers With orWithout Preparation. Prepared for the National Commissionon Excellence in Teacher Education, Milwaukee, WI:University of Wisconsin, September 1984; Cynthia A. Druvaand Ronald D. Anderson, "Science Teacher Characteristicsby Teacher Behavior and by Student Outcome: A Meta-analysis of Research," Journal of Research in Science Teaching20 (May 1983), pp. 467-479; E. G. Begle, Critical Variables inMathematics Education: Findings from a Survey of the Empiri-cal Literature (Washington, D.C.: Mathematical Associationof America and National Council of Teachers of Mathe-matics, 1979); Thomas L. Erekson and Lowell Barr, "Alter-native Credentialing: Lessons from Vocational Education,"Journal of Teacher Education 36 (May/June 1985), pp. 16-19;James D. Greenberg, "The Case for Teacher Education:Open and Shut," Journal of Teacher Education 34 (July/August 1983), pp. 2-5; Edith Guyton and Elizabeth Farokhi,"Relationships among Academic Performance, Basic Skills,Subject Matter Knowledge and Teaching Skills of TeacherEducation Graduates. Journal of Teacher Education (Sept-Oct.1987), pp. 37-42. For other evidence of effectiveness, see alsoJon J. Denton and Lorna J. Lacina, "Quantity of ProfessionalEducation Coursework Linked with Process Measures ofStudent Teaching," Teacher Education and Practice (1984), pp.39-64; Victor A. Perkes, "Junior High School Science Teach-er Preparation, Teaching Behavior, and Student Achieve-ment," Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Vol. 6 (1968),pp. 121-126; J. B. Hansen, The Relationship of Skills andClassroom Climate of Trained and Untrained Teachers of GiftedStudents, (Unpublished Dissertation. Purdue University, In-diana, 1988); and Parmalee Hawk, Charles R. Coble, andMelvin Swanson, "Certification: It Does Matter," Journal ofTeacher Education, 36 (3) (1985), pp. 13-15.

For data on effectiveness and retention see Michael Andrew,"The Differences between Graduates of Four-Year and Five-Year Teacher Preparation Programs," Journal of TeacherEducation, 41 (1990), pp. 45-51; Thomas Baker, "A Survey ofFour-Year and Five-Year Program Graduates and theirPrincipals," Southeastern Regional Association of TeacherEducators (SRATE) Journal 2, no. 2 (Summer 1993), pp. 28-33; Michael Andrew and Richard L. Schwab, "Has Reformin Teacher Education Influenced Teacher Performance?: AnOutcome Assessment of Graduates of Eleven TeacherEducation Programs," Action in Teacher Education 17 (Fall1995): 43-53; Jon J. Denton and William H. Peters, ProgramAssessment Report: Curriculum Evaluation of a Non-Tradition-al Program for Certing Teachers (Texas A &M University,College Station, TX, 1988); and Hyun-Seok Shin, "Esti-mating Future Teacher Supply: An Application of SurvivalAnalysis. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of theAmerican Educational Research Association, New Orleans,LA, April 1994.

" David K. Cohen and Heather Hill, "Instructional Policy and

Classroom Performance: The Mathematics Reform in Cali-fornia." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of theAmerican Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL,March 1997.

" David Wiley and B. Yoon, "Teacher Reports of Opportunityto Learn: Analyses of the 1993 California Learning Assess-ment System," Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 17(3) (1995), pp. 355-370.

" Catherine A. Brown, Margaret S. Smith and Mary KayStein, "Linking Teacher Support to Enhanced ClassroomInstruction." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of theAmerican Educational Research Association. NY,s NY,1995.

32 National Assessment of Educational Progress, 1992 NAEPTrial State Assessment.

" Some other states that posted greater than average achieve-ment gains at either grade 4 or 8 may not have stable scores,either because they did not satisfy one or more of the NAEPrequirements for school participation rates (Arkansas,Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, New York) or because theyincluded fewer than 45% of their students with disabilities inthe assessments, according to NAEP's original inclusion cri-teria (Arkansas, Colorado, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi,Texas, West Virginia). National Center for EducationStatistics, NAEP 1996 Mathematics Report Card, 1997, TableD.3.

'National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and StaffingSurvey, 1993-94. State-by-State Data. Washington, D.C.:U.S. Department of Education. Table 3.5. Additional tabula-tions performed by the National Commissionon on Teachingand America's Future are presented in Appendix B.

" For a description of Minnesota's reforms see Linda Darling-Hammond, Arthur E. Wise, and Stephen Klein, A License toTeach: Building a Profession for 21st Century Schools. Boulder:Westview Press, 1994.

36 For data on state standards and teacher qualifications seeAppendices A and B of this report.

n National Center for Education Statistics, Projections of Ed-ucation Statistics to 2007. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Depart-ment of Education, 1997.

" NCES, America's Teachers.

" According to the U.S. Department of Education's projec-tions, the number of teaching positions will grow by about350,000 between 1995 and 2007 (from 2.99 million to 3.34million using the middle alternative projections). These posi-tions will require about 30,000 teachers per year. (NCES,Projections of Education Statistics to 2007). In addition, attri-tion from teaching was 6.6 percent for public school teachersin 1994, and just over 7 percent for public and private schoolteachers combined. (NCES, Characteristics of Stayers, Movers,and Leavers: Results from the Teacher Followup Survey, 1994-95). If attrition continued at a conservatively estimated rateof 6 percent over each of the coming years, the number ofvacancies to be filled due to attrition would range from about180,000 to 200,000 annually. Adding the growth in newpositions (30,000 per year), total demand would range from210,000 to 240,000 annually, and thus from 2.1 million to 2.4million over the course of the decade.


45d En COPY ANA

53

NCES, America's Teachers, pp. 97-98. About 3/4 of graduateswho applied for teaching positions received offers and 90% ofthose who received offers accepted them (about 67% of allapplicants). Interestingly, a number of recent bachelor'sdegree recipients who had prepared to teach reported theyhad not completed all requirements for entering teaching,probably reflecting the fact that many states now require testsand some graduate study before licensure. Of those who pre-pared to teach in undergraduate school but did not do so inthe year after graduation, 33% said they had not taken orpassed the necessary tests, 24% said they needed to obtainmore education, and 2% felt they were not yet ready.

°' NCES, America's Teachers, p. 97.

NCES, America's Teachers, Table A8.11.

" Connecticut State Department of Education Division of Re-search, Evaluation, and Assessment, Research Bulletin SchoolYear 1990-91 No. 1. Hartford, CT: Bureau of Research andTeacher Assessment, 1991.

" National Board for Professional Teaching Standards,National Board Certification: Incentives and Rewards, UpdatedNovember 1997.

" America's Teachers, p. 101.

" NCES, America's Teachers, pp. 101-102.

" Karen Hawley Miles and Linda Darling-Hammond, "Re-thinking the Allocation of Teaching Resources: Some Les-sons from High Performing Schools," Educational Evaluationand Policy Analysis, in press.

" Linda Darling-Hammond, Beyond the Commission Reports:The Coming Crisis in Teaching. Santa Monica, CA: TheRAND Corporation, 1984; Philip C. Schlechty and Victor S.Vance, "Recruitment, Selection, and Retention: The Shape ofthe Teaching Force," The Elementary School Journal (March1983), pp. 469-487.

' In 1994, bachelor's degree recipients who prepared to teachhad higher GPAs than the average college graduate. NCES,America's Teachers, p. A-52.

" NCES, The Condition of Education, 1997, pp. 178, 412.

" Recent College Graduates Surveys, 1987 and 1991; NationalCenter for Education Statistics, The Digest of EducationStatistics, 1996, p. 412. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Departmentof Education, 1996.

52 National Education Association, Status of the American PublicSchool Teacher, 1995-96, p. 42.

" NCES, America's Teachers, pp. A-119 and A-128.

NCES, America's Teachers, Tables A4.15-A4.16.

" Schools and Staffing Surveys, 1993-94. Public School TeacherQuestionnaires. Tabulations conducted by the National Com-mission on Teaching and America's Future.

56 National Center for Education Statistics, Characteristics ofStayers, Movers, and Leavers: Results from the Teacher FollowupSurvey, 1994-95. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department ofEducation, 1997.

" NCES, Characteristics of Stayers, Movers, and Leavers, pp. 6-7.

" NCES, America's Teachers, p. 109.

59 Low-poverty schools are those with less than 5% of their stu-dents receiving free or reduced-price lunch. High-povertyschools are those with more than 50% of their studentsreceiving free or reduced-price lunch. Schools and StaffingSurveys, Teacher Followup Survey 1994-95, Tabulations con-ducted by the National Commission on Teaching andAmerica's Future.

NCES, America's Teachers, p. 91.

6' NCES, America's Teachers, p. 93.

62 NEA, Status, p. 62.

" NCES, America's Teachers, Table A4.15.

" NCES, America's Teachers: Profile of a Profession, 1990-91.Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, 1993;Schools and Staffing Surveys, 1993-94, Public School TeacherQuestionnaires. Tabulations conducted by the NationalCommission on Teaching and America's Future.

In 1994, these statistics included 10.7 percent of newly hired,non-transferring public school teachers (new hires who hadnot been teaching the year before) who had no license in theirmain field, plus 16.3 percent who were hired on substandardlicenses (emergency, temporary, provisional, or alternativelicenses). Tabulations conducted by the National Commis-sion on Teaching and America's Future using data from theSchools and Staffing Surveys, 1990-91 and 1993-94, PublicSchool Teacher Questionnaires.

66 NCES, America's Teachers, 1993-94, p. 30.

67 NCES, America's Teachers, 1993-94. Tables 3.5 and A3.

68 Schools and Staffing Surveys, 1993-94, Public School TeacherQuestionnaire. Tabulations conducted by the National Com-mission on Teaching and America's Future.

69 These proportions include all teachers who teach any coursesin the field, not just those whose main assignment is in thatfield. Schools and Staffing Surveys, 1993-94, Teacher Ques-tionnaire. Tabulations conducted by the National Commis-sion on Teaching and America's Future.

" NCES, America's Teachers, 1993-94, p. A-48.

Schools and Staffing Surveys, 1993-94. Tabulations conduct-ed by the National Commission for Teaching and America'sFuture.

65

" J. Price and Deborah Ball, " 'There's always another agenda':Marshalling resources for mathematics reform," Journal ofCurriculum Studies (in press).

" NEA, Status, p. 32.

" See Appendix B.

" Schools and Staffing Surveys, 1993-94. Public School DistrictSurvey. Tabulations conducted by the National Commissionon Teaching for America's Future.

76 The seven programs are at Alverno College in Milwaukee,Wisconsin; Bank Street College of Education in New YorkCity; Trinity University in San Antonio, Texas; University ofCalifornia at Berkeley; University of Southern Maine; Uni-versity of Virginia in Charlottesville; and Wheelock Collegein Boston, Massachusetts. The outcome evidence collectedincluded reputational evidence about quality from scholars


46

and from practitioners who hire program graduates; surveysand interviews of graduates about their perceptions of theirpreparation in comparison with a comparison group drawnrandomly from beginning teachers across the country; surveysand interviews of principals about their perceptions of thegraduates' preparation and performance; and observations ofgraduates' practice in their classrooms.

" OECD, Education at a Glance, 1995 and the National Com-mission on Teaching for America's Future, What MattersMost.

" Richard Howard, Randy Hitz, and Larry Baker. ComparativeStudy of Expenditures per Student Credit Hour of EducationPrograms to Programs of other Disciplines and Professions. Mon-tana State University-Bozeman, Fall, 1997; see also, H. Eb-meier, S. Twombly, and DJ. Teeter, "The Comparability andAdequacy of Financial Support for Schools of Education,"Journal of Teacher Education (1991), pp. 226-235.

NCES, America's Teachers, p. 31.

" Schools and Staffing Surveys, 1993-94, Public School TeacherQuestionnaire. Tabulations by the National Commission onTeaching and America's Future.

s' NCES, Schools and Staffing in the U.S.: A Statistical Profile,1993-94. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education,p.8.


Schools and Staffing Surveys, 1993-94. Public School TeacherQuestionnaire. Tabulations by the National Commission onTeaching and America's Future.

" Schools and Staffing Surveys, 1993-94. Public School TeacherQuestionnaire. State-by-state tabulations conducted by theNational Commission on Teaching and America's Future.

85 NEA, Status, pp. 248-252.

NEA, Status, p. 268.

87 NCES, America's Teachers.

" National Education Association, Status p. 89.


U.S Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Teachers andTechnology: Making the Connection, OTA-HR-616. Washing-ton, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1995..

" The Lighthouse Partnerships for Teacher Preparation andRecruiting New Teachers for Underserved Areas/MinorityRecruitment Act (S.1209) would replace the current Title V.

" Ohio SB 230, adopted October 1996; Am. Sub. HB 215,adopted June 1997; Am. Sub. SB 55, adopted August 1997.

" Information compiled by the National Conference of StateLegislatures, as of June 13, 1997.


Appendix A: State-by-State Report Card,Indicators of Attention to Teaching Quality, October 1997

Investments in Teacher Quality

State

Alabama. .:LAlaskaArizonaArkansas * * *

Colorado * * * *

Connecticut:::: * * *

DelawareDistrict of Columbia.Florida *Georgia :::

Hawaii:::::: . :

IllinoisIndianaIowa

KentuckyLouisianaMaine

ylMassachusetts

MinnesotaMississippi > `'

MissouriMontanaNebraska

New Hampshire .New JerseyNew MexicoNewNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahoma:OregonPennsylvania.:Rhode IslandSouth CarOlinaPSouth Dakota

*

*

*

*

Total QualityIndicators

(out of 12)

104

1

Unqualified New Hires'

All new New entrantshires only

(% of new hires who areunlicensed in their main field)

( @ 2% or less in either category)

5% 4%

9% 19%

3% 2% *

12%

13%

23%

7% 6%

2% 4%

7% 3%

: : ::: ::

4% 0%

12% 15%

16%

23%

.3%

5%

5%

» 0%4% 0%t

4%1"

17% 21%1' 85%

*

0%

8%t5%

1% *

Well-QualifiedTeachers'

(Average % of teachersin core academic fieldswith full certificationand a major in their field)

( @ 80% or higher)

52%68%.74%

74%

66%76%64%73%73%76%82% *75%.71%

73%:70% ';*:

78%73%82% -

77%

75%

8%

8%2%2%

Texas

Vermont

WashingtonWastWisconsin *.

US Average/Total

3

5% 68%

9% 70%:::: *:

3% * 76%

69%

*

* * *

- Too few cases for reliable estimateInterpret with caution due to small sample size

31

3

32.

4

1% * 74%69%

20% 70%

0% -2% 2% * 65%

.. 66%1% 0% - 84%

8% 11% 72%

Out-of-FieldTeaching'

(% of math teacherswithout at least aminor in math)

(@ 20% or less)

56%

30%

26%

30%

22%

14% *

28%

29%31

29%28%14%

09% *

26%

26%Ana?

40%

23%*

25%:31%

36%

25%

30%

Teachers as a %of Total Staff'

( -1+ % fromprevious year)

( @ 60% or higher)

52.9% +49.1% +

53.8% +:5Z0%52.5% -54.5% =::::::::::::::::::

54.5% -56.49V4.48.3%

62.3% +

54.3% +

52.1%.. . .

46.3% -:::::50.5%

52.3%

55.4%... .. : ...

62.7% =47.6%48.0%

52.9% -:58,5%53.3% -

.... .......................

48.7%

52.2% +54.3% -55.2% +

51.8% -. .... .

63.5% - *

53.2%

52.0% =::::::::::: 53.6 %....

49.1%

51% 51.4% +

:::::: : : ::

* 16% * 57.9% +

2% ;:;:71;

28% 52% -;6

Attention to Teacher Education & Development Attention to Teaching Standards

Professional Student Teaching New Teacher ProfessionalAccreditation' Induction' Development'

% of teacher # of required Experience State-required (% of teachers whoeducation weeks' with diverse and funded, with received > 8 hoursprograms in learners' mentor training of professionalNCATE system) development)

f @8096or more; r @ 212weeks I ( with yes) r, with yes; ( with 6096 or more)

60°A:... :.:-.:::.:12 ' no .:...:.::39%:-.39% ...

0% 12 no 55%pending::::::1)Via:::::.. .............. :::]:::...rid. : 44% :]::'

100% * 12 yes * no 43%

19%::::: -: ' 15 yes: :::::::::: ' :: ' ' : ' :::::.;.partial 58%44% yes * partial 53%

20 ,::::::: ''''' 10 .... '''''' no -:::.yes ::::.:.:-..----.:..... 46% :.:

75% 9 no ...no.,....... 46%

71% .-. ... .. .:.:.:-:. .:.:. :;::yes:.:, . .::::::;::::::.:.:;;:.::::. . :.: 6;/,::::;.*: ::::::

44% 12 partial65e:: .::.: :-.yie:::.!::::: :::::::::::0:::tiattial:::: .47%

0% 9 no no 63%

83%:::::]:]]]::::::::::10'::::: :no i ... : . . .. ::yes i-.*...::.:::::. 55% ....... ::.-::::

31% 8 yes * pending 36%

::$9V 10 ::r)0l::i::i:.:]:] -.-:']!::.....Y.W1.'*:i--;:1;:.:::' 33*:;:;.;:::

16% 12 no no 48%pending 42:14:::::'

42% 12 no yes 72% *14,0 *::.:: 6-8°.]::::: ............ : S partial 39% ::::: . ... ::::

33% 15 no no 52%

279.C..::M :]::.:e-i6;:::::::::::::::::.:. :-::42% :]

12% 5-6° yes * no 47%

48% :E:::: :.:::yes: :::::partial.:::::::: 40%77% 10-12° yes * piloting 50%

67%;A:;:R:,,:.:::.!:ii--:: : ::::::: .:::::::.:.:96: ': . .: ':'1: ::a :]..r10...:.::;:;::::::ii:i:::M: :.::i 40% i'ii:L

63% :1 n.::::ri

Partial::!.:::::::;:;:;:;:;:!:: 54%

50% no 33%

81% * 14 * no no 43%100% no no :::::::::.::.::: 50% : .: ................................

23% yes * no 59%32%: . ........ :.:.::ii .. 130..:iiat. :i;:37;%;;;;:: '

63% 6-8° no partial 34%

.,:.4%::::::::- -.I.:.......... piititing::::::::::.:::::: ::.43%::::: . . . . . :.:.::::.:.:

100% * 10 yes yes * 58%

60°A:.:,- .::10 -iii:, '..] no , piloting :: 45% .:.

40% 10 yes * yes * 38%71% Z:..:-:-:.::: :::]:06 ::::Partial::::::]:. 33% :::::

19% 15 ' yes * pending 49%,-,18%,:, :::::12::::::::t :::::: no :..: :::::::Yes .*:: :37%::::

25% 12° yes * no 37%4:39/G.: 12 n0.-:: .i.. ......... pending::::,:::.;!::.:, 38%i ........

58% 10 yes *

15% 10 nono :

8% 12

55% 879%:33%

40%

18 *

(19)

no

yes *no..

noyes *-

(19)

no 48%41%

no 58%no

62%no

partial 60% *46%

no 48%50%1

(9) 46%

Professional Nationally Incentives for National Board CertificationuStandards CertifiedBoard° Teachers" Link to Support for Financial

Licensing Professional RewardsDevelopment

(. with yes) ('with 20 or more)

no 17:..no 5

noyes 9no 23 * yes

nono

noyesyesno

no

'yesyes *

yes' *no:: .

no

nonoyesnono

yes:yes i

yes

no

no

no

yes' *yesnoyeSri*;.::

yes *

nononono;yes'

nononononoyes *

(14)

10 nono

17 no

19. yes0 no

no

15 no

13 no

14 yes

8

6

7

61

1

( with at least two types of incentives)

noyesno

no

yes no

.. no

no

yes

no

no

yes

no:no

yes

no

yesno

nono

noyes no

yes nonono no

no yes

yes

no

yes

no

2 no no

1 no no

54 * yes no no

208 * yes yes yes *

146 yes yes yes *''''' yes

0 no no no

yes *:no::: : ::: : :

no

no

no

non

no

6

yes no no

.

no no no

no

:no

no

no

no no

no no

Yes yes

10 no no

1 no no

(17)(911) (15) (8)

EST COPY AVAILABLE

Appendix A: State-by-State Report Card Notes

1.. Unqualified HiresPercentage of newly hired teachers not licensed in their main assignment field. "All new hires" includes teacherswho changed jobs (movers and transfers). New entrants" are new hires who did not teach during the previousyear and are usually newly licensed. (Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for EducationStatistics, 1993-94 Schools and Staffing Surveys, Tabulations conducted by the National Commission on Teaching& America's Future.)

2. Well-Qualified TeachersThe average percentage of public high school teachers (grades 9-12) teaching English, mathematics, science, orsocial studies who hold full state certification and a college major in the field they teach. (Source: U.S.Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1993-94 Schools and Staffing Surveys,Tabulations conducted by the National Commission on Teaching & America's Future.)

3. Out-of-Field Teaching - % of Math Teachers Without At Least a MinorThe percentage of public high school teachers (grades 9-12) who taught one or more classes in mathematics with-out at least a minor in the field. (Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,1993-94 Schools and Staffing Survey, Tabulations conducted by the National Commission on Teaching &America's Future.)

4. Teachers as a Percent of Total StaffPercentage of all school staff who are teachers, Fall 1995. (Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Centerfor Education Statistics, Statistics in BriefPublic School Student, Staff, and Graduate Counts by State, SchoolYear Fall 1995, May 1997.)

5. Professional AccreditationThe percentage of teacher education institutions that are in the National Council for the Accreditation of TeacherEducation (NCATE) system of professional accreditation. Data derived from the National Association of StateDirectors of Teacher Education and Certification: Manual on Certification and Preparation of Educational Personnelin the United States and Canada, 1997-98 and state education department officials. (Source: National Council forthe Accreditation of Teacher Education, September 1997.)

6. Number of Required Weeks of Student TeachingNumber of weeks of full-time student teaching required by the state. An (e) indicates an estimate based onrequired clock or college credit hours. May vary by grade level. (Source: National Association of State Directors ofTeacher Education and Certification: Manual on Certification and Preparation of Educational Personnel in theUnited States and Canada, 1997-98 and state education department officials).

7. Student Teaching Experience Includes Teaching Special Needs Students In Diverse SettingsWhether or not a state requires that the student teaching experience includes work with diverse learners who areeither special/exceptional students or in a multicultural setting. (Source: National Association of State Directors ofTeacher Education and Certification, Manual on Certification and Preparation of Educational Personnel in theUnited States and Canada, 1997-98.)

8. New Teacher InductionIndicates whether or not a state requires that all new teachers participate in a formal induction or mentoring pro-gram that is state-funded and provides state or district training for mentors. States that provide or require suchservices only for some beginning teachers or that do not fund and train mentors are listed as having "partial" pro-grams. (Developed from state-by-state survey of new teacher policies and practices conducted by Education Weekand the National Commission for Teaching & America's Future, September 1997.)

9. Professional DevelopmentThe percentage of public school teachers who received at least 9 hours of professional development in any of thefollowing areas in 1993-94: subject matter, teaching methods, student assessment, cooperative learning, or useof technology. (Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1993-94 Schoolsand Staffing Surveys, Tabulations conducted by the National Commission on Teaching & America's Future.)

10. Professional Standards BoardsWhether or not a state has established an independent professional teacher standards board to set standards forteacher education and licensing. An independent standards board has the authority to manage its own budget, setand enforce standards, and hire and direct its own staff. (1) A board that sets standards and has its own staffbut does not have complete management or enforcement authority is semi-autonomous; (2) A board that wasenacted but not implemented. (Source: National Education Association, Teacher Licensure: Characteristics ofIndependent State Teacher Professional Standards Boards, 1997.)

11. Nationally Certified TeachersNumber of teachers certified by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. (Source: National Boardfor Professional Teaching Standards, October 1997.)

12. Incentives for NBPTS CertificationWhether or not state policy has been established to: (1) link National Board Certification to licensing (e.g., portabil-ity, license renewal, or advanced certification status): (2) support participation in National Board assessments asa form of professional development; and (3) financially reward National Board-Certified teachers with increasedcompensation. (Source: National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, October 1997).

58

Appendix BTable 1- Teacher Qualifications: Education and State Certification

Percentage

of teacherswith master'sdegree orhigher

U.S. Aver-kg':' 47.3Alabama 60.9AIaskk:Arizona 48.1Arkansas : :34.8California 40.5Cizil6rado;:Connecticut 79.5Delaware 53.6;:District of Columbia 59.6Florida 41.7::'Georgia 50.2Hawai 51:X4 "Idaho 24.7114inois::.::.:: . :

Indiana 77.8

KansasKentuckyLouisiana

Maryland

46.1

38.630.2 .. ..

56.0

Michigan 53.7Minnesota:'Mississippi 42.0MissouriMontanaNebraska.NevadaNew Hampshire::::::::

New JerseyNew MexicoNew York 74.9NPrth CarolinaNorth Dakota 19.7

28.3

49.2

43.5

Oklahoma 43.0Oregon-Pennsylvania 52.8Rhode IsSouth Carolina 50.0South DakotaTennessee 48.0Texas 29.5Utah 28.2VermontVirginia 34.2Washington 42.1West Virginia 57.5WisconSiri::"Wyoming 28.3

- Too few cases for reliable estimate* Interpret with caution due to small sample size1 Less-thanfull certification includes emergency, temporary, alternative, and provisional licenses that require additional coursework or represent a lower standard than a regular certificate.2 Full certification includes regular and advanced licenses and probationary licenses granted to beginning teachers who have completed all requirements except a probationary period.

Percentage of teachers by type of state certification in their main field

No Certification

All Newly HiredTeachers Teachers

orciud:ng (excludingtransfers) transfers)

3.2 7.2 5.36 1 3.82.2 3.6 3.9

5.0 8.0 11.6

1.7 4.4 0.0 *4.8 1.1.5.7.8 16.53.5 .. . 12.7 16.03.2 4.2 3.1

11.8 .

2.7 5.4 4.04.S.::: 6.5 5.52.0 2.1 0.9 *

2.1 3.70.9 2.9 1.4

. ...................

7.4 22.8 31.44.04.6 12.8 25.7

15.4:::

0.7 3.2 0.02.0 .

5.11.4

0.0

3.3 4.1....

1.5 2.8

1.8 4.5 3.5 *17:0 20.7 *

2.7 1.7 3.4 *

6.8 13.0 23.3

1.0 2.4 0.0..2.2.

1.1 0.7 0.66.5 3.0 *.

1.4 0.0 0.0 *0.3 2.65.0 12.9 10.7

2.1 1.1 0.04.1 ... 19.9:t :.:3.0 7.3 11.7

2 0.04.3 11 7 13.2

2.47. 1.61.6 2.12.5 :

1.3 0.6 1.4

AllTeachers

4.81.4

. 1.59.1

..1.77.72.9

10.9:5.14.84.83.7

132.3:

22

0.77.63.64.5 ,2.91.3

10.41.4:::::

3.7

2.1

3.3

1.4

9.2

2.1

2.9

4.3

1.7

8

2 2

2.4

4.2

0.3

59

Less than full' FuiR

Newly Hired All Newly HiredTeachers Teachers Teachers

(including (excluding including ;excludingtransfers) transfers) transfers) transfers)

12:5, :]:16a 913.. :::79,.,9 73:04'2.5 4.8 95.65.0 86":

9.85:55.8 *

8.8:36.2

7.9 14.829.5 33.5 *

5.8 7.3

16.9 40.4*

12.5 17.411.9'

16.82.0

17.611.619.620.615.8:24.115.9.6.54.06.94.6

30.53.8

23.5

97.38.4

8.8 5.3 * 95.8 89.494.2

31.2 31.3 84.0 55.9 45.4

8.1 8.8 97.0 89.6 91.2

10.2 13.1 96.2 89.2 86.3... :: 88.6

9.3 15.7 * 94.4 90.6 84.3 *

1.9 3.9 93.3 85.3 85.4

1 5.2 6 96.3 93.8 99.411.2 :se.4

4.8 7.4 94.9 87.9 80.80.0 : :: . : :100.0 ::::

7.7 15.5 93.3 80.7 71.4g :95.5 95.8:.: :

8.2 94.4 89.82.5

1.0 2.5 98.5 98.4 96.1

5.4 6.5

90.3 89.9

20.5 88.8 79.7 75.6. 95.8

25.0 87.4 74.4 63.41 4 .3 91:327.9 * 87.5 76.0 72.1 *

- 87.5 67.7::::57.8

11.3 93.1 79.9 85.72 .

96.1 90.6 86.388.9

95.9 93.4 93.3 *91.0 67.4:98.5 93.4 89.988.6:89.091.5......

92.693.088.996.92.9

96.4 91.8

12.5 * 94.8 87.1

2 .869.5 53.866.381.4 67.085.879.9 59.6

ti83.4 77.5

93.583.9 *.84.0 *74.8 *91.3 *

Source: National Center for Education Statistics, 1993-94 Schools and Staffing Surveys. Tabulations conducted by the National Commission on Teaching & America's Future.

EST COPY AVAI I g1LEBr

Table 2 - Teacher Qualifications: In-Field Preparation

Percentage of Public High School Teachers (grades 9-12) with Full-State Certification and a Major in theField They Teach, by Field

U.S. Average::::::::

Math

67.3

Science SocialStudies

English

:72.7::.:

Foreign

Lang.

Alabama 73.6 72.8 67.4 70.7 71.6.

Arizona 65.8 71.2 70.3 63.7Arkansas ......... 68.9California 49.0 71.0 71.1 66.9 63.6Colorado 65.2 .84.1,: 69.1. .79.3.Connecticut 73.2 83.6 77.6 76.4 80.6Delaware ... .

.

District of Columbia. 61.6 .

Georgia 70.9 78.4 82.5 73.1 77.2..................

Idaho 65.6 76.7 67.4 83.0 63.3:'

Indiana 74.2 80.6 71.1 79.6 89.5f:130.6

Kansas 72.2 81.8 68.2 79.2 -KentifORYri .

Louisiana 59.7 60.8 60.5 72.9Maine 68.6: 75.6 75.0Maryland 63.4 77.3 73.5 66.2Massachusetts 69.4 83.6Michigan 68.1 74.6 73.6 76.9 -Minnesota :::::;::::` :.... 8.2.0Mississippi 75.9 73.7 84.9 72.0

83.6Montana 80.5 85.6 88.1 80.7 72.6N ..:72.5NevadaNew Hampshire

. . .

New Jersey 67.7 67.1 71.0 67.5 87.2New Mexico ..... 66.6New York 64.9 73.2 78.7 74.9 86.5North Carolina .....

North Dakota 78.3 86.6 82.1 82.9 80.1

Oklahoma 66.3 76.6 77.4 75.6 58.3Oregon,:::: 63.3 59.2Pennsylvania 78.6 78.2 68.5 64.6 87.0Rhode ... ... - .........

South Carolina 76.7 65.6 71.4 80.0 -South Dakota:, : ... . . .

Tennessee 71.8 70.7 68.8 64.9 91.0. .. . . .

Utah 72.3 70.4 63.9 72.7 76.5Vermont . .......................................... . ................

Virginia 62.9 88.8 73.5 83.9. .. ...

West Virginia 59.2 70.2 70.4 65.7 -79.2

Wyoming 73.7 82.0 75.6 73.7

Vocational ANEd. Music

Physical

Ed.

LifeScience'

Physical

Science'

82.4 78.8 71.2 42.3 29.0

71.3 73.8 72.881.3

68.7 53.2 66.3 60.8 40.054.4 :74.5 44.870.1 73.3 66.9

''''''' . 88.9 38.8.73.2 64.1 88.2 67.4 14.4

.........87.0 78.8 79.2 52.2 22.9

93.984.1 84.6 85.1 47.0

57.687.5 85.8 79.4 60.1 40.6

..........

87.4 73.6 85.3 39.5 21.8

73.3 79.0 58.1 -. 51.0

73.5 78.3 82.0 61.8 35.7

69.8 77.6 50.1 51.4 18.8

87.1 78.4 78.2 53.6 31.5

65.9 76.6 78.3 21.371.1i!!:!:; 69.0

75.2 78.1 88.1 56.2 41.8:26.1

85.0 91.2 66.9 53.6 21.7..:.:::65.6

89.7 75.0 69.2 51.9 23.175.6 78.975.9 80.2 84.7 36.7

.............................

57.6 -3.

67.8 63.1 78.8 55.2 20.123.4

77.0 71.7 64.4 54.1 29.4

72.5 -22.6

73.2 74.6 87.2 61.4

86.1 65.6 83.8

..........................................

80- Too few cases for reliable estimate

These estimates represent the proportion of teachers without a state certificate and a major in the particular subfields of life, science or physical science.

Source: National Center for Education Statistics, 199394 Schools and Staffing Survey (Public School Teacher Questionnaire). Tabulations conducted by the National Commission on Teaching& America's Future.

Table 3 - Teacher Qualifications: Out-of-Field Teaching

Percentage of Public High School Teachers (grades 9-12) with Less Than a Minor in the Field They Teach,by Field

AverageAlabama

Arizona

CaliforniaObloradoConnecticutD.

District of Columbia

Georgia

Idaho

IndianaIowaKansasKentucky'Louisiana

MarylandMea6ichusetts::.::::Michigan

'''''''

MississippiMissouriMontanaNebraska ?

NevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkNorttiterolinaNorth Dakota

OklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode Island :South CarolinaStaith DakotaTennessee

Utah

Math Science Social English Foreign Vocational Art/ Physical Life Physical History'Studies Lang. Ed. Music Ed. Science' Science'

25.0

24.9

] : ]]]] :20.4:::22.7 24.1 24.4 18.9

28.4 38.6,14.6 22.2 25.2

9.1 15.429521.2 15.6

'' ' 6 »:::;::

46.4 22 6 13.3 24.8:.:.:.23.6:.. .. .15.0:.

23.3 11.7 13.6 20.2

23.0 18.3 14.2 22.4

34.4 20.0 26.9 13.2

24.5 14.5 20.2 15.8

22.1 17.0 23.9 20.815.9

33.0 30.4 25.6 15.220 ' 1.4.a

31.0 17.1 18.0 31.7:13.6

28.0 10.5 9.1 14.4;::14.3

18.3 20.9 9.8 23.3' ''

19.5 11.9 8.2 15.626.3 17.0 :::: 17.8 24.3

........

29.8 27.5 19.5 27.8.9.9::

25.6 14.5 14.0 19.523.2 22.9 ::::24.6

17.8 6.0 12.7 14.9

31.1 16.1 16.2 18.0' '' :30.6:

17.2 17.0 21.1 29.7

18.8 23.1...24.827.0 27.629.8 '' '26.3 22.7

Virginia 32.3 8.7 17.1Washington :.::50.8

West Virginia 39.3 26.1 19.7Wisconsin 14.4.Wyoming 24.9 16.1 16.8

26.9 19.1 37.8::35.6

3.6 22.6 16.0

16.6

30.3

: 14.6:z.: 31.220.3 55.660.0.:17.0102625.4 30.7

:24.2

:54.7:: : 51.867.9 55.9

:::.7:1.8. '158.4- 44.6.

52.0 46.9:::48.1 ..51.8

27.9 35.0

27.2 -:::24.6 9.1 ' : ''''' : :67.6

18.1 11.8 26.6 66.4 49.2:

17.2 11.5 38.7 65.1 58.1

8 0 7.9 - 37.0 59.1:26.0: :62.4

10 1 16.5 31.318.6:19.7 2.2 49.0

- 33.7 - 41.310.9:13.9 19.9 47.5 43.9

;!,g;:;;;!;;;EI49.3

31.1 72.2 56.321.5 '43.4

15.3 5.9 28.7 61.8 53.3

22.2

11.5

8.0 11.9''''' 9.6..

9.9' : '

'' '

19.6-.7.6 35.2,

14.6

21.918.521.0 5.5

10.5' ''

15.6

30.3

5.0

11.4

8.9.16.013.3

54.140.1-66.2:58.5

59.6

65.751.9

23.1 23 4

15.1 12.523.3 .

11.4 6 7

3.9 16.619.5 31.212.6 11.4

18.0 77.222 7 59.

2.5 22.3 50.6 51.5

24.7 26.6 67.8 57.411.1 :.62.818.4 41.7 61.7 52.717.6 30.9::.

9.7 38.1 53.9 65.0

53.1

15.7 35.3 53.922.7: 21.01'27.9 9.0 25.3 35.5 13.5 41.9 64.5 46.9

22.3::::: *27.9 K:67.2 :37.321.1 6.5 13.5 25.5 23.8 40.2 51.7 36.1

14.4 22.4 - - -''' ..19.4 20.5:::: 28.1::::: 47.4

29.4 16.8 22.2 12.8 33.0 - 84.212.2 Ogi',i;;4.0.6 .8

19.9 - 12.7 25.6 10.3

- Too few cases for reliable estimateThese estimates represent the proportion of teachers without a major or a minor in the particular subfields of life science, physical science, or history.

Source: National Center for Education Statistics, 1993-94 Schools and Staffing Survey (Public School Teacher Questionnaire). Tabulations conducted by the NationalCommission on Teaching & America's Future.

EST COPY AVAILABLE

Table 4 - District Hiring Requirements

Percentage of Public School Districts Requiring Selected Credentials When Screening Teacher Applicants

LES.:

Alabama

Full Standard StateCertification for Field

83.386.9

Graduation from State-Approved College Major or Minor inTeacher Education Program the Field to be Taught

.7t9:89.8 88.2

66.4::::::::::: .,,:,,.,(5:::::E:iiiiii:71:0,:iii.1:!.:i::::1:-:: 22.1.::-Arizona 85.3 59.3 64.9

63.5 ::::::::::,:::':84.7:::::,..:: 62.8California 78.0 63.0 44.7Colorado 77 :2:; ::..: ::6.9....:;.

Connecticut 95.2 72.0 56.8Delaware ::52.9:::::::. :;.:.;:::;.::::::::::.;:::.:::52.9.:;:*::::::.::::::.::':,.-,.',.';.::::::::;::.::::::::::: : ....:::::::::::::::::::706::::::::;::::;;;::..:.:....:.:::::::::::::: ......: ... :::

District of Columbia 100.0 0.0 100.058.0 ';:";':-...... :« 7:DR:::::..,.. 36.3:::.::;.:.:.,..:..,.::)...:.::::. ..:-..:27.1:::

Georgia 46.0 42.3 46.8..:100.0 .::100:p..

Idaho 88.7 75.1 62.488.3:::::.:: ::'',':::,::::::::::::::::72'.4:::::::.:.'.:.:'::=.:,., .:59.2:...-

Indiana 88.2 80.5 80.6:::::64.6.:::::

Kansas 89.7 80.6 75.4Kentucky.: ,-.:. . .... . :::::::::',::::::::::*:93.5':::::,::. .:. :,,:',: :.:.:. . ::::: . :::95.2 92.6::!:::::,::::::.

Louisiana 78.7 78.2 60.0B7.6 ::::..:',. :;:::::: ... .......................... 5 :!::87.2...:

Maryland 64.5 37.7 57.6Massachusetts: :89.9 ..:41.5 59:7...:.!:!-:

Michigan 94.6 89.8 90.0".:'.:.::.:. 92.3 ::::'::::".i!-:: 88:: .........90::4'..1::0.

Mississippi 91.2 76.3 70.3:',.g4::p:;::: ::!:::.:::!.. ......................................... ::::::::::::::687:::::

Montana 85.7 73.8 77.7Nebraska,. ..... :. B9.3 ::'.81.7 69.0!Nevada 72.2 66.7 72.2New g5,9:::a.:;::.]:;:; --.5.=1. .70.7:::::::'::::::::.:::

New Jersey 88.4 37.4 44.0New :774: '<` -: .i:.85.4.::. :,:70.9New York 95.4 61.8 66.1North Carolina :.:64.3 :58M.:!::::::: ,..87.4...:'''':":;::::,'::::::!:. .... :

North Dakota 95.7 81.7 96.3:::!;.:;84.9.4:::::;::.,... .:::::',78.1::.::

Oklahoma 69.8 76 9 73.6. .

72.:7:::::: 74.1:::::::.::::::::::.. :.::::::::::: .................................

Pennsylvania 97.6 73.6 81.7Rhode Island .:::,:,::::,:i;::::::,:...:.00.(7;::;:::::,:..... :;:.:.]67.6:::::':::::.;,::::::::::i:::::::::::gEgn -:::'::"':::::': :::::TPA.....

South Carolina 84.4 80.6 51.3South Dakota::;" 70.2:,:.Tennessee 93.2 77.2 47.6

Utah 74.2 72.6 58.8.::.98.8.tEN;M:;::.:;'::',.:::i............:...." .........ISS..::.:.i55:- ::::::,:::: 63,7 :.::::.

Virginia 71.3 40.3 52.1Washington :: .... 80.9-..ft,i.i.: 2.75.4:..:-:-.,... :,.1::......:,:::-.., ..........................

West Virginia 81.3 87.1 68.5$4.C:::::::;:l:T:1.:in 0.Q.;:f:i:.::::.i.i:!:;:;:;.::::: ''..-i.:.:.....;:i::::.:::.::.:;i::i:j:::::iii, 90.0....

Wyoming 85.7 57.8 69.0

Source: National Center for Education Statistics, 199394 Schools and Staffing Survey (Public School District Questionnaire). Tabulations conducted by the National Commission on Teaching &America's Future.

62

Table 5 - Public School Teachers' Access to Professional Development

Percentage of

beginning teachers

who experienced an

induction program'

Percentage of teachers receiving different types of professional development by number of hours

Subject Matter TeachingMethods

Technology Student CooperativeAssessment Learning

None 9+ hours None 9+ hours None 9+ hours None 9+ hours None 9+ hours

.U.S. Average 55:::::.: 70 15.::::::: 36 -28 51 15 49': 11:::::::::::: 49::::::::::::::::::::13

Alabama 41 67 15 30 24 57 11 48 08 49 09Alaska::::::::::: :::20"::::: 64 20::: ::::36:::::::::::::::33 ::::::::'::::. 37 2I:s.,:: 51 II:::::::::::::::: 58 11.

Arizona 50 73 14 44 23 55 13 48 12 59 10Arkansas :.:.:.::::: :::22::::::.:.:.::::::::::::::::.:::::::j::: 72 13.: :::.::::::::::.3 :::::::F:::::::30 66 1Q::::::::::::::::::::::::::.::::::53 05..:.:.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::52N.:::::: 09

California 58 61 24 23 40 47 15 32 18 47 14Colorado :-:: ::::45 ::::: ::': 67.... 19:::: ::42 ::: .:::30 ...- '' ' .. .:. 45 20 .::,.:. .. 43 19:::::::::::::::::::::::::::.: 61 :.:11 ::::::::::::

Connecticut 76 61 18 28 27 52 15 38 11 48 10.MfatiVaW:::::.;]..::::::::: '::::':::-: . -.:::::::89:!::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::70 13], :'.-...:....:::::::::::::::::36 24 .:::::::',::::,:::.;:::::::::83::: 10 : "":43 16:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::53 ::::09:::::::

District of Columbia 65 62 24 32 29 42 28 48 15 31 26Florida :::: :: '::::: ... .. :::.::::::::: ::::::::::9a:::::: 70 12:::::::.:::::::...::.--::::::33.,::: 28 37 20 54 13 47 19Georgia 62 75 11 40 26 55 18 63 08 51 13Hawaii -:::::::: ::::::::-:-41::::,.. :-:: 60 24:::::::::::::::::::::::::32: '41'.'.'" 44 23 :::47 16: :::,:::::.-.:::...:.:::::38 28Idaho 68 71 18 39 35 60 15 60 15 57 18IllinoiS!:::::i:iiii.i:;:::::::::::;:;:::;:,:;;:;:;,: 38:.:::::::::::: :77::::::::::::.::::10k:::::::::::::::::::::.::::::::::::::4 16 :::::::::::58 : 10.::.:::::::'::::: :: .:::. ...:.:43 12: :::::::::_67:::::E.:::&12

Indiana 84 78 11 44 16 48 13 61 07 54 07Iowa .:::: :::::::::::::':'::::::35 :72 16::.: 43 23 :43 .,'+':::::::::::15 ...... .:44 14 :::::::,::58.:::':':':"': 12

Kansas 35 71 14 37 18 42 15 46 12 52 07Kentucky 2:::.:::: 88 63 17 25 41::. :.:::':::: 25 28:f:::' 13 38.-- -: 27 19Louisiana 31 71 12 32 25 59 11 53 09 49 11Maine:':::::::::::::::' :70..... : :71 20::::::::: 43 32 ':.-:::::':;'.. ' ;:63 14 ::: . .:::: . :::.:.::52 15::::::::.:::i...::.:::::::::::: 49:::: 14Maryland 51 77 12 35 26 52 15 46 09 41 14Massachusetts ::::::: :14 :::: :::69 17 :::39:::::.::::::: ::::28 ::::::::::: 59::::: .:::::15:-.::-:.:::::::::::: .......... 11:::::::::::::::::::::::: .::::::47:::::::::::::::::::::15

Michigan 31 74 12 38 26 56 10 49 08 52 13Minnesota 45 18: :;::f:::::::::::::::::::36:::::::.: 51::::1:.:::::::;:li:::i:.::::::::::::47:.:.::::.:::::::::15::::: 50 15. ::::::::,::::::::::::::::::56:::::M.:.:::.:1:1

Mississippi 27 69 11 34 21 57 11 32 13 35 13Missouri.::::::::::::::::::::::.:.::::::::::-.:' 83 76 11::::::: ............. 44 18 55 10 57 07:::::::::;;;:;:i'::::i:.4::::.: 55:::::.:::::::i:i:08.

Montana 18 72 18 40 31 44 18 56 12 54 14Nebraska::::'::::::::::::::::'''': ..-:::,322:::::::::::: . ::::::: 76 11 ..::, :::::::.:::::::::::::::44::::::::::::::.::::::18 :::::::::: ::::45::: :::: 14 53:::::H 11:::::::::.:::::::::.::::::0:: 59::::;:;:::::::::: .......

Nevada 27 67 20 34 33 68 14 61 11 56 17New Hampshire ::::::.,::::.:.::,::::::::::::::::::::::::27:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;:::::::::-.:::::::;::::::::i::: .54 25 ::::::::29M:::::::::40::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::51:::::::::::.:14.:: ::: . . : . :::::::::48::::::::: 16::,:E:::::::::.::':::::::i:i::.42:::;.:::::::::::::48:::::

New Jersey 40 73 12 35 20 51 11 51 10 50 12New Mexico .:::::::::::::.51::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::76 11:::::::::::::::::::::::: :::.45::::::::::::MI7 :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::5 ::::::::10.::::::::: 56::::::::: 08:.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::48 :::::::::::::ii10:::

New York 51 76 14 44 24 62 14 58 11 55 15North Carolina :::: 83: 68 19::::]!'..i,:'.: 30 34 i.:::.::::.:,:::'i:.:*:.:*:::45::::: ::22: . Z::::::::: 15 43 19North Dakota 16 71 15 43 28 48 17 65 08 61 09Ohio ::: :::::::H::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Table 6 - Supply and Demand Indicators

Percentage of Schools Reporting Difficulty Filling Vacancies' in Selected Teaching Fields

Secondary Schools'

Elementary' Math

US. Average: .................. q!.i. 3.0 116.1 :..:.; ...

Alabama 7.2 9.0Alaska 'x...1'1'. . -,:::::::::::12.6: ...................... 10.0 .....:-.

Arizona 4.7 28.6Arkansas 10.2y :;;..]:;::11:112.11.:1. :.California 10.3 22.6Colorado , . ::::::: ::::::::6.7::::::.::::. 11.6Connecticut 7.4 4.3

Physical

Science

Biology English Special English as aEducation' Second Language

... ... ..... .................................................. 12:-.4,..,:...:::::::::::....::::.....*::::: 9.8::::::.:::::*::.....:::::.::::::....18.3........*::::::::::::.:..:*I....::: i5.8::::::::::

7.7 7.7 8.2 18.6 0.4':::::.:9.5::::::: .::' :::6.6...i:;:;:i:i:::Ei:;;;::;: ;:i:i:i 4.91 ..:::':':::::::::::::4.3.9:::::::::::::::::g::::::::::::]:::::::::::.6.a.:::::::.:::::.:':

16.1 14.3 21.5 27.7:::::1:119.0:.1::::: ::::: :11.4.9 :.::::9.:.;2.0: :.:.:::47.6:::

22.4 17.0 14.1 22.312.7 ,:-13.7:. '.::.:."...' '":.::.':.'8.0::-

10.7 5.5 6.1 10.3Delawar61::::::::::g:::::::::::: ::,,IPS::::: :::..:'::::-:: .:::::::::::::. 28.5::.11...,.,.:.::

District of Columbia 36.6 - - 10.1Florida :::53.::::.:::.:....: . . 17.5: :::::14.6...:. ::::: . :::::19.7::: .:.7.9 .::37.0::::.

Georgia 3.2 30.6 32.1 26.4 11.1 28.3Hawaii:" :11-1::11::::.,:: .... ,,,,,.::::::::.: .. :521.::-Idaho 5.7 21.6 8.8 12.0 12.1 19.6Illitgii5:::::::j::::::::::::::::::::::. 8.5: 12.% ';::; ... ....................... %9::::::: M::::::::::,:::::::12.0: ::::::::::::::.7:.:: i1.5,...7.&.

Indiana 0.0 5.9 3.6 4.7 10.2 6.5 1.0

3.4

Iowa :::::::::::.: 1.5::: 9.4, 3.8.: :::.8.4 .:.::::::::':::.:::::::::::17.8 :::Z4Kansas 1.3 15.6 14.3 13.6 13.9 8.1 1.9 .

Kentucky ' r.:0.5 16.8 i3.2 """::11.9 ..:111.5.::::.:, ::::207:: :.::::::0.3 ::

Louisiana 20.2 20.1 19.8 16.4 17.4 29.4 3.6Maint.:....: 3.3:':':::«::: >:::::::::.'::. 14.4::::::::.::.: ..: : ... : .. :::18.6 :14.0.::::r:::::: ::::::.,,,,,:::::::14.9: ''.::::2.2::::::

Maryland 19.3 17.5 23.7 13.8 13.4 14.5 1.5Massachusetts :-4.8: . .. . .. :. ..::: . :: .. ..: . :: . 18.4 ::: .::: .. .... .. :::: 20.6 15:2-.' ::::: . ... .. :.::::2.6 1:1:1:17.9

Michigan 3.0 9.5 8.0 2.7 0.0 6.2 0.0Minnesota.:.....:::::::::::::::::. 5.. .15.6 :::::.::::::::::::: ..:..:111:::...19.6..:1..1.a1:.:::::: :::::1:6.4: ::::1 3.6. ..................: .................... :::::11.111.13.0

Mississippi 16.9 23.2 18.2 24.0 12.8 29.7 2.5MiSSoiirt.:-..::::.:.::::: ... . . : . ::::::::.!..:::,1 ::::12.::::::::::::;:.::::::::;:.:: . :,:::: 19.9: ::::::..: .. :::::15.1 .,:. 16T.:: :14.5-- -:.:::.::::,:::::::::::::::::25:::-:..::::::::::::1: :1..2.

Montana 1.9 9.9 7.8 10.5 12.6 10.6 1.0Nebraska: ::::::::: 6.4 13.9 '':'::::".":'''''."'":'''' 11.6 ':: ..::'2.0:*i.:: :::8:1:i:*i:ii'i'' .:'-':::::2::CiiTi:iii.;;i

Nevada 3.0 17.9 21.6 22.1 12.5 31.0 14.1New Hampshire...::.:::::' -::::::1:8.:..::'''.. 18.1 .. . ::::::::: :20;7: ::::1.64::::::: 18.0 ...:1,:: ::::::128 6. :i :::::::7 :*:::g:::::New Jersey 5.5 15.0 19.6 12.5 7.5 13.2 3.7New Mexico,- :13.0 :::.:.: :::::::::::.:::::::: :::32.1... ::.21.1:::::':':::::::':':::::::::': :.:,37:4i:::::::::::::::::,::.:.:::.:':. :19.0 :::::E:::::

New York 8.0 13.4 12.1 11.9 6.2 10.8 4.7Naiiitfi:Carolina:,::.:.:..., ..'.1.8.7:',...:.:,: .::28...4 ' .:-..::::::::30.2..1...'1*. ..18ka:0::..... :::25::::::::.... tNorth Dakota 3.3 12.7 15 9 14.0 7.6 8.7 0.7Ohio ::::":':':':'::.:.:':'':':'::' 11.2 :::::::::::.::::::::: : ::.:. 18.3 H:::::::::

:. : . . . . . .

::...:::0M.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ....X :::.-.1.g::::::::::::

Oklahoma 5.7 13.9 11.0 8.2 12.0 17.0 2.8aregorr::::::. 3.0 222;2 ::::::177:.:: 16.5:::::. ." ::: :* ''' ''.1:1.;...1:14:::: :::7.6:. 2.3Pennsylvania 4.7 3.5 28.4 15.5 1.9 13.1 2.3Rhode Island11.111:1:11111 ...::::0.8 :'"..::: :::::::..:.::.1:::::::::::::1"::::::..:: .7.7.7].:::: :5.9South Carolina 10.5 18.2 12.4 12.1 8.7 20.3 0.9South Dakota.... 3.5 .........1...? .......... .................. :. ::::::::: : ::::::: 9.5.:: :::::::::::: :::':H.:.]:.s.:.:.]: 6.5:..:::.;:.::,;;.:.:.: :.:1.7.8::::.::::::::::::::::.:.:::: ::::::::..:1R.:::?im,

Tennessee 9.1 22.5 12.7 14.4 9.3 15.9 2.1Tex4i:::::" ::::-i11.8 :::37.6 .22.2 ::13.0: :.:46.9 '26.8 i.:13:Vii.::::Utah 5.0 22.4 23.0 10.0 12.7 11.3 10.7Vermont.:. :1:::::.::: .: . 1,.......................:1:1 17.5 .......'15.0.:,::.:.:.

.. . . ... . ...

Virginia 9.6 11.0 11.9 13.4 8.2 23.0 6.3Washington::::,:, 1::::12.21:: 9.9::::: :::.::::9.8::: '14.2: :':::17.6 .1-10.9 ..'

West Virginia 3.2 2.2 4.7 8.7 2.2 8.2 0.3Wisconsin 1:.:::-:.:::::.:::::.::::ii..::::::::::::::::::::0.2::. ".:.:1::::.1.!:11:11:::::::1144;1 .::#:::::... : ., 144::::::::::::::::::... .5:::9;::. :,I.:.:;8 18.0 :::;:2:;::;.:;:;:;:;::::::i:1:!:::::?:::1O::::::::::;:;::

Wyoming 0.0 15.9 10.5 5.3 10.2 18.2 5.1

- Too few cases for reliable estimate1 Percentage of schools reporting that it was somewhat difficult, very difficult, or impossible to fill vacanices. 2 Percentage of schools serving students in grades K-6 reporting difficultyfilling elementary teacher vacanices. 3 Percentage of schools serving students in grades 7-12 reporting difficulty filling vacancies in selected fields. 4 Percentage of schools serving stu-dents in grades K-12 reporting difficulty filling vacanices in special education and in bilingual education / English as a Second Language.

Source: National Center for Education Statistics. 1993-94 Schools and Staffing Survey (Public School Teacher and School Questionnaires). Tabulations conducted by the NationalCommission on Teaching & America's Future.

84

Table 7 Supply and Demand Indicators: Incentives in Shortage Fields

Percentage of Public School Districts Offering Financial Incentives or Free Retraining in Shortage Fields, by Field

U.S. Average:AlabamaAlaskaArizona

CaliforniaColorado

Mathematics

14

PhysicalScience

:11- --

Life

ScienceSpecialEducation

17".:-::

11 11 13 11

'' 19 a 13 17. -2514 9 10 19

10: 10. 16. :

17 15 14 20

Connecticut 2

District of Columbia 0 0Florida-- .-:::23:--

Georgia 37 33Hawali : -''.100Idaho 19 17Illinois...Indiana

Kansas

Louisiana

MarylandMassachusetts-.MichiganMinnesotd::-MississippiMissouriMontana

0 5

24]--

0 100

54

14

5

10 9 7

20 16 20 29 13

10 10 10 25 5

' ''''' .. ... .. .. .....

33100

16

:13. - . --

109

English as aSecond Language

3

22

3

21 206 9

30 22............ 9

9

Nevada 6New HarrIpshirC]:;:;::;::::::;'';': :::::':::''''''''':

New Jersey 20 7

New MeXi0:5.::::::: 0::New York 5 6North Carolina. :.,.22 :.:::- ::.:::. :::-:::."..'''.'"'::::23::::':""""::::::'::"'"*.,:::'::*::"':".:':::

North Dakota 21 12Ohio '' - . ''' :::9]:]::::':::::':'::::'''''N.:::.::::::::::.:.:.::::::::::.:::7."':::'

Oklahoma 11 8 8Oregon... .......::::.......... .....::....11::::':':::: 14:: :]::::.:.::: ...

Pennsylvania 13 13 12Rhode Island 9 ,- i9.-.-- :::::: 9

South Carolina 32 27South Dakota' :19Tennessee 23 18Texas :i:::. 29 ::21 :

Utah 37 30

Virginia 15 12Washington 22 18 ''''i.- 'i:'''''''

West Virginia 4 8Wisconsin:::::::::::::::,:::::. 6 -.

Wyoming 8 8

8

0

20

268

10

3

5

14

11':x::::13

28

12

109

25

17

4

7

11

8

8135

9

14 81432

19 19 2

25 43 11

16 48 838 . .

4 18 4

11 8 3

Source: National Center for Education Statistics, 1993-94 Schools and Staffing Survey (Public School District Questionnaire). Tabulations conducted by the National Commission on Teaching

& America's Future.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE 65

Table 8 - Supply and Demand Indicators

Rates of and Reasons for Public School Teacher Attrition

US Average..Alabama

ArizonaArkansasCalifornia

ConnecticutDelawareDistrict of Columbia

...... ..........................................................................................................................

GeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndiana

KansasKentuckyLouisiana

MarylandMssachusetMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMitsouriE0 : . "

Montanaas a

NevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNewNew YorkNorthNorth Dakota

Oklahoma

Pennsylvania

South Carolina

Tennessee

UtahVermontVirginia

West Virginia

Wyoming

- Too few cases for reliable estimate

% of teachers who moved or left teaching'

% who moved to

another school

6.0...: 4:6

4.4

8.4

14.4

% who left teaching

4.1

4.8

7.2...... . . .

5.97.7 4.6

24.8 2.1-:'3.8 3.5-5.9 4.4:-:6.7 2.74.6 4.5-

15.8 4.75.9 -.3.46 4 8.1

7.5 14.5

2.7 2.56.3-'5.0 3.6

10.2 2.75.5

29.0 1.5

8.8

21.3

6.5

2.7

6.15.62.45.83.4

3.7

Of those who moved or left

% who retired % who left due to dissatisfaction,

salary, or career change

24.4 61.3:45.1

8.8 45.2":57.2

21.2 40.2B4.8

51.0 36.5:

7.9

13.6::11.0

10.920.1

8.9... 11.7--

26.412.3

17.0

16.5

6.1 50.5

41.365.420.953.050.115.970.443.057.053.9

18.248.261.554.8

8.4

5.74.44.1

.......

7.5

3.1

3.0

9.531.214.518.0::.12.7

79.2

29.9

47.4

33.854:179.2

36.9

2.2 45.5

24.8 35.0-19.6

24.4 38.9

17.7

0.4

13.1

40.6

26.3

% of Teachers

Over 50

Years of Age=

20.28.

22.7

33.0

28.424.641.425.0,20.7

20.5

25.7

23.2

21.1

22.7

30.127 721.7

19.521.425.5

34.2

27.5

19.5

18.8

26.1

18.8

25.420.628.1

21.824.4.21.8

81.5 23.5

1. Source: National Center for Education Statistics, 1993.94 Schools and Staffing Surveys (Teacher Follow-Up Survey, 1991-92). Tabulations conducted by the National Commission onTeaching & America's Future. 2 Source: National Center for Education Statistics, America's Teachers : Profilf,,a5Profession, 1993-94, Table A2.9.

Table 9 - Public School Teacher Salaries and Satisfaction with Teaching

Salary Range'

Bachelor's degree,

no experience

Highest stepon schedule

U.S. Average :::,:.:.:: ::::::',21.,92: .A0.517::::::::::::.

Alabama 22,263 32.840Alaska:::: :::'31.374:::::::::::::: .58,095:::::::::

Arizona 21.890 40,661Arkansas:' ::19,603'::'!::';',:::::::::::::: :::29;085 ::::'::'

California 24,404 46,272Colorado::::: ::::::::.:19937:: :;;:74316:::::::::::

Connecticut 28.195 56.189Delaware::::;::.: .:::22,914::::: ::::::::::47,743:- -,:-:

District of Columbia 22,000 54,000Florida ::::: ]:.]:::g::::'GeorgiaHaWaiii:..:::

.::::23.::;838::,:-20,065

:.;:1-25;436:

::: '''''' .:::39,599:::::::::::::'

42,134::::49499::-:

Idaho 18,102 33,128Illinois :::::.:::: >::: :':. ' ::::::: :.::.::i::21.415 42,004::Indiana 22.560 41,993lowal::::::::: 18,796 :::::: ::::: ::'33,317

Kansas 22.714 36.671Kentucky-Louisiana 18.045 30.539tViiiti.el::::::::::::::::: :::::19,566:::::':-Maryland 24.833 48,158Massachusetts:.: 23,108:::: 44,7:83:::l::::::::::::,

Michigan 24,705 48,315Minnesota::::: -,:::21.965::::- :::::::::::::::::::::::.::::::::::::. 38638::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Mississippi 19,008 32,693

Montana 17,801 33,755Nebraska::::::':-:. 17:781. :::02.;281..:

Nevada 24,220 44,958New Ham hire 21,317:-:,,,,,, :38.971::::::

New Jersey 28,424 58.208New Mexico ::::.2,114:::i1:!ii 35,994:::-New York 27,441 59.116North Carolina :::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::20,077:::::::::::::::: 38.733:::North Dakota 16,624 27,371

:20.550:::::: :42,152::::Oklahoma 22,157 30.445Oreg00:::::::::::]::::::::: ::::120708:.:::.:::'::::::':: ::::::::::::::35.962

Pennsylvania 26.341 50,337RhodeIttend:::::::::::: ,:::23.423.., :::46,016:::.

South Carolina 20,354 41,766South Dakota:::::::::::'::::::: 17,895Ti:!::: 27.617Tennessee 21,348 34,650Texasig:E::::]j]: : :!:!!:!:!:'::::::::]']:]:::1' :::::::::-1.9,011::::::::::::]:::::i: 32,358]:::::::iiii::::;::::11

Utah 18.740 34,900Vermonti. :. ii20,918 '::::-::: 40.330:::::.

Virginia 23,098 38.328Washingtori:::::::::::::..::. . 21,441: .:-::n!::R:44,892 n:!:iWest Virginia 21.466 36,378

iWisconsin ::::23,080:::::::::::::::::::: ::::42.995:::::::::::::::::.:

Wyoming 20,137 38,701

Satisfaction with Teaching

% who would

certainly becomea teacher again'

39 8::46.236 533.4 :::::

39.7. ::: ::: :::::::::::::::

45.8:: : ::

% who plan to stay

in teaching as longas they are able'

28.431.5:33.3

38.2:::

39.1

% of teacherssatisfied withclass size'

67.368.9..60.5

42.5: : ::: :: :

76.4

38.5 26.5 69.9

40.7 28.3 69.861.2

39.3 28.6 58.72 68:8

39.4 35.3 67.627.T.

34 2 30.9 74.932.530.3 33.5 63.5

36.229.7 32.3 63.940.9:43.9 31.8 66.4

36.0 29.8 68.1

38.5 31.9 77.1

44.6 37.7 59.8

47.3 40.7 67.8

43.1 38.1 67.9

34.0 30.3 73.929.0:

37.5 31.1 79.6

42.1 37.1 63.041.331.4 24.0 67.4

::

32.8 31.2 61.0

35.4 34.4 42.5::39.6 35.8 72.636.1 33.6 65.240.4 28.133.6 29.3 72 2

27.037.6 30.4 77.6

1 Source: National Center for Education Statistics, America's Teachers: Profile of a Profession, 1993.94, Table A6.2. 2 Source: National Center for Education Statistics, 1993-94 Schoolsand Staffing Survey, (Public School Teacher Questionnaire). Tabulations conducted by the National Commission on Teaching & America's Future. 3 Source: National Center for Education

Statistics, America's Teachers: Profile of a Profession, 199394, Table A4.8.

BEST COPY AVAIIILAiLIE. 16 7

Table 10 - Public School Teachers' Working Conditions: Teaching Loads

U.S. Average

Pupil-Teacher

Ratio'Average Class

Size'

Alabama 17.2 23.1Alaska 17.6 22.0Arizona 19.3 25.5

California 24.0 28.8Colorado:::::: :Connecticut 14.1 20.0Delaware ''' '

District of Columbia 13.2 21.0FloridaGeorgia 16.3 23.1

»:... ' 17.9' 22.5-Idahomos

19.1 24.1

Indiana 17.5 22.4

Kansas 15.1 20.5Kentuckyi::.:!!:

Louisiana 16.6 22.413.8

Maryland 17.0 25.621.9

Michigan 20.1 25.5

Mississippi 17.5 22.6155'

Montana 16.3 20.1' '''' ' 19 7,

Nevada 18.7 25.9New Hampshire: 15.6 21.New Jersey 13.8 21.2NewNew Yorkworth

15.2 22.7

North Dakota 15.3 20.4

Oklahoma 15.5 21.3Oregon 19.9:Pennsylvania 17.1 23.8RhodeSouth Carolina 16.4 22.0South Dakdta'iTennessee 18.6 24.7

21.9Utah 24.3 28.1Vermont .13.8Virginia 14.6 21.1

West Virginia 14.8 22.5Wi 22.9Wyoming 15.0 20.3

Secondary Teachers'

Average # ofsubject areastaught

1.81.8

1.81.8

1.9

1.7

1.4

1.8

2.1

1.8

2.0

1.919.:.'1.71.8 «:.:.::::::.::::::::: >:: >::

1.9

1.51.8.2.1

2.0

Average # of Average # ofperiods taught studentsper week taught

:::::::::::::::::::

5.3

5.4565.25.25.4

5.2''''

5.15.3;5.2

5.2

5.3

5.5

52

5.1

5.1

56

5.5

1.8 5.6

1.6 5.5::::::

2.2 5.3

2.1 5.52.1 : 5.31.7 6.1

5.61.7 5.12.2::" :

1.8 5.05.2

1.9 5.7

1.6 4.9:::: ::::::: 5.3.

1.9 5.6

2.1 5.6

124.1

134.1

148.5

104.33

106.5

121.8

120.2

117.6

107.9

128.1

125.4

126.4

113.3

104.9

143.4

109.3

123.5

104.7

109.7

143.6

113.7

125.0

160.2

102.6

123.8

105.8

I. Source: National Center for Education Statistics, America's Teachers: Profile of a Profession, 1993.94, Table 65. 2 Source: National Center for Education Statistics, America's Teachers:Profile of a Profession, 199394, Table A4.13. 3 Source: National Center for Education Statistics, America's Teachers: Profile of a Profession, 1993-94, Table A4.13.

Table 11- Professional Working Conditions:Teacher Influence Over Classroom Decisions

Percentage of Public School Teachers Who Report Influence over Specific Classroom Decisions

Textbooks TeachingContent

Teaching

TechniquesGrading Discipline

U.S Average ::::::::::::]:::::5 :.:61:::::::.::::::.:.:::. ........... 1:: 86! 87, 69Alabama 44 52 84 87 63Alaska i::: ::::::::::::: :::::: . ::: : : :::::::-:::::-.:::60:::.:::::::::::::-:::: :', 68 ::::. :.':91:':' '90' ' '72 :

Arizona 55 59 87 88 72NE.R00.0.:::::::'.::::. .................................... ."..:.:.::::::::.:::61.:::::::::.:::::::::::::::::.H.,". :: 5 ::::.:::..-.84::::::::.::::::::::.::::::::'.].::.::,: ..:.::-::.85. ::::Z4:::::::::::.:.:::::::: ........

47 58 87 90 7871,.. 69:,]:,...:' 91. ,:.::':89 :: ::,:75-55 53 80 88 77

:65'..::::-.53 59 84 92 61

CaliforniaColorado:::Connecticut

District of ColumbiaFloridaGeorgia

Idaho

IndianaIdWa

KansasKentuckyLouisianaMainetgMarylandMassachusetts.MichiganMinnesota'MississippiMissouriMontana

NevadaNei/ HampshireNew JerseyNewNew YorkNorthNorth DakotaQhioOklahoma

PennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSduth DakotaTennessee

UtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWest VirginiaWisconsinWyoming

.46 ';',...."57 .::.:. .'.. ::86.:::::':''-:".'' `87':::, :62 :.:.: ..... ..]:

466658

59

646641

41626167516469

:.:72

596855

60

67

66657

47::::::::::::

435051

51 86 86 6277 ::::::::::.:::::: . :,. .... . ........ :i:'-.92 s :::::::::. . .:::::::76.::.

70 89 89 74-......:0::: . :.::::.:.::::: as:::.68 .:'.x:'.:'. 88

69 89 90 67::::::::::::::': . .: . .:::,:':::: . :::::.::::: . :::::..,..::92 :::.::::::::::.::::.:': . ... ' -.96:::::::::::::::::::: 76':.:.:.:,:::

71 88 88 75:82''''''''''85 66

. ..:..:::'.: 9,CV: 8080 66

''":"86'88 7190' '.,:::.',75:::. :.:''',::'::::,:::,:::::::::::::::::,,, ::::::::::::::::::::::::

85 644A ..:6

88 73

:74.

.x.:::77:.' 82::' '''' .... ::.:::::::::'::::::

50 85:73 :s.: ::,:::::']..,91:::::::::. .::::: . .. .. .

41 7563 .::::::-.::-..

66 89-72 ..-.92..

54 8666 ::::.89

72 90:.,:.i.:::i::74 ..

63 9168 :-: ':' ::::: 91:.55 82

.*::::::::::.7.0::::::o.::.:: :..92: : ::::::::::

57 8744:..,..:

76 89

91 729:"' .. ":'80-:::::-

88 757i: 67

87 708287 78

67 90 90 65:::::7:1::::::.:,:::::'::::::::::.::::.::::: :::: :::::::::::.:::: .91':::.::::::.::::::::::::::' :::::::: aix:;,:::::::::::::: ..:'.68.:.

61 89 88 68.":-..'.61 89

66 82 85 57'73'.:] :: : 91.::::.: : :::.: '.'89.":'...?::::.]:.]::::;:.::::::

54 87 87::::::57::- .83.:::: .'..::::.:80::::

58 87 9078.::::::::: :91:

46 53 84::60.'::-:::'':''':.']''::.:''.'.::.... 66.:. :.: : :::::::::::::: 6948 61 87 87 7068 72 :::.:: : , : . :::: : : .,:::::::.:::: : Tr....

69 73 91 89 76

Source: National Center for Education Statistics, 1993-94 Schools and Staffing Survey (Public School Teacher Questionnaire). Tabulations conducted by the National Commission on Teaching &

America's Future.

6EST COPY AVAILABLE139

Table 12 - Professional Working Conditions:Teacher Influence Over School Decisions

% of Public School Teachers Who Report Influence Over Specific School Decisions

Discipline Content of Teacher Budget Teacher CurriculumPolicies Inservice Hiring

Programs

U.S. Average::.Alabama 30AI .

Arizona 39Arkansas 2TCalifornia 46

ConnecticutDelaw re:District of Columbia

Georgia

Idaho

Indiana

KansasKentucky.::Louisiana

MarylandMassachusetts..MichiganMinnesota::::MississippiMissouriMontana

:::::::::::

NevadaNew Hampshire::::::.

New JerseyNew Mexicd:iii:]*1:,':i

New YorkNorthNorth Dakota

OklahomaOre ons?PennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTe

UtahVermont?:::::::

Virginia

West Virginia 39Wisconsin -42?Wyoming 44

3134::::

8;:.::2

82

Evaluation Content

30 14 14

36 11 11

37 29 . .

33 36 7 7

...................... . .. . ......

30 3034:.:.: -3431 35 6

33.43 29 8 8 2 41

..30... 37....

32 31 3 3 3 37.... .. . . 2. :4641 29 8 8 3 41

.... . : . . '::::::43>::::" . 4135 25 4 3 2045 >:...

25 23 6 2 17... . .. . ...

41 35 7 7 3 4146 .. ... ... 15 4: .... . 47..31 33 2 2 4 22

:::.:30....30 .:..40 .... .. ..... ... 45'44 36 6 6 2 53

2

3

25.......... ... .

34

38

36. ...

23

2445.

4106

% who reported that

following school rules confidewith professional judgment

28

24. 25

212225

... . :28402526

.24.37 27 5

33 :: . :: :

23 23 1

37- :2830 25 11

43 28 3

31 45 4

32 20 2

2025

212117:2327

'22312521

.. . .... . : . :

2624 ................

23

19

28

30

19.. ....

22.. .. : .

26

24

23. .... . ..

19

2322:.:::

22

28: ... .

1 2 33. . : . ... .

11 3 29........

2 423 .. 32::2 33

.. :146

1 35. . ...

27 6 6 5 33:3 :49,-;:;::: :;:i.;,:::

28 4 4 3 22. .. 1 . . .. 27:.: : ::::13::::::::::

30 10 10 5 36:43 :.: 18:::::: 18 ::::59 -...:, .... . ::

24 5 5 1 27::.:...::.:.:42k:i::-.,:

.::.:::::::::.:.::::::19:: . . .:::::: :::::19:::::: ....... .... . . :: 4633 2 2 3 30

:36::.:.: .:. ...:.::: 1,, :.:.:49:::.

29 15 15 2 49

31

21

Source: National Center for Education Statistics. 1993-94 Schools and Staffing Surveys (Public School Questionnaire). Tabulations conducted by the National Commission onTeaching & America's Future.

Appendix CNCATE, INTASC, and National Board Standards

When people seek help from doctors, lawyers, accoun-tants, engineers, or architects, they rely on the unseen workof a three-legged stool supporting professional competence:accreditation, licensing, and certification. In most profes-sions, candidates must graduate from an accredited profes-sional school that provides up-to-date knowledge and effec-tive training in order to sit for the state licensing examina-tons that test whether they have learned what they need toknow to be responsible practitioners. In addition, many pro-fessions offer examinations that recognize advanced levels ofskill, such as board certification for doctors, public accoun-tants, and architects. Those who meet these standards arethen allowed to do certain kinds of work that others cannot.The standards are also used to improve professional educa-tion and to set standards of practice for the work of the pro-fession.

Until recently, teaching has not had a coherent set ofstandards created by the profession to guide education, entryinto the field, and ongoing practice. In the last ten years,such standards have been created by three bodies workingtogether to improve teaching: the National Council for theAccreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) which setsstandards for schools of education, the Interstate NewTeacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC)--a group of more than 30 states working to develop standardsfor the licensing of beginning teachersand the NationalBoard for Professional Teaching Standards, which sets stan-dards for accomplished practice and offers advanced certifi-cates. These standards are aligned with one another and withnew standards for student learning in the disciplines, andthey are tied to performance-based assessments of teacherknowledge and skill. The assessments look at evidence ofteaching ability (videotapes of teaching, lesson plans, studentwork, analyses of curriculum) in the context of real teaching.States are just beginning to incorporate these standards intotheir policies governing teaching.

What do the standards require? To be accredited byNCATE, a teacher education program must:

offer a coherent program of studies based on a knowl-edge base about effective teaching, rather than a collec-tion of courses based on what professors want to teach;

provide a full foundation in the liberal arts and in thediscipline to be taught;

prepare candidates to teach children so that they canachieve student learning standards in the disciplines;

prepare teachers who can work with diverse learners andwith new technologies;

ensure that candidates gain knowledge of effectivelearning and teaching strategies as described in theINTASC standards and demonstrate their skills inworking with students.

The INTASC standards for teacher licensing furtherspell out the competencies beginning teachers should have.

These include:

knowledge of subject matter and how to teach it to stu-dents;

understanding of how to foster learning and develop-ment and how to address special learning needs;

ability to assess students, plan curriculum, and use arange of teaching strategies that develop high levels ofstudent performance;

ability to create a positive, purposeful learning environ-ment;

ability to collaborate with parents and colleagues to sup-port student learning and to evaluate the effects of one'sown teaching in order to continually improve it.

The National Board standards for accomplished practiceare used to guide assessments of veteran teachers. They out-line detailed standards in 30 areas defined by subject areaand developmental level of students (e.g. Early AdolescenceMathematics). The standards reflect these 5 propositions:

Teachers are committed to students and their learning.National Board-Certified teachers are dedicated toensuring their students' success. They understand howstudents develop and learn, and they adjust their prac-tice based on student needs.

Teachers know the subjects they teach and how to teachthose subjects to students. Teachers use their deepunderstanding of subject matter to make it accessible tostudents.

Teachers are responsible for managing and monitoringstudent learning. Teachers use their range of instruc-tional techniques when each is appropriate. They knowhow to motivate and engage students, assess their learn-ing, and explain student performance to parents.

Teachers think systematically about their practice andlearn from experience. National Board-Certified teach-ers critically examine their practice, seek advice fromothers, and use research to improve their teaching.

Teachers are members of learning communities. Theywork collaboratively with parents and other profession-als on behalf of students.

Meeting the INTASC and National Board standardsrequires both written assessments of subject matter andteaching knowledge and performance assessments of actualteaching in the classroom, including the development of aportfolio of lesson plans, student work, videotapes of teach-ing, and analyses of teaching decisions. The process is itselfeducational. As Shirley Bzdewka of Dayton, New Jerseydescribed the effect of pursuing Board certification:

I'm a very different teacher now I am much morefocused. I can never, ever do anything again with my kidsand not ask myself; "Why am I doing this? What are theeffects on my kids? What are the benefits to my kids? It's notthat I didn't care about those things before, but it's on sucha conscious level now."


63BEST COPY AVAIIIMILIE

7 1

Linda Darling-HammondExecutive Director

Marilyn RauthDeputy Director

Barnett BerryAssociate Director, Policy and

Frederick J. FrelowAssociate Director, Urban and

Jon SnyderSenior Research Associate

David HaselkornPolicy AdvisorRecruiting New Teachers,

Gail Huffrnan-JoleyRegional AssociateUniversity of Indiana

Richard IngersollStatistical ConsultantUniversity of Georgia

Appendix DCommission Staff

Margaret GariganAssistant Director for Administration

State Relations

Local Initiatives

Ellalinda Rustique-ForresterCoordinator for Policy Development

Dylan JohnsonProgram Assistant

Flynn PritchardResearch Assistant

Constance H. SimonAdministrative Assistant

Commission Advisors and Consultants

Inc.

Gary SykesResearch ConsultantMichigan State University

Richard WisniewskiSenior AdvisorInstitute for Educational Innovation,University of Tennessee


6472

ft

Appendix EPartner State Contact Persons

GeorgiaJan KettlewellAssistant Vice Chancellorfor Academic AffairsGeorgia P-16 Council Office of the University Systemof Georgia

IllinoisLynne HaeffeleExecutive Assistant to the Superintendent forInitiatives CoordinationIllinois State Board of Education

Sheryl PoggiDivision AdministratorIllinois State Board of Education

IndianaMarilyn ScannellExecutive DirectorIndiana Professional Standards Board

KansasJerry BaileyAssociate Dean of EducationThe University of Kansas

Ken BungertDirector of Certification and Teacher EducationKansas State Department of Education

KentuckySusan LeibExecutive DirectorKentucky Education Professional Standards Board

MaineNelson WallsExecutive DirectorMaine Leadership Consortium

MarylandLawrence LeakAssistant State Superintendent forCertification and AccreditationMaryland State Department of Education

MissouriSusan ZelmanDeputy CommissionerMissouri State Department of Education

MontanaErik HansonEducation Policy AdvisorOffice of the Governor, State of Montana

Randy HitzDeanCollege of Education, Health, and HumanDevelopmentMontana State University Bozeman

North CarolinaKaren GarrTeacher Advisor, Office of the GovernorState of North Carolina

OhioNancy EberhartDirector, Teacher Education, Certification,and Professional DevelopmentOhio Department of Education

Nancy ZimpherExecutive DeanCollege of Education, Ohio State University

OklahomaTerry AlmonChairpersonOklahoma Commission for Teacher Preparation


65- 7 3

Appendix F: National Organization Partners & Contact Persons

American Association of Collegesfor Teacher EducationDavid Imig, Chief Executive Officer

American Association of School AdministratorsPaul Houston, Executive Director

American Association of SchoolPersonnel AdministratorsEsther Coleman, Executive Director

American Federation of TeachersJoan Baratz-Snowden, Deputy Director,Educational Issues Department

Association for Supervision andCurriculum DevelopmentGene Carter, Executive Director

Association of Teacher EducatorsGloria Chernay, Executive Director

American Association for Employment in EducationCharles Marshall, Executive Director

Consortium for Policy Research in EducationTom Corcoran and Susan Fuhrman, Co-Directors

Council for Basic EducationDiana Rigden, Director, Teacher Education Program

Council of the Great City SchoolsMichael Casserly, Executive Director

Education Commission of the StatesRobert Palaich, Director of Field Management

Education WeekVirginia B. Edwards, President and Editor

Holmes PartnershipNancy Zimpher, Executive Director

International Reading AssociationAlan E. Farstrup, Executive Director

Interstate New Teacher Assistanceand Support Consortium,Jean Miller, Director

Learning Communities NetworkVictor Young, President

National Council for theAccreditation of Teacher EducationShari Francis, Director of State Relations

National Alliance of BusinessMilton Goldberg, Executive Vice President

National Alliance of Black School EducatorsQuentin Lawson, Executive Director

National Association of Elementary School PrincipalsSam Sava, Executive Director

National Association of Secondary School PrincipalsTimothy Dyer, Executive Director

National Association of State Directors of TeacherEducation and CertificationDon Hair, Executive Director

National Board for Professional Teaching StandardsMary Dean Barringer, Vice PresidentPrograms for the Advancement of Teaching

National Conference of State LegislaturesJulie Bell, Education Policy Director

National Council of Teachers of EnglishFaith Schullstrom, Executive Director

National Education AssociationChuck Williams, Director, Teacher Education

National Foundation for theImprovement of EducationJudith Renyi, Executive Director

National Governors' AssociationJohn Barth, Director, Education Policy Studies Division

National Middle Schools AssociationSusan Swaim, Executive Director

National Partnership for Excellence andAccountability in TeachingWillis Hawley, Director

National School Boards AssociationAnne L. Bryant, Executive Director

National Science Teachers AssociationGerald F. Wheeler, Executive Director

National Staff Development CouncilDennis Sparks, Executive Director

National Urban CoalitionRamona Edelin, President

National Urban LeagueVelma Cobb, Director, Education &Youth Development Policy, Research, and Advocacy

New American SchoolsJohn Anderson, President

Recruiting New Teachers, Inc.David Haselkorn, President

State Higher Education Executive OfficersEsther Rodriguez, Associate Executive Director

Teacher Union Reform NetworkAdam Urbanski, President


66 7 4

National Commission on TeacAmerica's Future

Box 117, Teachers College, Columbia University525 West 120th Street

New York, New York 10027

Fax: 212-678-4039

Web site: wvvw.tc.columbia.edu/-teachcomm

ling

ERIC FACILITY ID:301-953-0263-co JO ilvIUD) 13 AA1 UUM1 UN 'ft,AUUiNt

CA f to.

JAN 26'98 15:18 No .00.5TEL:212 678 4039 P.002

U.S, Department of EdItOotionOffice of Educational Rusuandi and Improvement (OERI)

National Ubraty Of Education (NLE)Educational Resources information CfShbr (ERIC)

REPRODUCTION RELEASE(Specific Document)

I. DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION:

sk.).31I.Q%c(tf)

ERIC

Doing What Matters WIsti TrvAAriTle in gitAlity Teachirit

Author(o): Linda narling-Hamizong

Corporn to Source: Notionta Commie cion on Teaching andAmerica's Futu &t

.6111611=10V

Publication Date:

November, 1997

U. REPRODUCTION RELEASE:

In order to dissenanate as widely at possible timely and significant material; of interest to the educational community, documents announced In themonthly Mow journal of the ERIC system, Room= In E wetter (RI!), an usually made available to wens In rraurtifiotia. reprocipcso papercopy,arllt oloctrusdo media, and gold through they !RIC Document Itepraductlen 5ervtue (wee). Greta i3 whorl to the source of e&t document, and, 11raproduadon mines ia granted, erg of the following nodose le affixed to the *aliment_

If prayebution la grantort re roprindlIColl end desamblabe the Identified document. OsseoCHM< ONF of Doe farming three Optima and elan at the bottomOf the page.

The eerrato older sham balm me bemewl lo al Level 1 tioemeou

INERMICSION TO rtaftft0DuCt ANDDISSININATITHIll MATERIAL HAS

BEEN GRANTED BY

TO TH1 IDUCAnoNAL REbOURCE8INI-UNMA I ION otti I Le (MC)

Level I

1

Oltnikha m Last* I Musk penile/As raprodeamethe Moomilneeon M etwelldte w Ova ERIC wahlva

reale pi- Meade lc) Weipm! tem

Signhervirplease

The was Wake sham below wlI I beUMW le II LAVOI M examine

t't 016604 10 MEloN0uuCE ARODISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL IN

MI ciiCIRCHE, AND IN ELECTRONIC MEDIAFOR ERIC COLLECTION SUBSCRIBERS ONLY,

HAS a UN GRANTED IV

TO THE EnuCATIonsti. RESOURCESlitiftiivaivrtos CENTER (MC)

2ALevel AA

1

imam meat lave kik !masa pernviOnp rionalicionend alasninekoe M adcsalt&eand In ElscnanIc own

for ERIC aslant code:low eubsilaeo any

The woos molarawait mew 1411 oseltage4 .140 ipthetilltulta

la6RmISSION To REpRODUCK ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL IN

MICROFICHE ONLY HAS BEEN ORA1fIE0 8Y

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESirinOnmATiON MITER 'SRN)

Level al)

(MCP him for moil ni MON* ommilerterewermetaw, ens /111aNnOMILIII u inggedirAn may

'unmask& MI be pfbeebeed se !maculae omitted rseroduckm ewiey permits.If paeNhtion to roarothoo toowed, bul no boa b cheated, datums/ea we be proaessed el Lew 1.

I hatobIe grant 10 tha Gchirmilional Resevived Wormed= Center(citico riontworwan, pemdasfon to reps 'dual and dlesomirtato thin &raimentes Indicated fiheve. kapnwiuntern *non tha ono mIcoollehe Or elechvolc roadie by persons other than SIC a:Rbeson and its systemconfftlekes too porthISSIOn Dom the oopyttght Mat lbccoption Is nude AY AOR-Dirdit maroduation by Mirada! and (Aar service ouonclosto se* In 1 needs 01 educable In !Expanse to tfleontfo

Or 11114 ; 1'.74

01.it% ireeskicil'ethPiti-tu.A.g

Leo Nostresueiviluerrn

xecutive Director

%in? if? Wtillit 611 31nolumbia . oda

75p.document resume. ed 415 183 sp 037 689. author darling-hammond, linda title doing what matters...

Documents