This report was produced by Westat under U.S. Department of Education Contract No. ED-00-CO-0116. David Chin served as the contracting officer's technical representative.

U.S. Department of Education
Rod Paige
Secretary

Office of Postsecondary Education
Sally L. Stroup
Assistant Secretary

July 2004

This report is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or in part is granted. While permission to reprint this publication is not necessary, the citation should be: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, Meeting the Highly Qualified Teachers Challenge: The Secretary's Third Annual Report on Teacher Quality, Washington, D.C., 2004.

To order copies of this report, write:
ED Pubs
Editorial Publications Center
U.S. Department of Education
P.O. Box 1398
Jessup, MD 20794-1398;

Or via electronic mail, send your request to: edpubs@inet.ed.gov.

You may also call toll-free: 1-877-433-7827 (1-877-4-ED-PUBS). If 877 service is not yet available in your area, call 1-800-872-5327 (1-800-USA-LEARN). Those who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a teletypewriter (TTY) should call 1-800-437-0833.

To order online, point your Internet browser to: www.edpubs.org.

This report is also available on the Department's Web site at:
http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/teachprep/2004Title2-Report.pdf.

This report is also available at: http://www.title2.org.

On request, this publication is available in alternative formats, such as Braille, large print, audiotape or computer diskette. For more information, please contact the Department's Alternate Format Center 202-205-8113.

Dear Colleague,

In passing the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Congress made a commitment to ensuring that every student has a great teacher. States are now preparing to meet the 2005-2006 school year deadline for ensuring that all teachers are highly qualified. I am pleased to report that we are making progress in addressing challenges teachers face in high-need areas.

Over the last year, teacher quality-related activities have been among the most important work that we at the Department of Education have undertaken—from issuing common-sense guidance, to providing technical assistance through the Teacher Assistance Corps, to preparing No Child Left Behind: A Toolkit for Teachers, and the many other activities detailed in this report. In addition, recently announced flexibility policies offer new opportunities for state policymakers and administrators to provide leadership and support teachers. These provisions will help address the unique challenges faced by teachers in rural schools, by science teachers and by experienced teachers who teach more than one subject.

We look forward to continuing our unprecedented partnership with states and institutions of higher education to raise academic standards for teachers, while at the same time working to lower barriers that are keeping many talented people out of the teaching profession. Such a collective effort will help us to continue to support and reward the best and brightest of the nation’s teachers as well as build national momentum toward providing all of our students with the highly qualified teachers they deserve.

This report and the information provided on the accompanying Web site (www.title2.org) meet the requirements of Title II of the Higher Education Act, which created a national reporting system on the quality of teacher preparation. This material provides a wealth of new information about teacher quality in the United States. I hope it also serves as a helpful guide as states, school districts, institutions of higher education and others continue their work to reach our common goal: a highly qualified teacher in every classroom, leaving no child behind.

Rod Paige
Secretary
U.S. Department of Education

The Secretary's Third Annual Report on Teacher Quality is the result of the efforts of many dedicated individuals and organizations. First and foremost, it is important to recognize all those individuals in institutions of higher education, school districts and state departments of education and other state agencies who are primarily responsible for collecting the data mandated by the Higher Education Act (HEA) Title II. It is only through their contributions and ongoing support that information about the status of teacher quality in the United States could be assembled.

Within the Department of Education, Helen Soulé and Dottie Kingsley in the Office of Postsecondary Education directed the development of the report, in coordination with the Office of the Secretary, the Office of the Deputy Secretary, the Office of the Under Secretary, the Office of Innovation and Improvement, the Institute of Education Sciences and the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education. While many Department staff contributed to this report, special thanks go to Joseph Conaty, René Islas, Lynn Mahaffie, Michael Petrilli, Gretchen Slease, Robert Stonehill and Elizabeth Warner for their valuable insights and information.

On behalf of the Department of Education, Westat, under the leadership of Allison Henderson, manages the HEA Title II data collection and reporting system and the production of the report. Other Westat staff who provide valuable services include Tamara Morse Azar, Darcy Pietryka and Elizabeth Buckland. In close collaboration with the Department and Westat, Douglas Levin of the American Institutes for Research and his colleagues, Steven Honegger and Teresa Garcia Duncan, drafted the report.

"Our nation is greatly indebted to our teachers. I firmly believe that we wouldn't be a free people without our teaching profession."
- Secretary of Education Rod Paige

Under the 1998 reauthorization of Title II of the Higher Education Act (HEA), the U.S. secretary of education is required to issue annual reports to Congress on the state of teacher quality and teacher preparation nationwide. This report is the third annual report on teacher quality and outlines the progress that occurred in the past year and the challenges that lie ahead.

Chapter 1, "The Highly Qualified Teachers Challenge Revisited," provides an overview of the highly qualified teachers challenge, placing the findings of this report within the context of research and policy. It provides an overview of the highly qualified teacher requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) and highlights new opportunities for states to demonstrate leadership through recently enacted flexibility provisions.

Chapter 2, "Toward a Highly Qualified Teacher in Every Classroom: Partnership in Action," details the significant activities the Department of Education and other organizations have undertaken over the last year to support the raising of academic standards for teachers, while at the same time reducing unnecessary barriers to teaching.

Chapter 3, "Update on State Teacher Quality Improvement Activities," provides a snapshot of state progress along a number of dimensions of the teacher quality challenge, as revealed by the HEA Title II data collection and reporting system for states and institutions of higher education.

Chapter 4, "Building Momentum" concludes the report with a description of forthcoming teacher quality-related initiatives at the Department designed to assist states in meeting the NCLB requirement that all teachers of core academic subjects are highly qualified.

The passage of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 marked a growing bipartisan will to address the teacher quality challenge. Indeed, forces are converging to highlight the urgency of making improvements in teaching and learning for all students. Our world today--shaped by increasingly global markets and rapid technological advances--operates by different rules. We are learning fast that what was good enough for previous generations is not sufficient today and woefully inadequate for the future.

In fact, what we are learning is that the urgency to recruit and retain highly qualified teachers to prepare today's students--all students--for the future is fundamentally intertwined with the competitiveness and security of the nation. Consider, for example, that a coalition of CEOs of the nation's leading information technology firms has recently concluded that any strategy to accelerate U.S. economic growth and increase the availability of good jobs must include demonstrable improvements in teacher preparation and performance (Computer Systems Policy Project, 2004). Only through a national commitment to build and sustain a highly qualified teaching force will we be able to provide all students with a world-class education. As the landmark initial report of The Teaching Commission (2004) notes: "Clearly, what we are doing today is not working. It is time for revolutionary--not evolutionary--change." We know we can and must do better.

Highly Qualified Teachers Matter

Highly qualified teachers matter. While on the face of it this simple declaration seems obvious, it is only in recent years that rigorous research evidence has begun to emerge to support what educators, parents and students have long viewed as plain truth: Teachers are an important determinant of a child's education, of a good school and ultimately--of the future economic health of this great nation (McCaffrey, Lockwood, Koretz and Hamilton, 2003).

We know that being a highly qualified teacher matters because the academic achievement levels of students who are taught by good teachers increase at greater rates than the levels of those who are taught by other teachers. In fact, highly qualified teachers are able to raise the academic achievement levels of all students to high levels--not just the students who are already performing well (due to the diligent work of prior teachers, strong parental involvement or innate aptitude). Consider that the difference between having a good teacher for three years in a row versus another teacher can represent as much as 50 percentile points in student achievement on a 100-point scale (Babu and Mendro, 2003; Mendro, Jordan, Gomez, Anderson and Bembry, 1998; Rivers, 1999; Sanders and Rivers, 1996). This is an influence greater than race, poverty level or parent's education (Carey, 2004).

As a nation, we spend billions of dollars on public elementary and secondary schools and then billions more addressing the lack of basic skills among students and employees. While recent reforms have seen a welcome rise in national math scores, overall test scores have remained flat for the last 30 years (Peterson, 2003). Moreover, international comparisons show that our high school students continue to lag behind high school students in many other industrialized countries in measures of math and science achievement (The Teaching Commission, 2004). Perhaps even more disturbing are the educational achievement gaps between students of different races and means within many of our nation's school systems. In economic terms, our nation simply cannot afford a poorly educated workforce, ill equipped to compete in an increasingly global market.

The Highly Qualified Teachers Challenge

The nation needs highly qualified teachers to reduce achievement gaps between students of different races and means and to raise overall student achievement. Moreover, the realities of an aging teaching force suggest that identifying and addressing the key policy, regulatory and practical barriers to recruiting and retaining highly qualified teachers is even more urgent for the nation if we hope not to lag behind other high-performing nations. Indeed, investments in improving the preparation, support and retention of good teachers are among the most important that we can make for the future of the nation. Such investments include:

• Improving the preparation of new teachers through the establishment of high state standards and accountability for initial teacher preparation and licensure.

• Reducing barriers to becoming a teacher among otherwise highly qualified individuals by retooling traditional teacher preparation programs and opening up alternative routes to teaching.

• Reforming state and local policies to ensure that qualified and effective teachers serve the neediest students.

• Improving the content knowledge of experienced¹ teachers as well as providing them with supports and incentives aligned to what matters most (including providing incentives to teach in hard-to-staff schools and high-demand subjects and for improvements in student performance).

Importantly, in so doing, as a nation we must hold true to two key principles: the need to continue to raise academic standards for teachers, while at the same time working to lower barriers that are keeping many talented people out of the teaching profession.

What Is a "Highly Qualified Teacher?"

The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) requires that all public school teachers of core academic subjects² meet the highly qualified requirements of their state by the end of the 2005-2006 school year, and that new teachers in school programs serving high-need student populations (i.e., Title I-targeted assistance programs or schoolwide program schools) meet the highly qualified requirements immediately. To be highly qualified, a teacher must possess at minimum a bachelor's degree, have full state certification and demonstrate subject matter mastery in each subject taught.

For elementary school teachers new to the profession, teachers must demonstrate subject matter mastery by passing a rigorous state test of subject knowledge and teaching skills in reading and language arts, writing, mathematics and other areas of the basic elementary school curriculum. New middle and high school teachers may demonstrate competency by passing a rigorous state test in each subject taught or by holding an academic major or course work equivalent to an academic major (or an advanced degree, advanced certification or credentials).

Experienced teachers (those hired before the start of the 2002-2003 school year) may demonstrate competency by either meeting the requirements for new teachers or by meeting criteria set by the state. NCLB allows each state to create a high, objective, uniform state standard of evaluation (HOUSSE) by setting criteria that:

1. Are established by the state for grade-appropriate academic subject matter knowledge and teaching skills.
2. Are aligned with challenging state academic content and student achievement standards and developed in consultation with core content specialists, teachers, principals and school administrators.
3. Provide objective, coherent information about the teacher's attainment of core content knowledge in the academic subjects in which a teacher teaches.
4. Are applied uniformly to all teachers in the same academic subject and the same grade level throughout the state.
5. Take into consideration, but are not based primarily on, the time a teacher has been teaching the academic subject.
6. Are made available to the public upon request.

The HOUSSE system of evaluation may involve multiple, objective measures of subject matter competency.

Flexibility and New Opportunities for State Leadership

While NCLB outlines a minimum set of requirements related to content knowledge and teaching skills that a highly qualified teacher must meet, it provides the flexibility for each state to develop a definition of highly qualified that is consistent with NCLB as well as with the unique needs of each state. Moreover, the U.S. Department of Education recently announced greater flexibility in three areas, offering new opportunities for state policymakers and administrators to provide leadership in meeting the highly qualified teachers challenge.

The first new area of flexibility recognizes that teachers in small, rural and isolated areas--areas that represent about one-third of the nation's school districts--are often assigned to teach multiple subjects. As such, these teachers face unique challenges in meeting the highly qualified provisions and may need additional time to meet the requirements in all subjects they teach. As long as experienced teachers in eligible districts are highly qualified in at least one subject, they will now have until the end of 2006-2007 to become highly qualified in the additional subjects they teach; newly hired teachers must also meet the highly qualified requirements in one subject, but would have three years after their date of hire to meet the requirements in the other subjects they teach. Furthermore, districts must provide these teachers with the training and support they need to meet the requirements in the extended time.

For science teachers, the Department will allow states the flexibility to use their own certification standards to determine subject-matter competency, rather than requiring it for each science subject. For example, if a state certifies teachers in the general field of science, a science teacher may demonstrate subject-matter competency through a "broad field" test or major. If a state requires certification or licensure in specific science subjects, such as chemistry, biology or physics, the teacher would be required to demonstrate competency in each of the subjects.

The third area of flexibility recently announced assists experienced teachers who teach multiple subjects, particularly teachers in middle schools and those teaching students with special needs. Under the new guidelines, states may streamline their highly qualified teacher evaluation process so that experienced multi-subject teachers can demonstrate that they are highly qualified in each of their subjects through only one process.

Conclusion: An Overview of National Progress

In partnering with states, institutions of higher education, schools and teachers to bring a highly qualified teacher to every class-room, the Department is serious about addressing the teacher quality challenge. As a nation, what progress are we making?

According to HEA Title II data (and detailed in succeeding chapters), over the last three years many states and territories have made progress on a number of fronts. Between 2001 and 2003:

• In recognition of the importance of ensuring significant content knowledge among prospective teachers, states report raising academic standards in certification requirements, including ending emergency certification, as required by law.
• States report having made progress in implementing criteria for assessing teacher preparation program performance.
• States report opening up alternative routes to the classroom for prospective teachers. Many states have approved one or more alternative routes, and several are currently considering, or have proposed, new or additional alternative routes to certification.

Of course, other indicators demand further consideration, investigation and action. For instance:

• Because minimum passing scores for most state academic content assessments for prospective teachers are set below the national averages on these exams, such assessments tend to screen out only the very lowest performing teacher candidates.
• Barriers for teachers pursuing traditional routes to certification and licensure generally have not been lessened.
• The numbers and distribution of teachers on waivers remain problematic. In fact, states report that the problem of underprepared teachers is worse on average in districts that serve large proportions of high-poverty children.

In addressing the remaining challenges, the U.S. Department of Education is committed to doing its part. Chapter 2 highlights the numerous efforts undertaken by the Department during the last year alone to improve the quality of teacher preparation nationwide, while Chapter 3 provides an in-depth look at state progress, including extensive analyses of state activities and examples of promising projects. Chapter 4 concludes this report with a discussion of future opportunities for teacher quality improvement.

During the past year, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) has continued its partnership with states, institutions, schools and teachers to improve teacher preparation, raise standards for teachers and students and improve teaching and learning. It is one of the highest priorities at the Department. In addition, ED continues to support national teacher quality initiatives that are designed to bring together and mobilize stakeholder groups across the country in innovative ways.

Federal Activities in Support of Increased Teacher Quality

During the past year, the Department has:

• Issued guidance to states to offer common-sense flexibility to implement the teacher quality provisions of NCLB and clarify federal requirements.
• Launched the Teacher Assistance Corps, which completed visits to all 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, to provide support to state agencies as they carry out the highly qualified teacher provisions of NCLB.
• Initiated several events and vehicles to communicate directly with teachers, including updating and publishing No Child Left Behind: A Toolkit for Teachers.
• Provided substantial and flexible funding to meet the teacher quality challenge as it manifests itself in states, local communities and schools.
• Continued to refine and improve the accuracy and usefulness of the Title II data collection and reporting system.
• Launched new rigorous research studies that will help establish what works in teacher preparation and professional development.
• Funded several innovative initiatives in the areas of alternative certification, teacher advancement and closing the teacher quality gap.

Issuing Guidance

The concepts that every child deserves to be taught by a highly qualified teacher and that teachers should not have to teach courses outside their areas of expertise are simple. However, what states, institutions and school systems need to do to achieve these goals can seem complex and challenging. To help, the Department has provided direct technical assistance and guidance to those charged with implementing teacher quality provisions at the state and local levels as well as given clear and concise information to teachers themselves.

In September 2003 and January 2004, ED issued successive editions of nonregulatory guidance concerning the administration of the Title II, Part A, program under NCLB. This guidance provides answers to many of the questions raised by those in the field about teacher quality and the administration of the Improving Teacher Quality State Grants program. In particular, the guidance encourages state departments of education and local school districts to take advantage of the flexibility provided within the law to set certification standards that allow qualified individuals to enter teaching, to target funds to improve teaching and learning for programs that work and to tailor this national initiative for excellence to their unique needs.

A March 2004 update, resulting directly from issues raised during Teacher Assistance Corps visits, describes the new areas of flexibility for teachers to demonstrate that they are highly qualified. The new flexibility, as discussed in Chapter 1, addresses rural, science and multi-subject teachers. This flexibility will benefit teachers, local and state administrators and--most importantly--students.

Establishing the Teacher Assistance Corps

In the past year, ED launched the Teacher Assistance Corps (TAC)--a team of 45 education experts, researchers and practitioners who, along with senior Department program staff, provided support to states as they carry out the highly qualified teacher provisions of the law. TAC members traveled to states and performed on-site reviews tailored to the explicit needs and concerns of state officials. The teams offered guidance and feedback on state efforts, addressed specific state challenges and provided useful information from other states about promising practices in the field. TAC completed visits to all 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. The Teacher Assistance Corps will continue to provide support and guidance for states as they implement the highly qualified teacher requirements of NCLB.

Disseminating a Toolkit for Teachers on NCLB

To better answer the many questions ED receives from teachers about the highly qualified teacher provisions and other aspects of NCLB, this past year the Department prepared and widely disseminated the publication, No Child Left Behind: A Toolkit for Teachers (available online at http://www.ed.gov/teachers/ nclbguide/nclb-teachers-toolkit.pdf). The toolkit is designed specifically to provide teachers with valuable information about NCLB and how it supports teachers. It includes a general overview of the law; details about the highly qualified teacher provisions; guidance on understanding the federal, state and local roles in NCLB; valuable information about loan forgiveness, tax credits and liability protection for teachers; useful Web resources, including resources for teaching students with disabilities and English language learners; and information about using data to influence classroom decisions. More than 100,000 booklets and interactive compact discs were distributed in 2003. This year, the Department has updated the Toolkit for Teachers, and will increase efforts to distribute it to teachers around the nation.

Providing Substantial and Flexible Funding

The federal government supports states, institutions and districts in conducting a wide variety of activities aimed at improving teacher quality through formula and discretionary grant programs. President George W. Bush's proposed budget for FY 2005 includes more than $5.1 billion--an increase of more than half a billion dollars over the previous year--to support teachers through training, recruitment, incentives, loan forgiveness and tax relief. Highlights include:

• $2.9 billion for Improving Teacher Quality State Grants to give states and school districts the flexibility to select the research-based strategies that best meet their needs for teaching improvements that will raise student achievement in core academic subjects.
• $269.1 million for Mathematics and Science Partnerships to improve academic achievement in mathematics and science by promoting strong teaching skills for elementary and secondary teachers. Grants support activities to develop rigorous mathematics and science curricula, distance learning programs and incentives to recruit college graduates with degrees in math and science into the teaching profession.
• $91.4 million for Special Education Personnel Preparation to ensure that there are adequate numbers of personnel with the skills and knowledge necessary to help children with disabilities succeed educationally. Program activities focus on both meeting the demand for personnel to serve children with disabilities and improving the qualifications of these personnel, with particular emphasis on incorporating knowledge gained from research and practice into training programs.
• $88.9 million for Teacher Quality Enhancement Grants to improve the recruitment, preparation, licensing and support of new teachers. Partnership grants support a wide range of reforms and improvements in teacher preparation programs. Recruitment grants help reduce shortages of qualified teachers in high-need school districts through scholarships, support services and recruitment efforts.
• $45.3 million for Transition to Teaching Grants to recruit and retain highly qualified mid-career professionals (including highly qualified paraprofessionals) and recent college graduates as teachers in high-need schools in high-need districts and enable these individuals to receive full teacher certification through alternate routes.
• $14.8 million for Early Childhood Educator Professional Development focusing on professional development (especially in teaching prereading skills to young children) for early childhood educators and caregivers working in high-poverty communities.
• Increasing loan forgiveness for highly qualified math, science and special education teachers serving low-income communities from $5,000 to a maximum of $17,500. Schools in these communities often are forced to hire uncertified teachers or assign teachers who are teaching out-of-field.
• Expanding the above-the-line tax deduction for qualified out-of-pocket classroom expenses incurred by teachers from $250 to $400.

Other federal education programs also target improvements in teacher professionalism and improved teaching and learning. For instance, the Teaching American History grant program supports projects to raise student achievement by improving teachers' knowledge, understanding and appreciation for American history through intensive, ongoing professional development. Troops-to-Teachers helps improve public school education by providing funds to recruit, prepare and support former members of the military services as teachers in high-poverty schools. In addition, pro-grams such as Title I, Reading First and Enhancing Education Through Technology incorporate substantial professional development components targeted to improving student achievement.
Even more significantly, NCLB provides flexibility for states and districts to provide leadership by taking advantage of transfer-ability provisions to target federal resources as they see fit, without separate requests and approval. For example, under Title I, states and districts have the flexibility to leverage other federal program resources to under-take a wide variety of activities to build the capacity of teachers to raise student achievement.

Refining the Title II Data System

Two necessary steps toward greater account-ability for the quality of teachers are reliable and valid data collection and clear reporting to students, parents, the public and policy-makers. In recognition of this fact, both HEA and NCLB require annual reporting of data to the Department on the quality of teacher preparation. Because teacher quality accountability mechanisms--in many cases--simply did not exist prior to the passage of these laws or were technically incompatible, it has taken time to implement and standardize them. Indeed, data collection and reporting mechanisms at the institutional, state and federal levels have all come under scrutiny during implementation for their accuracy and validity by a variety of organizations, including the General Accounting Office, the Education Trust, and the Center for Education Policy--and rightly so. Inaccurate, invalid or unreliable data about the quality of teachers serves to obscure the real extent of the teacher quality challenge, especially as it contributes to the working conditions of teachers and educational achievement gaps between students of different races and means. ED fully recognizes the importance of these data collections and continues to work diligently with the states on an ongoing basis to improve data collection.

Data presented in this report draw most heavily on those required to be collected by Title II of the HEA. That law requires three annual reports on teacher preparation. First, institutions of higher education are to report various data to states. These data include the pass rates on state certification and licensure examinations of students completing their teacher-training programs. Second, using reports from institutions of higher education, as well as other sources, states are to report the following information to the Department:

• State certification and licensure requirements for completers of traditional and alternate teacher preparation programs.
• Statewide pass rates on the most recent state assessments of graduates of teacher preparation programs as well as pass rates disaggregated by institution and quartile rankings of their institutions based on their pass rates.
• The number of teachers on waivers or emergency and temporary permits.
• Information on teacher standards and their alignment with student standards.
• Criteria for identifying low-performing schools of education.

Finally, through the present document, the secretary of education reports to Congress on national patterns in these data and their implications. (See http://www.title2.org for additional information about this data collection, including online access to state data.)

The HEA Title II data collection and reporting system is now entering its fourth year of operation. During that time, ED has worked with states to improve the accuracy and usefulness of these data by refining the online data collection system. States have worked to eliminate inconsistent responses and reduce incomplete responses. In addition, the Department has provided extensive technical assistance and support via telephone and e-mail--including at least monthly conference calls--to assist state Title II coordinators in resolving data and reporting issues.

Nonetheless, challenges remain. For instance, reporting data regarding the numbers and characteristics of teachers on waivers is difficult for many state data collection and reporting systems. Reasons for this difficulty vary from state to state but include issues such as the timing of data collections, the level of data collection (district vs. state) and definitional issues within and across states. To address these and related issues, during the coming year further enhancements to the HEA Title II data collection and reporting system are planned, primarily focusing on improving the alignment of HEA Title II reporting requirements with NCLB. Some of these improvements will need to be made through statutory changes in HEA.

Evaluating What Works in Improving Teacher Quality

The current nationwide emphasis on ensuring that all students and schools achieve at high levels has increased the demand for sound evidence regarding "what works" in education. In fact, a recent study by the Institute of Education Sciences found that policymakers at all levels believe that teacher quality-related issues, including teacher preparation, recruitment and professional development, should be a high priority for further rigorous research (Huang, Reiser, Parker, Muniec and Salvucci, 2003).

To that end, ED has recently funded, or will soon be launching, a number of rigorous studies that will shed light on the relationship of teacher quality to student achievement or teacher retention. These studies include:

• Impact of Professional Development Models and Strategies on Teacher Practice and Student Achievement. This random assignment study is designed to evaluate the impact of professional development on changes in teacher practice and student achievement in early reading.
• Impact Evaluation of Teacher Preparation Models. This random assignment study will evaluate the effects of different amounts of teacher preparation on student achievement, taking advantage of the existing variation in teacher training across different routes to certification--both alternative and traditional.
• An Evaluation of the Impact of Teacher Induction Programs. This evaluation, to be awarded by September 2004, will examine the effectiveness of different strategies of teacher induction in increasing teacher retention rates among novice teachers.

In addition, forthcoming findings from a descriptive study of the Transition to Teaching Program, which is designed to bring highly qualified individuals into the teaching work-force through the creation and expansion of alternative approaches to certification, will help policymakers develop effective approaches in the areas of teacher preparation, teacher certification and teacher retention.

As a complement to supporting rigorous research studies, ED created the "What Works Clearinghouse" (http://www.w-w-c.org). The clearinghouse provides educators and policy-makers with an easily accessible Web-based database of high-quality scientific reviews on what works in educating students. These reviews on various interventions and programs will support informed local decision-making and the effective implementation of NCLB. In addition, the reviews will help inform teachers and administrators as they seek to improve student achievement for all students.

Other Promising Initiatives for Addressing the Teacher Quality Challenge

Improving the quality of teacher preparation is as important as any education challenge that has faced the nation. To this end, the Department is committed to continuing to forge strong partnerships with states, institutions and national organizations, such as the American Board for the Certification of Teacher Excellence, the National Center for Alternative Certification, Teach for America and the New Teacher Project, to help to continue building momentum for change. Yet, all will need to fully embrace and rally around this critically important goal if we are to succeed. The opportunity to make real and lasting improvements in the recruitment, preparation, assignment and support of teachers will require nothing less than a national commitment.

Across the nation, states and institutions have launched a wide variety of innovative programs to meet the teacher quality challenge. Take, for instance, the case of The Texas A&M University System, whose Board of Regents unanimously passed a resolution in March 1999 establishing the Regents' Initiative for Excellence in Education (see http://partnerships.tamu.edu for more information). At the time of its passage, A&M System universities were experiencing declines in teacher production, especially in high- need areas. Yet, during this same time period, Texas public schools grew by more than 400,000 students. Faced with such explosive growth and declining supply, Texas schools were experiencing significant shortages of certified teachers. Thus, the initiative was undertaken, in part, to counter the declining pool of quality teachers and to improve A&M System productivity to better meet the needs of its public school constituents. With the passage of this resolution, the board authorized the development of a comprehensive, systematic framework for the continuous improvement of educational partnerships, educational research and educator preparation programs.

Today, with support from a Department of Education Teacher Quality Enhancement Partnership Grant (FY 1999), the A&M System is on its way to meeting its ambitious goals. The system has increased the production of teachers by 41 percent, increased its minority teacher production and increased teacher production in high-need fields, such as bilingual education or English as a second language, special education, foreign language, secondary math and secondary science (Texas A&M University System, 2003). While challenges remain, the Regent's Initiative demonstrates that the teacher quality challenge can be addressed with leadership and sustained partnerships among universities, community colleges, school districts and schools.

Importantly, the A&M System's example also demonstrates the importance of holding prospective teachers to high standards, while at the same time reducing bureaucratic impediments to teaching. In fact, research suggests that requirements for prospective teacher candidates need not be burdensome, especially if they are rigorous. Findings from a recent international comparative analysis of teacher education and development policies reveal that countries whose students perform better academically than students in the United States had fewer, albeit higher stakes, requirements for prospective teacher candidates (Wang, Coleman, Coley and Phelps, 2003).

State Status and Progress in Addressing the Challenge

As has been previously noted in Chapter 2, information in this report has been compiled from analyses of data collected through the HEA Title II system. As data systems, both at the state level and within institutions of higher education, are enhanced to better accommodate the provisions of NCLB and the HEA, the Department expects to be able to further refine indicators of state teacher quality status and progress as well as to allow states to more accurately report their positive efforts in improving teacher preparation.
Between 2001 and 2003, the HEA Title II system has tracked changes in six key areas affecting the supply and demand of highly qualified teachers, including:

• Alignment of teacher and student standards.
• State certification requirements for new teachers.
• Numbers of teachers receiving initial state certification.
• State identification of low-performing teacher preparation programs.
• Alternative routes to teaching.
• Numbers of teachers on waivers.

Understandably, the process of instituting data collection, developing analytic capacity, as well as instituting fundamental reforms of teacher recruitment, preparation and support mechanisms takes time. Even when well implemented, the positive effects of these changes may not become fully realized and observable for several years. In many of these areas, though, states and territories have made progress. However, there are areas where progress is less consistent on a state-by-state basis, and there are areas that show few indicators of improvement. An update on state status and teacher quality improvement activities for each of the six key areas tracked by the HEA Title II data collection and reporting system follows.

Alignment of Teacher and Student Standards

States report having made progress in linking, aligning and coordinating teacher certification or licensure requirements with state content standards for students.

In the early 1980s, as the nation turned to standards-based reform for schools, the teaching profession became engaged in conversations about the alignment of professional standards with student content and performance standards. Today, NCLB calls for the improvement and monitoring of student academic achievement. One key to student success lies in linking the standards required of teachers to those required of students and, most importantly, to students' achievement.

The first component of this link is the establishment of student content standards, which are necessary not only for consistency of student curriculum but also for establishing teaching content standards. By 2003, 53 states and territories reported having established those standards for all K-12 students.

The second component necessary for the alignment of teacher and student content standards is the establishment of standards related to teachers. To be effective, these teacher standards should apply to certification and licensure and include content standards for each teaching field within a specified span of student grade levels. By 2001, most states had already made considerable progress in implementing standards necessary to obtain teacher certification or licensure. Between 2001 and 2003, three additional states--Mississippi, Montana and New Jersey--developed certification and licensure standards for the first time. By 2003, 49 of 54 states and territories had developed standards in these areas.

Similarly, by 2003, the vast majority of states and territories (52) had instituted an overarching set of teacher standards that currently apply to all teaching fields and grade levels (see Figure 1). This represents an increase in the number of states and territories with such standards since 2001.

Figure 1: Number of states that have set teacher standards in specific fields: 2001 and 2003

Notes: Figure 1 presents teacher standards for "all grade levels" in each field. Information on teacher standards in specific grade levels can be found at www.title2.org. For purposes of this figure, the term "state" refers to the 50 states, the District of Columbia and U.S. territories.
Source: Title II State Reporting System, 2001 and 20

While impressive in total, not all fields have the same level of standard setting across grade levels and across states. By 2003, more than 40 states had set teacher standards in arts and special education; however, only 25 states had set English language standards, and fewer than 25 states had set standards in math and science.

Between 2001 and 2003, progress has been made in some states in implementing teacher standards in specific program areas. Program areas that have seen the greatest increase in the number of states setting standards during this period include early childhood education for grades K-3; mathematics, science and social studies in the middle grades; and vocational and technical education in secondary grades.

As more states develop standards for student content and teacher certification, the linkages between these two sets of standards can be established. The number of states and territories that have established a policy that links, aligns or coordinates teacher certification or licensure requirements with state content standards for students has grown to 41 in 2003, from 35 in 2001. Of the 41 states that have established linked standards, all but Utah and Wyoming have implemented their various alignment policies.

While it is critical that state student and teacher standards be rigorous and comprehensive, the body of research on the quality of such standards--and their alignment--is still emerging. However, serious questions have been raised about the quality of student content standards, as well as the corresponding teacher standards. For instance, one recent review of 30 states' student content standards concluded that the average quality of such standards was only fair and that significant variations exist across states (Cross, Rebarber, Torres and Finn, 2004). Similarly, a recent review of 20 states' teacher content standards revealed a decidedly mixed picture of quality (Tracy and Walsh, 2004). The HEA Title II Web site (http://www.title2.org) contains Internet links and other documents that describe state standards in more detail. These resources may be useful to researchers and policymakers interested in conducting additional research on standards and alignment policies.

In recognition of the importance of ensuring significant content knowledge among prospective teachers, states report making changes in certification requirements.

State Certification Requirements for New Teachers

Under NCLB, state certification or licensure is a critical measure of a teacher's preparation and training to enter the classroom. Previously, this meant completing a traditional teacher preparation program but in recent years has expanded to include those teachers entering the profession through a state or district-developed alternative route. Most teacher preparation programs prepare students using a combination of subject matter course work, instruction in pedagogy and student teaching experiences. Prospective teachers are evaluated with the use of assessments, grade point average minimums, structured course work and program recommendations. The HEA Title II data collection and reporting system sheds light on some of the key features of state certification requirements for new teachers, including:

• Requirements for a content-specific bachelor's degree.
• Various assessment requirements,including those measuring academic content knowledge.
• Pass rates for academic content assessments of prospective teachers.

Overall, state progress in raising standards for prospective teachers is mixed, and significant barriers still exist for teachers pursuing traditional routes to certification and licensure. Additional information about the requirements for initial teaching certification or licensure can be found in the appendix of this report.

By 2003, the majority of states and territories (39)--including the majority of the largest teacher-producing states--reported that a content-specific bachelor's degree is required for initial certification (see Figure 2). The number of states and territories implementing this requirement grew substantially from 2002, with eight additional states reporting a subject-area bachelor's degree requirement as part of their criteria for all initial certificates. Those states and territories not yet requiring a uniform content-specific bachelor's degree for all initial certificates they offered include Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, District of Columbia, Guam, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Nebraska, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Virgin Islands, Washington and Wisconsin.

The variety of assessments that states employ for initial certification include those measuring basic skills, professional know-ledge, academic content, other content and/or teaching special populations. Between 2002 and 2003, some progress had been made to include assessments across the nation, as evidenced by Nevada and the Virgin Islands adopting assessments as part of initial certification. However, Idaho, Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Washington and Wyoming did not employ teacher assessments for any initial certificates they offered in 2003.

Another requirement that many states employ involves giving assessments to individuals seeking initial teaching certification or licensure to ensure their qualifications, including basic skills assessments at the time of entry into a teacher preparation program. In 2003, the majority of states and territories (47) used this criterion for initial teaching or licensure qualifications.

Under NCLB, new elementary teachers are required to demonstrate subject area competency by taking a state content assessment. New secondary teachers also may use content assessments as a means of demonstrating subject matter knowledge. By the 2001-2002 academic year, 34 states and territories required teachers to take academic content assessments for initial teacher certification or licensure (see Figure 3). Between the 1999-2000 and 2001-2002 academic years, Arizona, New York,³ North Carolina, Puerto Rico and Vermont instituted content assessments for the first time.

As has been noted in previous HEA Title II reports, for those states and territories that employ academic content assessments for which data are available (see supplementary data tables in the appendix to this report and http://www.title2.org for more information), most have set the minimum passing score--or cut score--so low as to screen out only the very lowest performing individuals. For all practical purposes, this means that such assessments do not guarantee professional quality (Mitchell and Barth, 1999). It is, therefore, not surprising that pass rates reported by institutions of higher education are routinely reported as being 90 percent or higher, on average, for teacher candidates in most states. In fact, in the 2001-2002 academic year, Arkansas, Michigan, Oregon and West Virginia all reported that 100 percent of their teacher candidates passed state academic content assessments. These states all require passage of the assessments for program completion; West Virginia requires passage for certification.

Research suggests that licensure requirements are unnecessarily burdensome, costly and time-prohibitive, constituting significant barriers to entry into the field of teaching (Hess, 2001; Hess, 2004). Additionally, barriers beyond those related to certification and licensure continue to deter effective teachers from teaching in the nation's neediest schools. For instance, a recent study from the New Teacher Project identifies that local hiring processes and timelines may be significant barriers. This study found that in a group of large urban districts, complex rules regarding teacher transfers and job posting requirements became barriers for prospective qualified teachers. Due to the bureaucratic delays, these teachers took other positions in surrounding suburban districts, which could make hiring decisions significantly more quickly. Surveys of these prospective teachers indicated that they would have rather worked in the urban setting (Levin and Quinn, 2003).

Since minimum passing scores for most state academic content assessments are set low, states tend to screen out only the very lowest performing teacher candidates.

Barriers for teachers pursuing traditional routes to certification and licensure still exist.

Numbers of Teachers Receiving Initial State Certification

States continue to report significant variation in the number of teachers receiving initial state certification.

More than 310,000 teachers received initial certification in 2003, although only a
small number of states were responsible for producing most of these teachers. The 10 states responsible for producing more than half of all new teachers in the United States in 2003 include (in rank order): California, New York, Florida, Texas, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Alabama, Arizona, Virginia and Ohio. Because each of these states also imports a sizable proportion of prospective teachers trained by teacher preparation programs in other states, teacher preparation policies in these 10 states disproportionately influence national trends.

Between 2001 and 2003, states reported that there was a 4 percent increase in the number of teachers receiving initial certification across the nation. Although this increase seems modest collectively, individual state changes ranged from a decrease of more than 50 percent in Connecticut to an increase of more than 103 percent in North Carolina (see Figure 4). Twelve states indicated increases of greater than 30 percent, while seven states indicated decreases of more than 30 percent. Since the HEA Title II data collection and reporting system does not collect the information needed to explain the many factors contributing to state reporting of such large variations, further study is needed to shed light on its significance.

While there is wide variation in state practice, in 2003 almost 20 percent of teachers received their training in a state other than the one in which they were certified (see Figure 5). States that granted initial certification to a significant number (i.e., greater than 40 percent) of teachers who actually completed their teacher preparation program in another state include Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Minnesota, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Carolina, Washington and Wyoming. In contrast, Arkansas, Indiana and Puerto Rico granted initial certification to fewer than 10 percent of teachers prepared outside their own state or territory.

Teacher distribution and recruitment is a national issue of the first order. In 2003, states reported that almost 20 percent of teachers received their training in a state other than the one in which they were certified. Some states reported that they imported more than 40 percent of the teachers to whom they granted initial certification.

State Identification of Low-Performing Teacher Preparation Programs

States report having made progress in implementing criteria for assessing teacher preparation program performance.

Title II of HEA requires states to implement teacher preparation program accountability measures, including instituting a procedure to identify and assist low-performing programs of teacher preparation within institutions of higher education. Most states rely on some aspects of their program approval process to make an at-risk or low-performing determination. Because states are likely to use the program approval process, institutions tend to be reviewed cyclically, rather than annually. Program approval or review processes tend to occur in three- to five-year cycles, although exceptions exist.

States are solely responsible for establishing the procedure they use to identify low-performing institutions. In 2003, the majority of states and territories (48) reported implementing criteria for assessing teacher preparation program performance (see Figure 6). While states are generally using, or adapting, existing program accreditation and review processes to meet the Title II requirements, teacher preparation program performance should be evaluated on the success of newly produced teachers at raising student achievement. Initiatives, such as those being launched by the Carnegie Corporation of New York (Teachers for a New Era initiative), the Ohio Partner-ship for Accountability (which includes 51 schools of education in the state, the Ohio Department of Education and the Board of Regents) and the Renaissance Partnership for Improving Teacher Quality, all offer data-driven approaches to improving teacher preparation programs (Carey, 2004).

As indicated in Figure 6, between 2002 and 2003, five additional states and one territory (Colorado, Connecticut, Indiana, Kentucky, North Dakota and the Virgin Islands) included passing rates on certification assessments (of any type) as part of their criteria for assessing the performance of their teacher preparation programs. Further, two additional states and one territory (Indiana, New Jersey and Guam) included additional criteria related to teachers’ knowledge and skills.

Examples of how states have provided technical assistance to schools at risk of becoming low performing illustrate a variety of approaches. For example:

• In Kentucky, institutions identified as at risk or low performing are given intensive technical assistance over a two-year period from Education Professional Standards Board staff. Following two years of technical assistance, a low-performing institution is subject to a second full accreditation review. Kentucky begins the technical assistance process by requiring the institution to conduct a thorough assessment of its strengths and weaknesses. The program administrator completes a narrative on a variety of topics, including how the institution's curriculum is aligned with the state's core curriculum, with efforts to provide remediation to failing students and with program admissions requirements.
• Low-performing programs in Illinois are identified by the State Board of Education through the accreditation process, which requires a visit to the college or university every seven years by a team of higher education and public school personnel. Programs placed on probation by the board are classified as at risk. Failure to demonstrate appropriate remediation within three years results in a determination of low performing. Technical assistance includes assigning a state board staff member to the program; visiting the campus within 30 days of the probation decision to meet with program personnel; identifying available resources, including workshops; recommending expert consultants in content and program design; visiting the campus each year the program is under remediation; and monitoring progress through annual reports submitted to the state board. To date, three institutions have been identified as becoming at risk of being classified as low performing by Illinois.
• In Michigan, any institution identified as at risk will be assigned to work with one or more mentor or support institutions to address specific areas of need. This approach reflects the belief of the Michigan Department of Education that peer institutions are the best practical source for meaningful technical assistance.

For the current reporting cycle, nine states identified 25 institutions of higher education with teacher preparation programs (of approximately 1,200 institutions with teacher preparation programs nationwide) as either being at risk or low performing (see Table 1).

Alternative Routes to Teaching

States report opening up routes to the classroom for prospective teachers. More states have approved one or more alternative routes, and many are currently considering, or have proposed, new or additional alternative routes to certification.

Increasingly, states are creating multiple pathways into the classroom to reach individuals who have the desire to teach but who did not attend a traditional teacher preparation program (Feistritzer, 2004; Mayer, Decker, Glazerman and Silva, 2003). As in traditional teacher preparation programs, teacher candidates in alternative routes generally are required to pass a subject matter or basic skills test. They also tend to receive specific pedagogical training. The appendix of this report provides additional information about the characteristics of alternative routes implemented in states and territories.

In creating multiple pathways into teaching, the Florida Department of Education, with support from a FY 2000 Teacher Quality Enhancement State Grant, established the K-20 Partnership Committee to design and implement a competency-based alternative teacher certification program with a strong peer-mentoring component. Florida's K-20 Partnership Committee reviewed and compared three different pilot models of alter-native certification programs that had recently been implemented by five Florida school districts. Additionally, national experts shared information with the committee on historical trends and best practices in other states in the development and implementation of alternative certification programs.

The committee identified appropriate program components, collaborative delivery systems and essential training for peer mentors for the development of a statewide program of alternative professional preparation and certification. The program features on-the-job training via distance learning, experienced peer mentors and collaborative implementation partners. For more information about Florida's alternate certificate program, see http://www.altcertflorida.org/index.htm.

By 2003, the vast majority of states and territories (47) reported having approved one or more alternative routes to the classroom for prospective teachers (see Figure 7). This represents a net increase of three states since 2001. However, not all states with approved routes to certification report actually implementing these routes. Of the 47 states reporting approved alternative routes to certification, 45 states are actively implementing any alternative routes. Only Alaska, Arizona, District of Columbia, Guam, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virgin Islands and West Virginia reported not implementing any alternative routes to teaching.⁴

Of the states and territories with approved alternative routes to teaching, several states offer more than one route. In all, states reported a total of 89 alternative routes across the nation. While all states with alternative routes require a bachelor's degree (often in a field related to the subject the candidate will be teaching), 60 percent of such alternative routes require practice teaching of candidates (49 of 82 reporting) and 85 percent use the same assessments as are used for traditional route certification (74 of 87 reporting).

Between 2001 and 2003, many states changed their approach to alternative certification. Between two and five states each year have changed their alternative route policies either to include or exclude alternative routes or to change the implementation status of approved alternative routes. In 2003, a total of 21 states were considering or had proposed new or additional alternative routes to certification. Only Alaska and Pennsylvania reported not having approved alternative routes, nor are they considering any.

Teachers on Waivers

The numbers and distribution of teachers on waivers remains problematic. States report that the problem of underprepared teachers is worse on average in districts that serve large proportions of high-poverty children.

Criteria for states to grant waivers or emergency permits to teachers vary consider-ably across the country. One of the ways school districts address teacher shortages is to allow a teacher to teach a subject other than the one in which he or she is trained if it is in a high-need area. Many states grant waivers to teachers who have made progress toward fulfilling certification requirements but have not met one or two conditions, such as taking a required examination or completing course work. Additionally, some states issue waivers to teachers who were certified in another state but have not met all of the new state's requirements. As with certification, there is no uniform national waiver definition.

In an attempt to provide consistency in the number of teachers across the nation who lacked full state certification, ED established a uniform waiver definition as part of the HEA Title II data collection system. Under HEA Title II, a waiver is defined as any temporary or emergency permit, license, or other authorization that permits an individual to teach in a public school classroom without having received an initial certificate or license from that state or any other state.

Included in the HEA Title II number of teachers on waivers are individuals:

• Teaching on temporary or emergency licenses or permits.
• Pursuing an alternative route to certification.
• Teaching as long-term substitutes.

Excluded from the HEA Title II definition are those who:

• Are certified in another state.
• Hold Level I, II and III certificates as defined by National Association of State Directors of Teacher Education and Certification.
• Are teaching out-of-field.
• Are on provisional licenses that only require teaching before full certification or licensure.

Consequently, the number of teachers on waivers as reported by states through the HEA Title II data collection and reporting system should not be equated with those that states define as not being highly qualified under NCLB.5 Possession of a state teaching certificate or license does not necessarily mean that the content-related teacher quality requirements of NCLB are fulfilled. Conversely, some teachers who have participated in alternate route programs can be considered highly qualified but might have been included in this waiver count. In an effort to coordinate the definitions, ED will allow states to determine if their alternative route candidates are on waivers or are fully certified in the October 2004 state HEA Title II reports.

Moreover, because the HEA Title II waiver definition differs from what most states consider as a waiver from full state certification, data collection has posed a challenge for states. Reasons for this difficulty vary from state to state, but include issues such as the timing of data collections, the level of data collection (district vs. state) and definitional issues within and across states. Consequently, caution should be used in interpreting these data. Additional information about the numbers of teachers on waivers can be found in the appendix and online at http://www.title2.org.

According to the HEA Title II data collection and reporting system, in the 2002-2003 academic year approximately 6 percent of teachers nationwide (i.e., about 180,000 teachers) did not possess a state certification or license to teach. Such teachers are more likely to teach in districts that serve large proportions of high-poverty children than all other districts (8 percent vs. 5 percent). These aggregate figures, as reported by states, have remained essentially constant for the last three years.

In the 2002-2003 academic year, a total of seven states and territories reported having 10 percent or more of all public school teachers on waivers: California, Louisiana, Maryland, North Carolina, Texas, Virgin Islands and Virginia (see Figure 8). In contrast, 12 states and the District of Columbia reported having less than 1 percent of all public school teachers on waivers: Alaska, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Washington and Wyoming.

In that same year, a total of eight states reported having 10 percent or more teachers on waivers in high-poverty districts (see Figure 9). Of note, Arizona, Arkansas, Kentucky, Michigan and West Virginia were the only states that reported having a lower percentage of teachers on waivers in high-poverty districts than they had teachers on waivers in any district regardless of poverty status.

According to the HEA Title II data collection and reporting system, between the 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 academic years the percentage of teachers on waivers increased in 22 states and fell in 22 states (see Figure 10). In high-poverty districts, 21 states experienced an increase in the percentage of teachers on waivers while 20 states identified decreases.

With the unprecedented cooperation and dedication of state and district officials, administrators and teachers around the country, progress is being made in many states and institutions in addressing the teacher quality challenge. This is truly heartening news. We know that high-quality teachers are critically important to closing persistent academic achievement gaps that have been experienced for too long between students of different races, ethnic backgrounds and means. We also know that successfully identifying and replicating innovative strategies to recruit, retain and support high-quality teachers will solve many of the problems currently facing our education system. In pursuing these strategies, we must hold true to two key principles: the need to continue to raise academic standards for teachers while at the same time working to lower barriers that are keeping many talented people out of the teaching profession.

Over the last year the Department has continued its focus on issues of teacher quality, from offering common-sense flexibility in implementing the teacher quality provisions of NCLB, to providing direct technical assistance to states through the Teacher Assistance Corps, to creating new teacher-friendly materials on NCLB. In addition, for FY 2005, the Bush administration has proposed more than $5.1 billion in spending to support teachers through training, recruitment, incentives, loan forgiveness and tax relief. In partnership with states, institutions and national organizations, the Department is looking forward to continuing this important work.

While we are making progress in meeting the teacher quality challenge, more--much more--remains to be done. In the coming year, the Department will continue its work in assisting states in meeting the NCLB requirement that, by the end of school year 2005-2006, all teachers of core academic subjects are highly qualified. To that end, in April 2004 the Department launched the Teacher to Teacher Initiative: Supporting Success, components of which include:

• Teacher Roundtables. This spring and summer, the Department of Education will host discussions with teachers around the country on effective teaching, professional development, teacher leadership and ways to advance the teaching profession. The emphasis will be on listening and engaging teachers about what support they need to meet the academic needs of students.
• Summer Workshops. Teachers and education experts who have improved student achievement and closed the achievement gap will share experiences with fellow teachers on how to emulate these programs. Teachers will also receive additional resources, such as online assistance, to support them as they incorporate new strategies in the classroom.
• The Research-to-Practice Summit. To be held in summer 2004 in Washington, D.C., this summit comprises a day of listening to and learning from experts in the field of scientifically based research and from teachers with success in improving their students' achievement levels.
• Teacher E-mail Updates. Electronic updates will keep teachers apprised of the latest policy, research and developments in the profession.

The initiative also includes a new Web site--www.teacherquality.us--with information about effective practices and initiatives at the state and local levels and upcoming teacher-oriented events. Educators may apply for one of the summer workshops or register for the e-mail updates on the Web site.

In addition, the reauthorization of HEA remains on the horizon. Throughout its nearly 40-year existence, the law has succeeded in ensuring that all students--young and old, part-time or full-time, traditional and nontraditional--receive the basic support needed to pursue a postsecondary education.

Throughout the HEA reauthorization process, the Department expects to highlight the need for highly qualified teachers in every classroom, as well as the need to improve the academic rigor of our K-12 schools, to ensure that:

• More students complete their secondary education.
• More students pursue, and are academically prepared for, postsecondary education and training.
• More students complete their postsecondary education and training goals.
• All students are prepared for an ever-changing workforce.

Now, more than ever before, our country and economy place a premium on higher education. With increasing concerns about the need for American workers to remain competitive in a global environment, we recognize that students must be equipped with the tools necessary to adapt to the changing economy and to emerging industries.

To further our goal of having a highly qualified teacher in every classroom, we must expand our traditional approaches for preparing teachers by recognizing the value of new and nontraditional approaches to preparation that can be made available to anyone, anytime and anywhere. Several important components of HEA are dedicated to promoting innovation in teacher preparation and licensure, ensuring our teachers are the best in the world. Notably, the Title II discretionary grant programs, which provide grants to states and partnerships for the innovation and reform of teacher certification, licensure and preservice education; the teacher loan forgiveness programs; and the teacher recruitment grants all provide resources for training, recruiting and retaining highly qualified teachers.

It is the Department's belief that we can all learn from and help one another as we work toward the same goal. For its part, the Department will continue to listen to and engage with teachers about what support they need to meet the academic needs of students, continue to forge partnerships with all those who seek to produce high-quality teachers by raising standards and lowering barriers, continue to advocate for highly qualified and effective teachers for all the nation's students and continue to shed light on the progress of states and institutions in meeting this critical goal.

For their part, states and institutions should continue to improve their teacher quality accountability systems until data collection and reporting systems are reliable, valid, timely and directly tied to student academic performance. State standards for students and teachers should be revised as necessary to be clear, rigorous, relevant and tightly aligned with each other and with student assessments. The academic rigor of state certification requirements should be increased to ensure teacher mastery of core subject areas, while other bureaucratic barriers to teaching should be lessened, including barriers to alternative routes to certification. Finally, states and localities must ensure that sufficient energy and incentives are in place so that highly qualified and effective teachers are uniformly available to all students in every subject no matter their income or background. Such a collective national effort will help us to continue to support and reward the best and brightest of the nation's teachers and build national momentum toward providing all our students with the highly qualified teachers they deserve.

Babu, S. and Mendro, R. (2003). Teacher accountability: HLM-based teacher effectiveness indices in the investigation of teacher effects on student achievement in a state assessment program. Paper prepared for the 2003 American Educational Research Association meeting, Chicago, Ill.

Carey, K. (2004). "The real value of teachers: Using new information about teacher effectiveness to close the achievement gap," The Education Trust, 8 (1): 5.

Cross, R., Rebarber, T., Torres, J., and Finn, C. (2004). Grading the systems: The guide to state standards, tests, and accountability policies. Washington, D.C.: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.

Computer Systems Policy Project. (2004). Choose to compete: How innovation, investment, and productivity can grow U.S. jobs and ensure American competitiveness in the 21st century. Washington, D.C. Available online at: http://www.cspp.org/documents/choosetocompete.pdf. Accessed July 6, 2004.

Feistritzer, C. (2004). Alternative teacher certification: A state-by-state analysis 2003. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Information.

Hess, F. (2004). Common sense school reform. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Hess, F. (2001). Tear down this wall: The case for a radical overhaul of teacher certification. Washington, D.C.: Progressive Policy Institute.

Huang, G., Reiser, M., Parker, A., Muniec, J., and Salvucci, S. (2003). Institute of Education Sciences findings from interviews with education policy-makers. Prepared by Synectics for Management Decisions, Inc. Arlington, Va. Available online at: http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/findingsreport.pdf. Accessed July 6, 2004.

Levin, J. and Quinn, M. (2003). Missed opportunities: How we keep high-quality teachers out of urban classrooms. New York: The New Teacher Project.

Mayer, D., Decker, P., Glazerman, S., and Silva, T. (2003). Identifying alternative certification programs for an impact evaluation of teacher preparation. Cambridge, Mass.: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.

McCaffrey, D., Lockwood, J.R., Koretz, D., and Hamilton, L. (2003). Evaluating value-added models for teacher accountability. Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation.

Mendro, R., Jordan, H., Gomez, E., Anderson, M., and Bembry, K. (1998). An application of multiple linear regression in determining longitudinal teacher effectiveness. Paper presented at the 1998 Annual Meeting of AERA, San Diego, Calif.

Mitchell, R. and Barth, P. (1999). Not good enough: A content analysis of teacher licensing examinations. Washington, D.C.: The Education Trust.

Peterson, P. (2003). "Little gain in student achievement," Chapter 2 in P. Peterson (ed.), Our Schools and our future...Are we still at risk? Stanford, Calif: The Hoover Institution.

Rivers, J. (1999). The impact of teacher effect on student math competency achievement. Dissertation, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Microfilms International, 9959317, 2000.

Sanders, W. and Rivers, J. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future academic achievement. Knoxville, Tenn.: University of Tennessee Value-Added Research and Assessment Center.

Teaching Commission, The. (2004). Teaching at risk: A call to action. New York: Author. Available online at: http://www.theteachingcommission.org/publications/FINAL_Report.pdf. Accessed July 6, 2004.

Texas A&M University System. (2003). Meeting the challenge for highly qualified teachers. Presentation to the U.S. Department of Education, December 2003. Available online at: http://partnerships.tamu.edu/presentation. Accessed July 6, 2004.

Tracy, C. and Walsh, K. (2004). Necessary and insufficient: Resisting a full measure of teacher quality. Washington, D.C.: The National Council on Teacher Quality.

U.S. Department of Education. (2003). No Child Left Behind: A toolkit for teachers. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Education. Available online at: http://www.ed.gov/teachers/nclbguide/nclb-teachers-toolkit.pdf. Accessed July 6, 2004.

Wang, A., Coleman, A., Coley, R., and Phelps, R. (2003). Preparing teachers around the world. Princeton, N.J.: Policy Information Center, Educational Testing Service.

A1. Requirements for Initial Teaching Certification or Licensure: 2003

A2. State Cut Scores for Selected Content Area Assessments

A3. Characteristics of Alternative Routes to Teaching

A4. Percentage of Classroom Teachers on Waivers, Overall and By Poverty Status of Districts: 2001-2002 and 2002-2003

1. Experienced teachers refers to those teachers who are not new to the profession (i.e., had been hired before the first day of the 2002-2003 school year) as defined in NCLB, Section 200.56.

2. Core academic subjects include English, reading or language arts, mathematics, science, foreign languages, civics and government, economics, arts, history and geography.

3. In 2000-2001, New York reclassified its Liberal Arts and Sciences Test (LAST) from an "other content area" to an "academic content area" assessment. The state did not add or eliminate any assessments between 1999-2000 and 2001-2002.

4. For HEA Title II reporting purposes, alternative routes to certification are defined by the state agency, thus the reported alternative routes may differ from other sources.

5. NCLB defines a "highly qualified teacher" as a teacher holding, at a minimum: a bachelor's degree, full state certification (including certification and licensure obtained through alternative routes to certification) and the ability to demonstrate competency in each subject he or she teaches. For a complete definition, see Section 9101-Highly Qualified Teacher Definition of NCLB.