Skip to main content

Full text of "ERIC ED474354: Training Tomorrow's Teachers: Ensuring a Quality Postsecondary Education. Hearing before the Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. House of Representatives, One Hundred Seventh Congress, Second Session (October 9, 2002)."

See other formats


DOCUMENT RESUME 



ED 474 354 



SP 041 453 



TITLE 



INSTITUTION 

REPORT NO 
PUB DATE 
NOTE 

AVAILABLE FROM 



PUB TYPE 
EDRS PRICE 
DESCRIPTORS 



IDENTIFIERS 



Training Tomorrow's Teachers: Ensuring a Quality 
Postsecondary Education. Hearing before the Subcommittee on 
21st Century Competitiveness of the Committee on Education 
and the Workforce. House of Representatives, One Hundred 
Seventh Congress, Second Session {October 9, 2002) . 

Congress of the U.S., Washington, DC. House Committee on 
Education and the Workforce. 

House-Hrg-107-85 

2002 - 00-00 

lOlp. 

Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, 
Mail Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001. Tel: 202-512-1800; 
Tel: 866-512-1800 (Toll Free); Fax: 202-512-2250; Web site: 
http : //www . bookstore . gpo . gov . 

Legal/Legislative/Regulatory Materials (090) 

EDRS Price MF01/PC05 Plus Postage. 

Educational Improvement; * Educational Quality; Elementary 
Secondary Education; Higher Education; *Preservice Teacher 
Education; Teacher Certification; *Teacher Competencies 
Congress 107th 



ABSTRACT 

This hearing presented testimony on ways to improve teacher 
training through quality postsecondary education. After opening statements 
from Howard P. McKeon, Chairman, and John F. Tierney, Representative, 
Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness, Committee on Education and the 
Workforce, U.S. House of Representatives, there are statements by: Cornelia 
M. Ashby, Director of Education, Workforce and Income Security Issues, 

General Accounting Office, Washington, DC; Kurt M. Landgraf, President and 
Chief Executive Officer, Educational Testing Service, Princeton, NJ; Wendell 
Cave, Director of Testing, Research, and Internship, Education Professional 
Standards Board, Frankfort, Kentucky; Allen Mori, Dean of the Charter College 
of Education,' . California State University, Los Angeles, California; and 
Steven Brandick, Director, Career Ladder, Human Resources Division, Los 
Angeles Unified School District, Los Angeles, California. Eight appendixes 
present the written opening statements and statements as well as a letter 
from the American Psychological Association to Chairman Howard P. McKeon. 

(SM) 



o 

ERLC 



Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made 
from the original document. 



ED 474 354 




TRAINING TOMORROW’S TEACHERS: 
ENSURING A QUALITY POSTSECONDARY 

EDUCATION 



HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 21 st CENTURY COMPETITIVENESS 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND 
THE WORKFORCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, OCTOBER 9, 2002 

Serial No. 107-85 



Printed for the use of the Committee on Education 
and the Workforce 



82-897 pdf 



For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office 
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: (866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 
FAX: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001 




U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ) 
Office of Educational Research and Improvement 

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION j 
CENTER (ERIC) 

□ This document has been reproduced as 
received from the person or organization 1 
originating it. 

□ Minor changes have been made to 
improve reproduction quality. 



• Points of view or opinions stated in this 
document do not necessarily represent 
official OERI position or policy. 



BEST COPY AVAILABLE 




11 



COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

JOHN A. BOEHNER, Ohio, Chairman 



THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

MARGE ROUKEMA, New Jersey 

CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina 

PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan 

HOWARD P. “BUCK" McKEON, California 

MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware 

SAM JOHNSON, Texas 

JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana 

CHARLIE W. NORWOOD, JR., Georgia 

BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

VAN HILLEARY, Tennessee 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado 

JIM DeMINT, South Carolina 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska 

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 



GEORGE MILLER, California 
DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan 
MAJOR R. OWENS, New York 
DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 
ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey 
TIM ROEMER, Indiana 
ROBERT C. “BOBBY" SCOTT, Virginia 
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California 
LYNN N. RIVERS, Michigan 
RUBEN HINOJOSA, Texas 
CAROLYN McCarthy, New York 
JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts 
RON KIND, Wisconsin 
LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 
HAROLD E. FORD, JR., Tennessee 
DENNIS KUCINICH, Ohio 
DAVID WU, Oregon 
RUSH D. HOLT, New Jersey 
HILDA L. SOLIS, California 
SUSAN DAVIS, California 
BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota 
VACANCY 



Paula Nowakowski , Chief of Staff 
John Lawrence , Minority Staff Director 



SUBCOMMITTEE ON 21 s ' CENTURY COMPETITIVENESS 
HOWARD P. “BUCK” McKEON, California, Chairman 



JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia, Vice Chairman 

JOHN BOEHNER, Ohio 

MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware 

SAM JOHNSON, Texas 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska 



VACANCY 

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts 
RON KIND, Wisconsin 
RUSH D. HOLT, New Jersey 
DAVID WU, Oregon 
LYNN N. RIVERS, Michigan 
BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota 
ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey 
RUBEN HINOJOSA, Texas 



O 

ERIC 



3 



Ill 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 



TABLE OF CONTENTS i 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN HOWARD P. “BUCK” MCKEON, 
SUBCOMMITTEE ON 21 st CENTURY COMPETITIVENESS, COMMITTEE ON 
EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 
WASHINGTON, D.C 1 

OPENING STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE JOHN F. TIERNEY, SUBCOMMITTE ON 
21 st CENTURY COMPETITIVENESS, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE 
WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE, WASHINGTON, D.C 5 

STATEMENT OF CORNELIA M. ASHBY, DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, WORKFORCE, 
AND INCOME SECURITY ISSUES, GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON, 
D.C ! 6 

STATEMENT OF KURT M. LANDGRAF, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE 
OFFICER, EDUCATIONAL TESTING SERVICE, PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY 8 

STATEMENT OF WENDELL CAVE, DIRECTOR OF TESTING, RESEARCH AND 
INTERNSHIP, EDUCATION PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS BOARD, FRANKFORT, 
KENTUCKY 9 

STATEMENT OF DR. ALLEN MORI, DEAN OF THE CHARTER COLLEGE OF 
EDUCATION, CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 1 1 

STATEMENT OF STEVEN BRANDICK, DIRECTOR, CAREER LADDER, HUMAN 
RESOURCES DIVISION, LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, LOS ANGELES, 
CALIFORNIA 13 

APPENDIX A - OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN HOWARD P. “BUCK” 
MCKEON, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 21 st CENTURY COMPETITIVENESS, COMMITTEE ON 
EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 
WASHINGTON, D.C 29 

APPENDIX B - WRITTEN OPENING STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE JOHN F. 
TIERNEY, SUBCOMMITTE ON 21 st CENTURY COMPETITIVENESS, COMMITTEE ON 
EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE, 
WASHINGTON, D.C 35 

APPENDIX C - STATEMENT OF CORNELIA M. ASHBY, DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, 
WORKFORCE, AND INCOME SECURITY ISSUES, GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE, 
WASHINGTON, D.C ! 39 




4 



IV 



APPENDIX D - WRITTEN STATEMENT OF KURT M. LANDGRAF, PRESIDENT AND 
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, EDUCATIONAL TESTING SERVICE, PRINCETON, NEW 
JERSEY 55 

APPENDIX E - WRITTEN STATEMENT OF WENDELL CAVE, DIRECTOR OF TESTING, 
RESEARCH AND INTERNSHIP, EDUCATION PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS BOARD, 
FRANKFORT, KENTUCKY 79 

APPENDIX F - WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DR. ALLEN MORI, DEAN OF THE 
CHARTER COLLEGE OF EDUCATION, CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, LOS 
ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 85 

APPENDIX G - WRITTEN STATEMENT OF STEVEN BRANDICK, DIRECTOR, CAREER 



LADDER, HUMAN RESOURCES DIVISION, LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL 
DISTRICT, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 95 

APPENDIX H - LETTER FROM THE AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION TO 
CHAIRMAN HOWARD P. “BUCK” MCKEON, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 21 st CENTURY 
COMPETITIVENESS, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. 
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C 103 



TABLE OF INDEXES 



i 



5 



1 



HEARING ON TRAINING TOMORROW'S TEACHERS: 
ENSURING A QUALITY POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION 
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 9, 2002 
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 
SUBCOMMITTE ON 21 st CENTURY COMPETITIVENESS, 
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, 
WASHINGTON, D.C. 



The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2 p.m., in Room 2175, Rayburn House Office 
Building, Hon. Howard P. "Buck” McKeon [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives McKeon, Isakson, Castle, Ehlers, Osborne, Tierney, Holt, Miller, 
ex officio. 

Staff Present: Julian Baer, Legislative Assistant; Alexa Callin, Communications Staff 
Assistant; Patrick Lyden, Professional Staff Member; Brady Newby, Communications Specialist; 
Deborah L. Samantar, Committee Clerk/Intem Coordinator; Jo-Marie St. Martin, General Counsel; 
and Holli Traud, Legislative Assistant; Charles Barone, Deputy Staff Director; James Kvaal, 
Legislative Associate/Education; Joe Novotny, Staff Assistant/Education; and Suzanne Palmer, 
Legislative Association/ Education. 



OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN HOWARD P. “BUCK” MCKEON , 
SUBCOMMITTEE ON 21 st CENTURY COMPETITIVENESS, COMMITTEE 
ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Chairman McKeon. A quorum being present, the Subcommittee on 21st Century 
Competitiveness will come to order. 

We are meeting today to hear testimony on ways we can improve teacher training through 
quality postsecondary education. Under committee rule 12(b), opening statements are limited to 
the chairman and ranking minority member of the subcommittee. Therefore, if other members 
have statements, they will be included in the hearing record. 

With that, I ask unanimous consent for the hearing record to remain open 14 days to allow 
member statements and other extraneous material referenced during the hearing to be submitted in 




6 



2 



the official hearing record. Without objection, so ordered. 

Chairman McKeon. Good afternoon. I want to express my appreciation to our witnesses for 
joining us here today to talk about a very important subject, ensuring that we have quality teachers 
for our nation's children. 

We all know that the effect of a good teacher on a child's life is tremendous and far- 
reaching. To this end, over the last few years, Congress has worked diligently to ensure that the 
best and brightest teachers are teaching our children. For example, the president's No Child Left 
Behind Act, signed into law last year, requires each state educational agency to develop a plan to 
ensure that all teachers teaching in core academic subjects within the state are highly qualified no 
later than the end of the 2005-2006 school year. Over the next decade, school districts will need to 
hire over 2 million additional teachers to keep up with increased student enrollment and it is our 
job to make sure they are qualified teachers. 

With that said, many forget that the Higher Education Act includes several provisions to 
improve the quality of the current and future teacher force by improving the preparation of 
prospective teachers and enhancing professional development activities. Through teacher quality 
enhancement grants for states and partnerships enacted in 1998, Congress aimed to recruit highly 
qualified individuals, including individuals from other occupations, into the teaching force and to 
hold institutions of higher education accountable for preparing teachers. 

With the passage of these provisions, our commitment to improving teacher quality is clear. 
We have enhanced our efforts to improve the education the children receive, particularly the 
education that disadvantaged students and students with disabilities receive. We have also 
provided additional resources for teacher training and assured quality through accountability 
measures. 

As we move into the next reauthorization of the Higher Education Act next year, we will 
need to learn as much as we can from each of you and others as to the effect Title II provisions 
have on improving teacher quality, and what else we may be able to do to ensure that every student 
in this country has a qualified and committed teacher. 

I know we are asking a great deal of our teachers. They have a very difficult, yet extremely 
important, job. Therefore, we want to do our part to help teachers, school districts and 
postsecondary institutions work together so that no child is left behind. 

I believe we all have the same goal here and that is to ensure that highly qualified teachers 
teach our children. In order to do that, we want to encourage students to enter the teaching field, 
provide them the tools necessary to ensure that they are highly qualified and make sure 
postsecondary institutions providing teacher training are providing the best education possible. 

Again, I thank you all for joining us today and look forward to your testimony. 

Mr. Tierney is on his way here and we will come back to him for his opening statement 
when he arrives. I apologize for many members not being here today. We are debating the Iraqi 



3 



resolution on the floor, and that is keeping a lot of members away; and you can understand the 
importance of that also. 

At this time, I would like to introduce our witnesses. First, I would like to introduce Ms. 
Cornelia Ashby. Ms. Ashby joined the U.S. General Accounting Office in 1973 and has held 
various positions within the GAO. She was appointed to her current position as Director of 
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues in October 2000. Ms. Ashby directs studies 
involving higher education, child welfare, child support enforcement and adult and vocational 
education issues. 

She holds a bachelor's degree in Business Administration with a concentration in 
accounting from George Mason University, an MBA from George Washington University, and is 
completing work for a doctoral degree. Congratulations. 

I would like to recognize the gentleman from Delaware, Mr. Castle, to introduce our next 
witness. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN HOWARD P. “BUCK” MCKEON, 
SUBCOMMITTEE ON 21 st CENTURY COMPETITIVENESS, COMMITTEE ON 
EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 
WASHINGTON, D.C. - SEE APPENDIX A 



Mr. Castle. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the subject matter before this 
subcommittee today on training tomorrow's teachers. I think it is about as important as anything 
that we can possibly do. 

And I am delighted that one of those addressing our panel today is my good friend and 
colleague, Kurt Landgraf. I think most of you know why he is here, because he is the president and 
CEO of the Educational Testing Service, or ETS. 

But what you may not know is his background with the DuPont Company, where with the 
Department of Pharmaceuticals he served as president and CEO, as well as executive vice 
president, chief operating officer, chief financial officer and the chairman of DuPont Europe. 

And even through all this, Kurt has always been deeply involved with his community at 
home, including sharing the business of the Public Education Council, United Way of Delaware, 
University of Delaware Research Foundation and many, many other business and philanthropic 
organizations. 

He also, and I didn't know this, has earned his bachelor's degree in economics and business 
from Wagner College. He has also earned three master's degrees. I don't know what you do with 
three master's degrees, but he has one in economics from Penn State, administration from Rutgers 
and sociology from Western Michigan. And if that is not enough, he also is a graduate of the 
Harvard Business School of Advanced Management Programs. 



4 



As I mentioned, importantly for this hearing today, Kurt heads ETS, which is obviously one 
of the largest private educational research testing measurement organizations serving individuals, 
institutions, and governments in 1 8 1 different countries today. He is also the president of the 
National Consortium for Graduate Degrees for Minorities in Engineering and Science, Inc. 

And perhaps most importantly, and I know this from many conversations I had with him, he 
is a strong believer in the need to improve our education system for all students. 

So he is a strong and able witness, Mr. Chairman, to have here today, and we look forward 
to hearing him. 

And let me just say apologetically, because I am not sure how long I can be here, we have 
an Intelligence Committee meeting with this whole business with Iraq and other things that is tying 
everybody up at this point, so I may have to bow out shortly. 

But I am pleased to introduce Kurt, and I yield back. 

Chairman McKeon. Our next witness will be Mr. Wendell Cave. 

Mr. Cave, we checked on the whistle, the Perkins whistle, and the reason you probably 
won't hear it today is the winds are not blowing. I thought we had maybe repaired it, because I 
haven't heard it recently, but it is just because we are not in the windy season yet. 

Mr. Cave has served three years with the Kentucky Education Professional Standards Board 
and the Division of Testing Research and Internship. He has 35 years of education experience at 
the state level that includes positions at the Kentucky Department of Education and the Kentucky 
Council on Postsecondary Education. In addition, Mr. Cave has taught high school physics. 

He holds a bachelor's degree from Western Kentucky University and a master's degree in 
teaching. 

The next witness would be Dr. Allen Mori. Dr. Mori is the Dean of the Charter College of 
Education at California State University, as well as a professor of English. Prior to his position at 
CSU, Dr. Mori served as a professor in the Division of Teacher Education at Marshall University. 

Dr. Mori has held several positions within postsecondary education and teacher preparation. 
He is also a member of the Association of Teacher Educators and has written extensively on 
teacher preparation and education. 

And our final witness will be Mr. Steven Brandick. Mr. Brandick is the Director of the 
Career Ladder Office for the Los Angeles Unified School District. He began his career as an 
educator in 1981, when he took a position teaching English at the Mexican-North American 
Cultural Institute in Mexico City. 

In 1993, Mr. Brandick became the K-12 bilingual specialist for the Los Angeles Unified 
School District. In this role, he coordinated the development of the district's para-education career 



ERfC 



5 



ladder as a labor-management collaborative project. He is working on a variety of projects relating 
to teacher recruitment and development. 

Welcome, all of you, here, and we will hear the opening statement now from the ranking 
member. Are you the ranking member? 

Mr. Tierney. I am temporarily in the seat. 

Chairman McKeon. Mr. Tierney. 



OPENING STA TEMENT OF REPRESENTA TIVE JOHN F. TIERNEY , 
SUBCOMMITTE ON 21 st CENTURY COMPETITIVENESS , COMMITTEE 
ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 



Mr. Tierney. I am going to be extraordinarily brief. I will submit my statement for the record, if I 
might, Mr. Chairman, and just welcome the witnesses here and look forward to their testimony. 



I think that teacher qualification is obviously one of the principal concerns of many people 
in the education field and parents generally. So I want to hear what you have to say about that. I 
think it is going to be a major part of what we do in the reauthorization, and I look forward to your 
testimony. 

Thank you. 

WRITTEN OPENING STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE JOHN F. TIERNEY, 
SUBCOMMITTE ON 21 st CENTURY COMPETITIVENESS, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION 
AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE, WASHINGTON, D C. - SEE 
APPENDIX B 



Chairman McKeon. Before the witnesses begin, I will explain, first thing is, you turn on your 
mike. And then there will be, as you speak, you will see the green, yellow, and red light in front of 
you. Green means you have five minutes. Yellow means you have a minute left and red means 
your time is up; and we would appreciate if you would follow that. And your full written 
testimony will be included in the record. 



Ms. Ashby. 



6 



STATEMENT OF CORNELIA M. ASHBY, DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, 
WORKFORCE, AND INCOME SECURITY ISSUES, GENERAL 
ACCOUNTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON, D.C . 



Ms* Ashby. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to 
testify on teacher quality enhancement, grant activities and accountability under Title II of the 
Higher Education Act. 

As you know, the ranking minority member of the full committee and the chairman of the 
Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions asked us to examine the 
implementation of some of the Title II provisions. My comments today are based on the 
preliminary work that we have done in response to that request. 

We served 91 grantees, the total at the time of our survey, conducted 33 site visits in 1 1 
states and interviewed Department of Education officials and teaching experts. Our survey and site 
visits revealed that the grantees focused on a combination of activities. Eighty-five percent of our 
survey respondents were using their grant funds to reform the requirements for teacher 
certification, 85 percent for professional development and support for current teachers, and 72 
percent for recruiting new teachers. 

Within these general areas, grantees* efforts varied. For example, in Illinois, where 
currently there is no middle school certification, state officials intend to use the grant to create a 
new certification for middle school teachers. Professional development and teacher support 
activities included providing courses toward an advanced degree and assigning mentor teachers to 
new teachers. In fact, during our site visits, we found mentoring was the most common 
professional development activity. 

Grantees at 23 of the 33 grant sites we visited, that is, 70 percent, were conducting 
mentoring activities. As an example, Rhode Island used its grant funds to allow two experienced 
teachers to tour the state to provide training to future mentor teachers and help schools set up 
mentoring programs. 

With respect to recruiting new teachers, most grantees at the grant sites we visited were 
using their grant funds to fill shortages in urban schools and recruit new teachers from 
nontraditional sources, such as middle career professionals. For example, a grant program housed 
at Johns Hopkins University recruits teacher candidates with undergraduate degrees to teach in a 
local school district while earning master's degrees in education. The program offers tuition 
assistance, and in some cases, the district pays the full teacher's salary. Teachers are required to 
teach in the local district for three years after completing the program. 

Another recruiting endeavor, a Texas partnership, offered scholarships to mid-career 
professionals that paid for a one-year, full-time program that results in a teaching certificate and 18 
hours of graduate level credits. 




7 



It is too early to determine the grants effect on the quality of teaching in the classroom. 
However, grantees have reported some positive results. For example, grantees have told us that 
they have been able to recruit more teachers into their programs since the inception of the grant 
program. In addition, many of the grantees we visited reported the mentoring programs are 
beneficial to the mentor teacher as well as to the new teacher. 

Also, with respect to the Texas partnership that offered scholarships for a college program 
that leads to a teaching certificate and graduate credits, grantee officials told us that because the 
grant covers the Austin, Texas, area, an area of many technology organizations, they have been 
able to recruit highly skilled individuals who can offer a variety of real-life experiences for the 
classes they teach. 

With regard to accountability, the information collected under Title II accountability 
provisions has limitations. Title II required education to develop key definitions and uniform 
reporting methods. Education officials told us that they tried to define terms, but the terms 
incorporated the uniqueness of teacher training programs, state reporting procedures and data 
availability; in doing so, education defines some terms broadly. 

Education officials also told us that this gave states and institutions discretion to interpret 
some terms as they wished. As a result, using definitions allowed by education, states and 
institutions could report information that made their programs seem more successful than they 
might have been. 

For example, institutions could inflate their pass rate on state certification examinations, 
reporting only on those teacher candidates who completed all course work and passed the teacher 
certification examination, without including any information on teacher candidates who completed 
all course work, but failed the examination, thus ensuring 100 percent pass rate. We found that a 
few states and many institutions are inflating their pass rates to 100 percent. Every institution 
reported 100 percent pass rates. 

Requiring teacher candidates to pass the state certification examination, as part of a teacher- 
training program is not a problem. However, reporting on only those candidates who pass the 
examination does not provide a basis for assessing program quality. In other words, this practice 
reduces accountability. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer any questions. 

STATEMENT OF CORNELIA M. ASHBY, DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, WORKFORCE, 
AND INCOME SECURITY ISSUES, GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON, 
D.C. - SEE APPENDIX C 



Chairman McKeon. Thank you very much. 
Mr. Landgraf. 





8 



STATEMENT OF KURT M. LANDGRAF, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF 
EXECUTIVE OFFICER , EDUCATIONAL TESTING SERVICE , PRINCETON , 
WEIV JERSEY 



Mr. Landgraf. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. 

As Congressman Castle introduced me, you know that I am the head of the Educational 
Testing Service. We administer 12 million tests per year, worldwide, including the NAEP 
examination and the Praxis assessment exam, which is primarily what I am going to talk with you 
about today. 

I believe accountability is essential to improving education in general, and enhancing the 
quality of teaching is perhaps the single most important way to improve incremental education in 
this society. I would strongly urge this committee, this subcommittee, to review very carefully this 
testimony and not back away from the message delivered in 1998 that teacher certification would 
meet the highest possible standards. 

I have some recommendations to share with you for enhancing Title II reporting and for 
enhancing teacher professionals in general. 

In brief, Title II created a three-tier annual reporting requirement. ETS participates in that 
reporting structure. ETS is focused on one key aspect of the law's requirements, that is, pass rates 
for teacher licensure examinations. I would like to discuss further teacher licensure assessments in 
general and the Praxis series in particular. 

As Ms. Ashby just reported, states vary significantly on how they use Praxis data and how 
they react to providing teachers with teacher scores. I think this is key for your consideration. We 
are not here to provide assessments that are gamed. The purpose of these assessments is to 
improve teacher certification and teacher education. 

The Praxis series includes three types of assessments: academic skills, subject assessments 
and classroom performance assessments. The ETS Title II reporting service is a complex, highly 
sophisticated system that provides institutions and states with Praxis pass rate data they need to 
meet Title II requirements. 

I have three recommendations for improving Title II reporting systems: 

Title II should be redirected to focus on improved teacher education, not pass rates, 

Strengthen, a£ Ms. Ashby just pointed out, the definition of program completer. We must 
follow those teachers that complete their course of study and look at those that are admitted and 





9 



drop out, so we do not get the gaming of the pass rate system; and 

We would like to ask you to consider establishing a uniform reporting system to facilitate 
enhanced utility and comparability of Title II data. 

I also have four recommendations for enhancing the teaching profession and certification. 

First, please use multiple measures in judging teacher quality and preparation programs, 

Second, encourage all states to follow California's example in establishing induction and 
mentoring programs for new teachers; 

Third, emphasize that knowing the subject matter and knowing how to teach are both 
important and necessary in effective teaching; and 

Finally, but very importantly, given the demographics of our teacher shortage, undertake a 
study to examine teacher shortages, teacher mobility and potential solutions to such supply and 
demand issues. 

The challenge before you is critical. Success at raising student achievement and closing the 
achievement gap rests in large part on the quality of our teaching force. We need to muster the 
political and public courage to match the much-needed improvements in our teaching force to 
attract higher quality teachers, retain these teachers and improve incremental educational 
opportunities for all students in this country. 

Thank, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF KURT M. LANDGRAF, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE 
OFFICER, EDUCATIONAL TESTING SERVICE, PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY - SEE 
APPENDIX D 



Chairman McKeon. Thank you. 
Mr. Cave. 



STATEMENT OF WENDELL CAVE, DIRECTOR OF TESTING, 
RESEARCH AND INTERNSHIP, EDUCATION PROFESSIONAL 
STANDARDS BOARD, FRANKFORT, KENTUCKY 



10 



Mr. Cave. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, Kentucky's Education Professional 
Standards Board is delighted to have the opportunity to provide input to you today on the reporting 
requirements of Title II. 

While those reporting requirements require a significant investment of time and money, the 
legislation came with no earmarked finding, and this lack of earmarked funding has been 
particularly burdensome for states like Kentucky that have independent standards boards, relatively 
small budgets and minimal, if any, federal funding. With that said, I would like to focus the rest of 
my time on positive outcomes that Kentucky has seen as a result of Title II reporting requirements. 

Those outcomes far outweigh the investment Kentucky has had to make in the reporting 
process, and I think one of the most important outcomes has been the expanded interest that our 
print and electronic media have taken toward teacher quality. The major newspapers and television 
networks in Kentucky have featured pass rate data, by institution, each year of the Title II report. 

This expanded media coverage has provided an impetus for our teacher education 
institutions to implement initiatives designed to improve pass rates. Our colleges of education tell 
us that cooperation and coordination with their colleges of arts and sciences is now being seen as 
something that must be done. Prior to the scores being reported by the media, many colleges of 
arts and sciences did not see themselves as integral players in the teacher education preparation 
program. 

An invitational workshop that the Standards Board conducted this summer to discuss 
curriculum alignment for courses that are taken by students in teacher preparation programs drew 
representatives from both arts and sciences and education faculties from most of our teacher 
education institutions. Recent statewide newspaper coverage showing a teacher education 
institution with a pass rate on a Praxis II examination near the bottom for all institutions in the state 
certainly got the attention of the arts and science college at that institution, as well as its academic 
dean. 

Arts and science faculty are realizing that not only are they integral players in the teacher 
preparation program, but they also have prestige to gain or lose from test scores that are reported in 
the media. This media coverage of pass rates may have even contributed to a change in leadership 
at an institution whose pass rates were low each of the two years. 

Low pass rates in specific programs or in teaching specialties has led our Standards Board 
to implement an emergency program review procedure for programs in which the quality of teacher 
preparation is jeopardized as evidenced by failing scores on the certification assessments. Phase 
One of this process requires institutions with programs having pass rates below the 70 percent level 
to file a written plan for addressing 15 specific questions related to program improvement. Phase 
Two of that process requires an on-site team to evaluate and verify those written responses. 

The 2000-2001 Title II report triggered Phase One emergency reviews in three of our 
education institutions, and Phase Two reviews at two institutions. Our Standards Board has 
directed both of those Phase Two institutions to raise their pass rates to at least 50 percent by the 
time the third report comes out and to above 70 percent before the fourth report comes out. Failing 




11 



to do so will result in their approval to offer those programs being terminated. 

The Title II report influenced in no small way our efforts to do our own report. We will be 
starting in 2002-2003 with a quality performance index, which will again place institutions whose 
performance index goes below a certain level in danger of losing their accreditation to be a teacher 
institution; and the Praxis test scores will be one of the major components. . 

. I wish I had time to give you more information, but thank you for the opportunity to testify, 
and I will be glad to answer any questions. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF WENDELL CAVE, DIRECTOR OF TESTING, RESEARCH AND 
INTERNSHIP, EDUCATION PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS BOARD, FRANKFORT, 
KENTUCKY - SEE APPENDIX E 

Chairman McKeon. Thank you very much and your full statement will be in the record. 



STATEMENT OF DR . ALLEN MORI , DEAN OF THE CHARTER COLLEGE 
OF EDUCATION , CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY , LOS ANGELES , 
CALIFORNIA 



Mr. Mori. Mr. Chairman and honorable members, it is both a pleasure and an honor to testify 
today in front of the subcommittee. 

I have spent the last 27 years as a teacher educator. The college I have the privilege of 
serving as dean has a historic role in preparing quality teachers, particularly teachers of color. The 
National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education, NCATE, has accredited it since 1959; 
in the past year alone, over 2,000 people received teaching and other credentials authorizing service 
to California's and, indeed, the nation's schools. 

The Charter College of Education is committed to leading educators to transform public 
schools. Our mission statement, through the unique opportunities provided by its charter status, the 
College of Education at California State University, Los Angeles, enables educators to meet high 
standards and ensure the maximum learning and achievement potential of culturally and 
linguistically urban learners. 

The college's primary service area is greater Los Angeles, a dynamic urban and 
multicultural metropolitan center. This context provides for unique, collaborative opportunities to 
enhance continually the college's academic programs. Because the campus is located in the heart 
of metropolitan Los Angeles, the college's programs reflect concern with the challenges and 
problems of urban education with particular emphasis on linguistic and cultural diversity. 



Dr. Mori. 



ERIC 




12 



Currently, the Charter College is predominantly a graduate professional college, comprising 
15 percent of the university's enrollment and 57 percent of its graduate enrollment. The majority of 
the candidates for teaching credentials are adult students, many of whom are pursuing a second 
career. However, the Charter College has established a pilot bachelor of arts degree program in 
urban learning. This program allows students to complete both the BA degree and preliminary 
teacher credential in four years. 

The term "blended program" is applied to urban learning because teaching methods courses 
and specific subject matter courses are taken together; that is, students take history concurrently 
with the teaching methods class in social studies. Professors from both areas discuss ways in 
which the students can apply the content to the real world of classrooms through guided 
participation and observation in neighborhood schools. 

The college's enrollment is 68 percent female and 32 percent male, reflecting a pattern of 
cultural and linguistic diversity similar to the university's overall enrollment, with 40 percent of our 
students being Latino, 30 percent Caucasian, 15 percent Asian Pacific Islander, and 10 percent 
African American students. 

In response to changes in California's law governing the issuance of teaching credentials for 
elementary and secondary schools, members of the faculty determined that systemic change was 
necessary to meet the intent and the spirit of the new standards. The new program sequence clearly 
courses in field experiences to support the developing knowledge and experiences of beginning 
teachers. 

Changes were made not only to respond to the state requirements, but faculty were 
cognizant of the need to produce better qualified graduates to assist the college in meeting the 
reporting requirements of Title II. I mentioned earlier collaboration, and one example of a 
significant and effective collaborative partnership is the strand of the Urban Learning Program I 
described earlier. 

The apprentice teacher program is a true partnership between the Paraprofessional Career 
Ladder Program and the Los Angeles Unified School District and the Charter College. The strand 
allows Para educators to enter the Urban Learning Program with junior status and complete the 
requirements for a BA and a preliminary credential in just two years. The college’s rigorous 
admissions requirements must be met. 

A unique element involves the employment of the participants at three Professional 
Development Schools in Local District H of LA unified. Administrators and teachers of these 
schools are committed to supporting the apprentices as they pursue their degree and teaching 
credential goals. 

The apprentices work as para educators at the three schools in classrooms of master 
teachers selected and trained carefully by a team of Charter College professors and district 
professionals. The apprentices are enrolled in teaching methods classes at the college and also 
engage in professional development activities with district personnel, who extend the methodology 




ERiC 



17 



13 



instruction to include specific information about district curriculum and teaching approaches. 

There are now nearly 200 graduates from the Urban Learning Program. Most of the 
graduates are female Hispanics between the ages of 21 and 27. Most are employed over 20 hours a 
week, take a heavy course load and still achieve an average of a 3.5 grade point upon completion of 
the program. The program has demonstrated successful use of families of students who attend 
classes together and provide each other with both academic and social support. 

The Charter College is clearly on the cutting edge of high quality teacher preparation in the 
21st century. Spurred by the Title II requirements to improve teacher education, faculty was 
determined to build world-class teacher preparation programs to meet the needs of the ethnically 
and linguistically diverse urban community of the Los Angeles Basin. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DR. ALLEN MORI, DEAN OF THE CHARTER COLLEGE OF 
EDUCATION, CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA - SEE 
APPENDIX F 



Chairman McKeon. Thank you. 
Mr. Brandick. 



STATEMENT OF STEVEN BRANDICK, DIRECTOR, CAREER LADDER, 
HUMAN RESOURCES DIVISION, LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL 
DISTRICT, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 



Mr. Brandick. Mr. Chairman and honorable subcommittee members, thank you for giving me the 
opportunity to speak today. It is an honor to be here. 

As you know, there is a great need for highly qualified teachers. Here are some facts 
related to the Los Angeles Unified School District: 

We will need to higher 4,000 new teachers per year for the next five years. All of the 
universities in southern California, public and private, have been producing about 5,000 
credentialed teachers; LA Unified hires about 1,500 to 2,000 of those. If this trend continues, we 
will have 10,000 under qualified teachers by 2007-2008. 

Currently, one of four teachers and more than half of all new teachers are not regularly 
certified. Additionally, schools with the highest concentrations of challenged learners have the 
most under qualified teachers. In some schools, half the teachers are not regularly certified. For 
the sake of the children, we need a large number of highly qualified teachers, and we need them 




14 



quickly. 

In 1 999, my office entered into a partnership with Cal State LA to implement the apprentice 
teacher program, a fast-track teacher-credential ing program designed for paraeducators and a 
wonderful example of what a school district and a university can accomplish when they work 
together. 

For a partnership to be successful, each partner must complement the other. Universities 
are great places to dream about the possible; large, urban school districts are places where practical 
solutions are needed for almost impossible problems. Professors are encouraged to strive for the 
ideal; teachers and school administrators know about dealing with reality. If we do not consider 
the ideal, we will be forever stuck with the mediocre; if we do not consider the reality, we will 
never move forward. 

So Cal State LA and LA Unified came together to make things happen. LA Unified needed 
teacher training aligned with state standards in the district curriculum. We needed teachers who 
were trained to help students succeed in an urban setting, and we needed these teachers quickly. 

Cal State LA needed to implement a new type of teacher credentialing curriculum, the 
blended program. It needed a program that stayed within compliance with state and national 
standards for teacher training and it needed a program, which would use staff in as efficient a 
manner as possible, especially in terms of supervising student teachers. 

Both of us needed and wanted an outstanding credential pathway that could be implemented 
within the context of our large organizations, and we worked it out. 

The apprentice teacher program starts with Cal State LA's Urban Learning Program, a fast 
track, blended curriculum that combines undergraduate and teacher credential requirements and 
then takes students from student, junior status, to a bachelor's degree and teaching credentials in 
just two years. 

Apprentices are selected from among LA Unified paraeducators and placed at one of three 
Professional Development Schools, which were established especially for this project, where they 
work as teacher assistants. 

The most highly qualified teachers at these schools are selected to be demonstration 
teachers. When the apprentices take a methodology class at the university, such as reading 
methodology, they have the opportunity to observe demonstration teachers in action and practice 
the techniques they are learning. At the same time, the apprentices attend weekly seminars where 
they are trained in the district's policies and curriculum related to that subject area. In this way, 
they learn the ideal methodology and also how to implement it in an actual classroom. 

When they are ready for student teaching, apprentices move to a different Professional 
Development School, and when they successfully complete this process, they are hired by the 
district and placed as fully credentialed teachers. Because of the extensive training they have 
received and the years they have spent in schools as both paraeducators and apprentice teachers, 




15 



they perform more like experienced teachers than new ones. 

Twenty-eight apprentices have become teachers in the past year, and they are doing well. 
There are 20 apprentices in the pipeline with plans to extend the program to other California State 
universities. 

As you consider the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, please take this type of 
program into consideration. I believe it can be replicated in many other parts of the country. 

My office also successfully implemented a Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant, which was 
designed to expand the pool of potential teachers by raising interest among high school students. I 
would be happy to explain more about this program during the questioning period. 

Thank you. 



WRITTEN STATEMENT OF STEVEN BRANDICK, DIRECTOR, CAREER LADDER, 
HUMAN RESOURCES DIVISION, LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, LOS 
ANGELES, CALIFORNIA - SEE APPENDED G 

Chairman McKeon. This is such a big subject to try to cover in this kind of a session. I know we 
will hold more hearings, but it seems to me that it is a many-faceted, trying to get qualified 
teachers. 

One is, I think you have teachers now that are currently teaching, that are not qualified. 

How do we move them to becoming more qualified? 

How do we take teachers that are preparing to be teachers, going through school with an 
idea of becoming a teacher, and then maybe after a day or a year or two years in the classroom, 
finding they don't like it and moving out? And then how do we move people from other fields into 
teaching and then get them up to a qualified status? 

It just seems like it is going to be a very difficult problem. 

I served on a high school board for nine years; and I would see teachers at work, and I saw 
some fantastic teachers. We started something called "What Is Good in Education." Each month at 
our school board meeting, we would go to a different school and we would see an example. And I 
remember one French teacher that came in to give us a demonstration. 

He was fully dressed as a Roman Catholic priest, and he just started speaking to us in 
French. I don't speak French; I assume he was speaking French. But can you imagine the impact 
that has on a classroom of high school students when he walked into the room and had that kind of 
an impact. 

And yet I knew of other teachers whose credentials were highly qualified, but they couldn't 
communicate with students. And how do you take the education that a person has and then teach 




2 



0 



16 



them to be able to take that education and educate others? It is very, very difficult. 

One of the concerns I had, Ms. Ashby, in your study is the 100 percent pass rate. 

Everybody passes. We have the term "program completer” and the term "graduate." Is it accurate 
to say that everybody passes? Everybody graduates? You know, everybody, 100 percent? That is 
kind of like Harvard, you know, 9 1 percent are honor students. 

Is that realistic? What do we do about that? 

Ms. Ashby. Well, obviously, if you compute the pass rate only on the people who passed the 
exam, you are going to have 100 percent, and it is not going to tell you about the quality of the 
underlying program. And that is the difficulty. This has been allowed to happen because of 
loopholes in the definition. 

Either a clear definition of "graduate" or of "completer" or of just who goes into the 
denominator in computing pass rates would take care of this particular problem. 

But, no, you are quite correct. It says nothing about the quality of the underlying program. 

I know it is not realistic that 100 percent of people who take the exam or participate in the program 
would pass. 

Chairman McKeon. That is something we definitely need to address as we go through the 
reauthorization. 

Also, once a teacher is in the system and has tenure, what do we do if they are not really 
doing the job, if they are not qualified, if they are not educating the students that they have the 
responsibility to educate? 

Ms. Ashby. Were you addressing that to me? Since I have the mike, I will start. Of course, I have 
no definitive answers, just some speculations or ideas. 

It seems to me that the teaching profession is like any other profession. If you have people 
who are not performing up to the standards that you would like for them to perform, either they are 
not willing to do it, or they can't do it, or a combination of the two, if they aren't willing to do it, it 
seems to me you help them find employment elsewhere. 

If they can't, then perhaps training and modeling the type of behavior that you want would 
help; and that is where mentoring would come in, various supports for teachers that are currently in 
the classroom. 

Certainly, if the problem is not having adequate knowledge of the subject you are teaching, 
training can take care of that. And another instance, having a mentor that can tell you the things 
that have worked for him or her can help; and just having a support, someone to talk to sometimes 
and discuss the problems you are having in the classroom, particularly if you are having problems 
managing the classroom. 





17 



Chairman McKeon. Administrators have to play a big role in this. They are the ones that are 
supervising, that should know what is going on in the classroom. And many times they get 
involved in a lot of other responsibilities, but that seems to me would be their number one 
responsibility. 

My time is up. Mr. Holt. 

Mr. Holt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, panel. You are correct, Mr. Chairman, it is 
a big subject, but let us talk about a few things. 

I mean, the numbers are unsettling: needing 2 million teachers before the end of the 
decade. If we want smaller class sizes, it will be considerably more than that. 

There aren't that many students in the pipeline. 

We have problems attracting enough science teachers or enough teachers that have a 
comfort level with science that is sufficient. In fact, most of these teachers we need to get over the 
next eight to ten years will be called on to teach science because every elementary school teacher 
will be. 



It seems to me, just because of those numbers, we will have to do a much better job 
attracting and training midcareer teachers. 

With regard to standards for schools and for teachers, should they be different for teachers 
entering at midcareer, rather than entering immediately after their undergraduate program? 

Let me start with Mr. Cave, but perhaps others would have a thought on that. 

Mr. Cave. I think most of the states have either implemented alternative routes to certification or 
are considering alternative routes to certification; and yes, the standards should be different for 
those people. 

Mr. Holt. Let me be a little more specific. Some schools devote more of their effort to midcareer 
teachers than others. Should the standards for those schools be different? 

Mr. Cave. Probably should. And I can't tell you specifically what the differences in those 
standards ought to be right now, but they probably should be different. 

Mr. Holt. Dr. Mori or others? 

Mr. Mori. I would take a slightly different approach. I would say the standards shouldn't be 
different. 

I mean, we should have very high standards and everyone should meet those standards if 
they are going to be teaching someone's children, your children or grandchildren or my children or 




22 



18 



grandchildren. 

On the other hand, the approaches to preparing those people for the teaching profession 
would differ greatly, I would think, in the way you work with people who have been successful in 
other careers and who are clearly adult learners versus what you have with typical undergraduates. 

So the approaches would be different, but the standards should not be diminished at all. 
They should be the same for both the undergraduate pathway and any of the alternative routes. 

And I would add that most universities, and Cal State LA, I think, and this is particularly true in the 
California State University in general; we have alternative pathways to the teaching credential 
within our college of education. There are many pathways. 

We have interns, we have preintems, we have folks working on emergency permits, and 
then we have the traditional programs and we have the undergraduate programs. We work 
collaboratively with the school districts on intern programs. So I believe we have clearly embraced 
the notion that alternative programs are the only way we are ever going to, along with traditional 
ones, meet this tremendous demand in the next 10 years. 

But each of those programs I mentioned has the same high standards for admission, 
completion, and exit at graduation, but the approaches vary widely. 

Mr. Holt. In the short time remaining, let me change the subject here. 

It is a great pleasure to see Kurt Landgraf, my constituent and the leader of a fine 
institution. You suggest that colleges and universities report data on all of their students, rather 
than just graduates of the education schools. Is this partly an effort to deal with what you call the 
"gaming of the system" where education schools might inflate their rates? What is your reasoning 
behind that recommendation? 

Mr. Landgraf. It is not all graduates. I think we have to be very, very concerned with the fact that 
we have to ensure that we do not water down or lower our standards; rather, we ensure that each 
state administers these tests fairly and uniformly, and as Ms. Ashby talked about, ensuring that 
there is a very clear set of guidelines, ensuring that we look at all students who are admitted into 
these programs, not just those students who complete the colleges of education or the college 
curriculum and then take the test. 

I might just comment if I could take two more minutes on this, that this is a complex 
problem. 

Mr. Holt. Maybe one more minute. 

Mr. Landgraf. A complex problem as discussed, but it is like any managerial problem, that you 
don't achieve incremental improvements by watering down standards. Rather, you must take into 
account the kinds and types of resources that you apply against the problem. We have to pay our 
teachers better, provide them with better training and development tools, and ensure that they are 





19 



compensated and rewarded for outstanding performance. 

Watering down the standard is exactly contrary to everything we know and trust in this 

society. 

Mr. Holt. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman McKeon. Mr. Isakson. 

Mr. Isakson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Mori, first of all, California is doing very creative things. I can't remember the name of 
the system. It is in the Sacramento area. They have what is known as The Academy, which is 
proving very successful in bringing teachers. 

I know LA is doing the same, and in your testimony, you talked about one of the goals of 
your college of education being to measure the effect of teaching practices in real-world 
classrooms. I would like for you to react to a proposal I have, which I believe would dramatically 
reduce immediately the teacher shortage. It would not cost the public schools or colleges any 
money, and it would improve greatly the understanding of the real-world classroom, and it is as 
follows. 

What if we required every professor and every teacher in every college of education in the 
United States of America to teach at least one out of every four years in the public schools? They 
remain at their pay grade paid by the college. One out of every four years they went and taught in 
their field, which obviously they would meet the certification standard, or you wouldn't hire them. 
What would you think of that idea? 

Dr. Mori. Well, Congressman, I am not certain that that necessarily would reduce the teacher 
shortage. One of the problems we face right now is that there is clearly a shortage of individuals 
who are willing to become professors of education. And part of our problem in ramping up and 
producing more and better-qualified teachers is that we don't have enough faculty to do that job. 
And that is even using highly qualified adjunct faculty that we hire from local school districts to 
work on our faculty, to assist us to produce more and better teachers. 

Our faculty works in public schools a lot. They do professional development there. We 
actually offer some of our preparation courses there. So I think that there is an effort, a substantial 
effort to ensure that our people are on the cutting edge of what is happening in classrooms. 

We do not have an ivory tower syndrome, at least not at Cal State LA. Our people are 
working at the Professional Development Schools, side by side with the teachers, master teachers 
and mentor teachers from LA Unified. 








20 



So I am not critical of your proposal. I think it has great merit. What I worry about is the 
fact that we are facing at the university level a shortage of individuals who wish to become 
professors, as well as there is a shortage of people willing to become teachers. 

Mr. Isakson. Well, I appreciate the response and certainly don’t take anything to be critical. I will 
tell you, from just reading your testimony, I don't think this would include your college of 
education, but my experience is that there are many colleges of education where there is a dramatic 
disconnect between the real-world classroom of 2002 and those faculties. And that is why we lose 
so many teachers in years one through three, because they are not prepared for what they are about 
to see. 



And although I was not aware there was a shortage of professors in colleges of education, 
and I probably should have been, nonetheless, I think it would be a great practice. 

And thank you very much, Dr. Mori. 

My other comment is to compliment Rush’s constituent, Mr. Landgraf. Your four 
recommendations that you made for recommending enhancement of the teaching profession are 
exactly, absolutely 100 percent correct. 

And I hope everybody on the committee will take time to read those four points because, in 
my paraphrasing, in particular he recommends that we measure not just their knowledge of the 
content, but their ability to teach, which is so important; and second, that there be multiple ways; 
this is a guy that sells testing, and he is telling you he wants multiple ways of evaluating teacher 
quality, which tells me this is very unselfish testimony and very accurate testimony. 

So, all of you were great. And as the lady from GAO told us, it is going to be 10 years 
before we know whether or not we are doing any good with this, because they don't have enough 
longitudinal data to determine. But I think Mr. Landgraf is right on target on those four points, 
starting on page 13, and I commend you for that. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman McKeon. Thank you. 

Mr. Miller. 

Mr. Miller. Thank you very much and I want to thank all the members of the panel. I think your 
testimony today is very, very helpful to us. 

If I might start with Mr. Cave, when we wrote Title II, we knew what we wanted to do. We 
didn't know how it was going to turn out. And I have to tell you that when I looked through your 
testimony, and I looked at the steps that Kentucky has taken in sort of the self-criticism and 
examination of what you were doing and what you now think you had to do to respond to that, I 
can't think of a better process, if I had thought federal legislation was going to drive a better 



21 



process than what you have gone through and how the state has responded. 

Others decided they could run a 100 percent pass rate by us. That is not going to work, and 
we will get back to Title II, and we will work with the Department of Education over this next 
process in the Higher Education Act. 

I had a chance to meet with Mr. Landgraf earlier, and I said this is sort of breaking down 
both in Title II here and Leave No Child Behind. There are two schools: those who want to run up 
the white flag right now in the first year, and they did that in Title II, too, and then there is a set of 
schools and states that are interested in seeing whether or not they can use this as an opportunity. 
And it is amazing, the difference of approach in both of those. 

And the one that truly saddens me, as a public policy-maker is when I hear people say, it is 
too much, we can't do this. And yet we have demonstrated every day in the popular press in 
districts and states that are sort of grabbing the bull by the horns and saying, Okay, this is what the 
law is; this is what we are going to have to do, now let us get on with it. 

And I would just commend, and I am going to send your testimony around to all the 
members of the committee, because all of us have people within our own states suggesting that 
somehow this can't be done, or we can't meet the goal, or whatever. 

And I also accept your admonishment that some funding would help there, too. But I had to 
get it started here. So thank you very much for that. 

Mr. Mori, or both of you from Cal State, one of the concerns we had with emergency 
credentialed teachers was that emergency credentialed teachers were allowed to stay in the system 
for many years. Even if you could hide out, if you were challenged, you could move on to another 
school within the district or another district. And then they lost track of you and you could spend 
another three or four years with kids when you were under certified, and I think, in many cases, just 
under qualified. 

And I notice in the Kentucky discussion they talk about, if I understand it right, that they 
will be able to follow specific teaching and administrative candidates from program admission to 
program exit throughout their education careers, if they continue to be employed in Kentucky. 

One of my concerns with the state board draft on highly qualified teachers was, there was a 
point of entry, but I didn't see the point of where it ended. And I am worried that we are now 
starting to accept prein terns and interns as euphemisms for emergency credentialed teachers, and 
enrollment in the program is enough, if the state board had their way. And I don't think they are 
going to have their way now, but if they had their way, that enrollment, in and of itself, sort of, you 
became highly qualified; you never had to finish. 

Now, I read what you are talking about here in the Career Ladder Programs, that these all 
have conclusions to them; and that is a real concern I have. Because whether or not, when you 
think about developing highly qualified teachers, and I agree with what you said this morning, I 
want that high standard, I accept multiple pathways. But at the end of the day, the state is going to 







6 



22 



have to certify to the parents that this teacher is, in fact, a highly qualified standard as devised 
under federal law. 

Can we get there with these programs, either one of you at Cal State? You work on a 
different aspect of it? 

Mr. Brandick. I should clarify; I am from the Los Angeles Unified School District. 

I think no matter what you lay out as requirements for permits, there are always going to be 
certain ways people can drag this situation out longer. 

The way that we have attacked it in my particular kind of program is the way that you select 
and recruit candidates to become teachers, because the people we have been selecting from the 
community, the paraeducators, the teacher assistants, they have been in the classroom, and they 
know about the job; and then, when they decide to become teachers, they are committed to that 
profession. 

We have had people that have been on emergency permit, but in two years they finish. And 
I think a big issue is that the problem is so large and we need so many people that we sometimes 
bring people in that aren't committed to becoming teachers, and they are always going to find a way 
to drag the situation out. Anyone who is committed to becoming a teacher is going to try and find 
the quickest path that they can to that certification. 

Mr. Miller. I am interested in whether or not LA Unified will be able to keep track of these people 
to see if, in fact, they have finished up? I understand there is a transition here, and I understand 
that we are saddled with a caseload that we inherited when we passed the law, but I can't accept 
that we are going to keep doing it the way we were doing it and keep lamenting the problem that 
was created. 

The problem of 40,000 teachers in California was created because nobody was paying 
attention to what these people were doing. Some of these people were in the system a considerable 
period of time. Nobody bothered to ask them to move on and finish their work. 

Mr. Brandick. Congressman, in terms of keeping track of people, one of the things we are putting 
in place right now is all the data systems necessary to keep track of all the credentialing and the 
experiences of all the teachers that we have, all 40,000 current teachers in Los Angeles Unified. 
Yes, we are keeping track of the teachers, and we are also doing everything we can to increase our 
district intern programs, our university intern programs, improve our preintem programs, and find 
other ways to get the people credentialed as quickly as we can. 

So we are attacking it from a number of different angles. 

Mr. Miller. That is helpful. 

I think when the committee had this under consideration, certainly when the president 
talked about this, the development of this data wasn't just to make work, it was so that this data 



23 



could be used for cross-purposes. So, you know, as we look at the disaggregation of data of 
children, as we follow those children, we also want to know what teachers those children 
experienced during their career and whether they received the "value added" or not, or whether we 
now have to go back and maybe we have a weak link among these teachers. 

It is about getting real-time data so you can attack the problem in real time, whether it is the 
data on how the student is performing or what their weaknesses or their strengths are, or whether it 
is about how this teacher is performing. 

This isn’t about trying to punish people. I mean, a lot of high stakes have been attached to 
all this. I am more interested in seeing if we can get to that person in real time, or help them with 
their skills whether they are a teacher or student. 

And some people want to pretend that this is an attack on alternative credentialing. It is not. 
It is about, how do you do it and maintain the high standards, so we don't repeat under another 
guise what we just went through in the last 15, 20 years with accepting levels of people who just 
aren’t qualified to do the very best that we want for our children. 

So I am encouraged by what you say. You tell the state board it is all-possible. I have 
already given them enough. 

Mr. Mori. I was particularly heartened by your comments to the state board, which I read in the 
Los Angeles Times, and the state board was trying to define its way out of a problem and using a 
definition to try to address a situation, which they know is critical. 

And I would agree with Steve that we are working hard to address those issues; and the 
kinds of situations you described earlier of people bouncing around from district to district, that is 
about over now. And it is much more difficult to do that. 

We are doing a better job tracking our students internally, the districts are doing a much 
better job; and my belief is that many of those problems are going to disappear. But the state board 
is going to have to face up to the problem, and it is going to have to say what a highly qualified 
teacher is. And we are going to have to work together to actually address the terrible shortfall of 
individuals like that in California, and, believe me, it is a real shortfall. 

Mr. Miller. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having this hearing. 

Chairman McKeon. Thank you. And thank you for your little comments to the state board. I am 
also a Californian, and while we are from different sides of the aisle, we have worked very closely 
on this issue and are of a like mind that the students come first. Some way we have to get the job 
taken care of, and we have to look at a lot of new, creative things and ways to get that done. 



ERIC 




Mr. Ehlers. 



24 



Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If you would like me to talk to the Board of Education in 
California, I would be happy to do it, too. 

In response to Mr. Miller's comments, I agree with him that the emphasis should be on 
quality, because in my experience in working with teachers, both student and otherwise, I have 
seen some teachers without certificates who are highly qualified and also seen some unqualified 
teachers who have certificates. And I much prefer the use of the term "qualified," or perhaps even 
going beyond that, teachers who are "talented." I have also found huge differences in teachers 
from one classroom to another; and if you talk to the principals, they generally know who the good 
ones are and who the not-so-good ones are, but there is not a great deal they can do about it. 

What I wanted is to address the comments of a fellow physicist, Mr. Holt. You have the 
good fortune of having a congressional panel that is 40 percent research physicists and 100 percent 
of the physicists in the Congress. 

Mr. Holt. If you want to call that good fortune. 

Mr. Ehlers. Oh, come on stick up for us. Everyone else is against us, Rush. 

I want to follow up because in my work, I found that the greatest problem in schools of 
education were in those schools that had no contact whatsoever between the Department of 
Education and the academic departments, and I am very heartened to see that trend changing. For 
example, the University of Arizona is doing some outstanding work in this. We have two state 
universities in Michigan doing good work and there are some in Kansas. So the trend is changing. 

I think math and science education is the unwanted stepchild in many elementary school 
classrooms, and yet that is where the jobs of the future are. I tried to break that cycle as a professor 
of physics, and I became involved in elementary education in the college I was teaching at. Right 
now you have teachers who don't know math and science and are trying to teach math and science 
and generally not doing it that well, even though they really want to. 

I found, in my experience, they want to, but they are afraid of the subject and they don't 
know how to teach it well. And you trace it back to their college career. They didn't have courses 
that were related to this. There was no correlation with the education department. I believe that is 
absolutely essential if we are going to break this cycle. 

What I am particularly worried about is the culture of female students, and I have seen this 
over and over, who get the idea that they can't get science, they can't get math. And generally it is 
because they have a female teacher that says, well, I could never get it. We just have to address 
that problem. 

I am wondering in the whole process of testing, evaluation, certification and so forth, how 
much attention is being paid today as to whether or not the universities and schools of education 
are addressing that problem and, in fact, are working with the academic departments. And I am not 
criticizing the schools of educational alone, because I have castigated the academic departments, 
the math and science departments equally for not wanting to participate. In most cases, they look 





25 



with great disdain upon the education departments, the education department looks with disdain 
upon them, and nothing happens. 

Is there some way to help break that cycle through the certification process, through the 
schools of education accreditation process? 

And I appreciate any comments you would like to make on that. Mr. Cave. 

Mr. Cave. Kentucky has just recently received word that it has been funded under the Teacher 
Quality Enhancement Grant Program, and a major focus of our funding for that will be an effort to 
get colleges or teacher education institutions to come on board; and I think all of them will. And 
they will come on board to do a curriculum alignment of all courses that prospective teachers will 
be taking at those colleges and universities, be they in their specialty area or in education. 

That curriculum alignment will be aligned in three ways. It will be aligned with our new 
teacher standards in Kentucky, and our new teacher standards in Kentucky are aligned with the 
standards of the learned societies for teacher educators like the National Science Teachers 
Association, the American Chemical Society, and the curriculum will be aligned with the content 
that is covered in the content that is covered in our ETS test for that specialty area. 

Mr. Cave. And, finally, those curriculums will be aligned with some of the testing that is done in 
those courses, to be similar in style and format to the way the practice test is given. And I think 
those three things that we are going to do in Kentucky, using the enhancement grant, will do a lot 
to help us really cement that cooperation between colleges and education and the arts and science 
colleges, and do a great, great service to the State of Kentucky in improving the quality of teacher 
education. 

Mr. Ehlers. Well, that is good news. 

Before we have other comments, let me correct the record. I think I said the University of 
Arizona. I should have said Arizona State University, and I ask that the record be corrected to 
show that before I get 10,000 letters from Arizona State University. 

Any other comments anyone wants to make on this? 

Mr. Mori. Congressman, I would like to say that for colleges of education that were accredited 
initially by organizations like NCADE that kind of cooperation you spoke about has existed for a 
long time. And colleges of education and faculty and the disciplines work together to strengthen 
subject matter, understanding and knowledge. Recent changes in California now require that as 
well. So all institutions, at least in California, whether they are nationally accredited or not, had to 
redesign the subject matter portion of the preparation for people seeking elementary teaching 
credentials. And what it did do was, of course, now it is all standards-based, outcomes-based, but it 
did strengthen in substantial ways math content and science content, both. 

Now, we have been doing that for a long time. I am pleased to say we had increased the 
amount, the number of math courses and science courses that elementary teachers had to take 



26 



before they ever got to taking the courses in teaching methods. And, of course, we do those side by 
side; as I mentioned earlier, they are taken concurrently so faculty members in science and math 
work with professors in education who are teaching math as experts, so that the way in which 
people are taught science has that real-world application piece to it. 

Mr. Ehlers. And is this true of elementary education, as well as secondary? Because my 
experience is that most schools do have a good program cooperating on the secondary education 
training, but not on the elementary. 

Mr. Mori. And I was speaking to elementary. And so that is, of course, I would agree with you, at 
the secondary level, it probably happened a long time ago and elementary is more recent. But 
clearly it is happening there. 

Mr. Ehlers. Okay. Anyone else wish to comment? 

Mr. Brandick. Dr. Mori did refer to the elementary, and standards there help with that; but the 
secondary, there is the issue of finding the recruits that would be going into science and math 
education. There is the Transition to Teaching Federal grants, we have one called Project Master, 
and they are promising. But it appears that people that come from other professions may or may 
not become very good teachers. And from my perspective, it would be wonderful if we could have 
at the secondary level teachers being assisted by paraeducators in math and science classrooms, and 
those people would become the candidates to become math and science teachers, and you would 
have people who would be already deciding. 

Because a big issue with math and sciences, we are always looking for people to change 
careers. They did not quite make it into med school, but maybe they could be a science teacher. 
They did not become an engineer; maybe they could be a math teacher. And what I would like to 
see is people deciding in high school or earlier in their college career that they want to teach math 
and they want to teach science in high school and secondary. 

And we could use the same idea with the paraeducator career ladder to identify and prepare 
math and science teachers early on. 

Mr. Ehlers. The biggest problem, I think, there is the salaries after they get out. And I have been 
arguing for some time that we live in a market economy and every sector of the economy, other 
than the schools, you meet the competition. You cannot expect to get good math and science 
teachers in the schools for half the amount they can earn elsewhere. They are willing to work for 
less money, but not 50 percent of what they can get elsewhere. And so I think it is essential to 
increase the compensation for them all, assuming that they are good teachers. 

I have taken too much of my time already. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your leeway. 

Chairman McKeon. i was wondering when you would see that red light there. 





A 



27 



Mr. Ehlers. That is what happens when you have been a teacher as long as I have. You do not 
quit unless the bell rings. 

Chairman McKeon. I want to thank all of our witnesses for being here today, for your valuable 
time; and as we go through the process of reauthorizing the Higher Education Act in the next 
Congress, I would encourage you to be involved with us. 

We have set up a Web site and we have asked for input. If you would log onto that and 
send something to us, then you will be in the chain as we have items that we are dealing with, and 
we will keep you informed. And I would encourage you to do that. 

There is no further business now. The subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:20 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 




32 



29 



APPENDIX A - OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN HOWARD P. 
"BUCK" MCKEON, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 21 st CENTURY 
COMPETITIVENESS, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE 
WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, 
D.C. 




82-897 D-2 



33 



31 



Opening Statement of Howard P. “Buck” McKeon 
Chairman 

Subcommittee on 21®* Century Competitiveness 

Hearing on “Training Tomorrow’s Teachers: Ensuring a Quality 
Postsecondary Education” 

Wednesday, October 9, 2002 



Good afternoon. I want to express my appreciation to our witnesses for 
joining us here today to talk about a very important topic - ensuring that we have 
quality teachers for our nation's children. 

We all know that the effect of a good teacher on a child’s life is tremendous 
and far-reaching. To this end, over the last few years, Congress has worked 
diligently to ensure that the best and the brightest teachers are teaching our 
children. For example, the President's No Child Left Behind Act, signed into law 
last year, requires.each State educational agency to develop a plan to ensure that all 
teachers teaching in core academic subjects within the State are highly qualified 
not later than the end of the 2005-2006 school year. Over the next decade, school 
districts will need to hire over 2 million additional teachers to keep up with 
increased student enrollment. It is our job to make sure they are qualified teachers. 

With that said, many forget that the Higher Education Act also includes 
several provisions to improve the quality of the current and future teacher force by 
improving the preparation of prospective teachers and enhancing professional 
development activities. Through Teacher Quality Enhancement Grants for States 
and Partnerships enacted in 1 998, Congress aimed to recruit highly qualified 





32 



individuals, including individuals from other occupations, into the teaching force 
and to hold institutions of higher education accountable for preparing teachers. 

With the passage of these provisions, our commitment to improving teacher 
quality is clear. We have enhanced our efforts to improve the education that 
children receive, particularly the education that disadvantaged students and 
students with disabilities receive. We have also provided additional resources for 
teacher training and assured quality through accountability measures. 

As we move into the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act next year, 
we will need to learn as much as we can from each of you, and others, as to the 
effect the Title II provisions have on improving teacher quality and what else we 
may be able to do to ensure that every student in this country has a qualified and 
committed teacher. 

I know we are asking a great deal of our teachers; they have a very difficult, 
yet extremely important job. Therefore, we want to do our part to help teachers, 
school districts and postsecondary institutions work together, so that no child is left 
behind. 

I believe we all have the same goal here — to ensure that our children are 
taught by highly qualified teachers. In order to do that, we want to encourage 
students to enter the teaching field, provide them the tools necessary to ensure that 
they are highly qualified and make sure postsecondaiy institutions providing 
teacher training are providing the best education possible. 




3 



5 



33 



Again, I thank you all for joining us today and look forward to your 
testimony. 





35 



APPENDIX B- WRITTEN OPENING STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE 
JOHN F. TIERNEY, SUBCOMMITTE ON 21 st CENTURY 
COMPETITIVENESS, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE 
WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 





37 



John F. Tierney Opening Statement 
21 s ' Century Subcommittee Hearing on 
“Training Tomorrow’s Teachers: 
Ensuring a Quality Postsecondary Education” 
October 9, 2002 



Thank you Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to welcome our witnesses as I am looking forward to hearing their thoughts 
about preparing our teachers to best serve our children in the classroom. You will provide 
valuable insight as our committee builds a record in preparation for the reauthorization of 
the Higher Education Act and address teacher quality in 21 st century classrooms. 

Training our teachers of tomorrow — what does that mean? 

First off, newly hired teachers must be fully qualified and, where existing teachers may 
be teaching out of subject, or not fully qualified, we must recognize our responsibility 
through professional development and technology to support teachers’ efforts to be fully 
qualified. Teachers must be supported in ways that enhance the profession and attract 
new participants, not scapegoated for educational shortcomings or deprived of the 
materials and needed for continuing development. Teachers should be compensated not 
only on the basis of their qualification level, but also for the time and care involved in 
preparing and doing their jobs well. 

Our education system is faced with a tremendous challenge to put qualified teachers in 
the classroom. Although it is not the subject of the hearing today, alternative certification 
is a subject that bears some weight as we seek to place qualified teachers in the 
classroom. 

I would like to take this opportunity and talk about some legislation I have been working 
on to attract teachers through alternative paths. Alternative Paths to Teaching (APT) 
seeks to find the best and the brightest professionals and prepare them to teach in those 
fields they have earned a degree. In addition, it establishes a means to attract 
professionals with a strong track record in a given field to change careers and teach that 
subject. To ensure fully qualified teachers in the classroom, intensive training 
preparation would be offered to these non-traditional job applicants prior to their entering 
the classroom. The teachers would have extensive mentoring and sound professional 
development provided to support the classroom experience. While graduating college 
students would be the prime candidates for these alternative programs, those seeking to 
change careers might also be attracted to teaching, particularly those with much needed 
expertise in math and science. 




BEST COPY AVAILABLE 



38 



Title II of the Higher Education Act (HEA) authorizes several programs devoted to 
training quality teachers in our elementary and secondary schools. In 1996, when 
Congress first began to address the reauthorization of HEA, the National Commission on 
Teaching and America’s Future issued a report on the recruitment and training of 
teachers which largely influenced the teacher training provisions in HEA. The 1998 
reauthorization of HEA included the core elements of improved pre-service training, 
higher standards for teacher training programs, and mentoring programs. Title II created 
Teacher Quality Enhancement Grants, which established new accountability 
requirements and created new grant programs to help schools of education improve. 
States and schools are required to publish information about teacher licensing and 
certification policies and procedures under Title II accountability requirements. The 
Secretary of Education must collate the state and institutional information and publish an 
annual report on teacher quality. 

This past June, the Secretary of Education issued its first annual report on the state of 
teacher quality, emphasizing the need for greater alternative certification. The report 
charges that schools of education are failing to produce the types of highly qualified 
teachers that the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) requires. The NCLB Act mandates 
that new Title I teachers must be certified and demonstrate subject matter competence. 
The Act also mandates that, by the end of the 2005-2006 school year, all teachers must be 
highly qualified in core academic subjects. As I have expressed my concerns about some 
of the policies set forth in No Child Left Behind Act, there can be improvement in the 
training of teachers. 

Congress has much to consider as we reauthorize the Higher Education Act. Earlier, I 
spoke about alternative certification of teachers. I have concerns about institutions 
allowing students to graduate, which fail to pass teacher certification exams. We also 
need to look at the recruitment of minorities to teach. We have much to explore in the 
area of training our teachers of tomorrow. 

Again, I would like to thank the witnesses for testifying today. I look forward to hearing 
their statements. 




ERiC 



39 



APPENDIX C - STATEMENT OF CORNELIA M. ASHBY, DIRECTOR OF 
EDUCATION, WORKFORCE, AND INCOME SECURITY ISSUES, 
GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 



O 

ERIC 




GAO 



For Release on Delivery 
Expected at 2:00 p.m. 
Wednesday, October 9, 2002 



United States General Accounting Office 

Testimony 

Before the Subcommittee on 21st Century 
Competitiveness, Committee on Education and the 
Workforce, U.S. House of Representatives 



TEACHER TRAINING 
PROGRAMS 

Activities Underway to 
Improve Teacher Training, 
but Information Collected 
To Assess Accountability 
Has Limitations 



Statement of Cornelia M. Ashby, Director 
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues 




GAO 

[^Accountability * Integrity * Reliability 



BEST COPY AVAILABLE 



GAO-03-197T 



42 



i GAO 

^^g ^AccountabtlHv*tnfqTlty*Rall«toiltty 

Highlights 



United States General Accounting Office October 2002 

TEACHER TRAINING PROGRAMS 
Activities Underway to Improve Teacher 
Training, but Information Collected to 
Assess Accountability Has Limitations 

Highlights of GAOO3-107T, a testimony before the Subcommittee on 21“ Century Competitiveness, 
Committee on Education and the Workforce, U S. House of Representatives 



Why GAO Did This Study 

In 1998, the Congress amended 
the Higher Education Act (IIEA) 
to enhance the quality of 
teaching in the classroom by 
improving training programs for 
prospective teachers and the 
qualifications of current teachers. 
This testimony focuses on two 
components of the legislation: 
one that provides grants and 
another, called the 
“accountability provisions,” that 
requires collecting and reporting 
information on the quality of all 
teacher training programs and 
qualifications of current teachers. 
The Subcommittee asked that we 
provide information on (1) 
activities grantees supported and 
what results are associated with 
these activities and (2) whether 
the information collected under 
the accountability provisions 
provides the basis to assess the 
quality of teacher training 
programs and the qualifications 
of current teachers. 



What GAO Found 

Education has approved or awarded 123 grants to states and partnerships 
totaling over $460 million dollars. Grantees have used funds for activities 
they believe will improve teaching in their locality or state, but it is too 
early to determine the grants' effects on the quality of teaching in the 
classroom. While the law allows many activities to be funded under broad 
program goals outlined in the legislation, most grantees have focused their 
efforts on reforming requirements for teachers, providing professional 
development to current teachers, and recruiting new teachers. However, 
within these general areas, grantees' efforts vary. 




Early exposure to teaching Is a recruitment strategy used by several grantees. 

The information collected as part of the accountability provisions to 
report on the quality of teacher training programs and the qualifications of 
current teachers has limitations. The accountability provisions require that 
all institutions that train teachers who receive federal student financial aid 
provide information to their states on their teacher training programs and 
program graduates. In order to facilitate the collection of this information, 
the HEA required Education to develop definitions for terms and uniform 
reporting methods. Education officials told us that they made significant 
efforts to define these terms so tliat the terms incorporated the uniqueness 
of teacher training programs, state reporting procedures, and data 
availability. In doing so, Education defined some terms broadly. 

Education officials told us that this gave states and institutions discretion 
to interpret some terms as they wished — resulting in the collection and 
reporting of information that was not uniform; making it difficult to assess 
accountability. 



Our nation’s teachers are inextricably linked to student achievement. This 
bond lughlights the importance of teacher preparation programs. The 
grants and accountability provisions established by the HEA seek to 
improve teacher training, but information collected to assess 
accountability has limitations. 

The full testimony statement is available ar ww-w.gat).gi)v/rgi bin / gclrpt?GA003-I07T. For ndilitfoiial information about Ihis testimony, contact Cornell 
M. Ashby. (202-f)12-S1(W). 





43 



Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify on the preparation of teacher 
candidates and related provisions in Title li of the Higher Education Act 
(HEA). The Department of Education's National Center for Education 
Statistics recently reported that most teacher training programs leave new 
teachers feeling unprepared for the classroom. Because recent research 
reports that teachers are the most important factor in increasing student 
achievement, the quality of teacher training is critical. In 1998, the 
Congress amended the HEA to enhance the quality of teaching in the 
classroom by improving training programs for prospective teachers and 
the qualifications of current teachers. Among other purposes, Title II of 
the legislation provides teacher quality enhancement grants to states or 
partnerships and, under the “accountability provisions,” the legislation 
requires collecting and reporting information on the quality of teacher 
training programs and the qualifications of current teachers. 

Mr. Chairman, as you know, the Ranking Minority Member of the full 
Committee along with the Chairman, Senate Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor and Pensions, asked us to review some of the Title II 
provisions. We plan on issuing a report in December. Today I will briefly 
discuss our results relating to whether the grants and reporting 
requirements found in Title 11 of HEA are contributing to improving the 
quality of teaching in tire classroom. Specifically, I will discuss (1) Title II 
grantee activities and what results are associated with these activities and 
(2) whether the information collected under the accountability provisions 
provide the basis to assess the quality of teacher training programs and the 
qualifications of current teachers. To learn about grant activities, we 
surveyed 91 grantees, the total at the time of our survey, and conducted 33 
site visits' in 11 states — California, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, 
Massachusetts, Maryland, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Tennessee, 

Texas, and Wisconsin. Grantees in these states were selected because they 
represented almost half of the total grant funding at the time, were 
providing a range of grant activities, and were geographically dispersed. 

We also interviewed Education officials and experts on teaching and 
teacher training. In addition, we reviewed relevant literature, regulations, 
and department documents. We did our work between December 2001 and 



'in addition to the site visits, we conducted a brief interview with the director of another 
grant, the Renaissance Partnership for Improving Teacher Quality, which consists of 30 
institutions of higher education located in 10 different states. 



GAO-03-1 97T 



BEST COPY AVAILABLE 





44 



October 2002 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
standards. 



In summary 



Background 



Grantees have used their funds for activities they believe will improve 
teaching in their locality or state. While the law allows many activities to 
be funded under broad program goals outlined in the legislation, most 
grantees have focused their efforts on reforming requirements for 
teachers, providing professional development to current teachers, and 
recruiting new teachers. Within these general areas, grantees' efforts vary. 
However, it is too early to determine the grants’ effects on the quality of 
teaching in the classroom. 

The information collected as part of the accountability provisions to 
report on the quality of teacher training programs and the qualifications of 
current teachers has limitations. The accountability provisions require that 
all institutions that train teachers who receive federal student financial 
aid — not just those receiving teacher quality enhancement grants — provide 
information to their states on their teacher training programs and program 
graduates. In order to facilitate the collection of this information, the 
legislation required Education to develop key definitions for terms and 
unifonn reporting methods, including the definitions for the consistent 
reporting of “pass rates.” Education officials told us that they made 
significant efforts to define these terms so that the terms incorporated the 
uniqueness of teacher training programs, state reporting procedures, and 
data availability. In doing so, Education defined some terms broadly. 
Education officials told us that this gave states and institutions discretion 
to interpret some terms as they wished — resulting in the collection and 
reporting of information that was not uniform; making it difficult to assess 
accountability. 



O'er $460 million has been approved or awarded or for grants under the 
L998 HEA amendments to enhance the quality of teacher training 
programs and the qualifications of current teachers. Three types of grants 
were made available — state, partnership, and recruitment grants. State 
grants are available for states to implement activities to improve teacher 
quality in the state. 2 The legislation requires that states receive a state 



2 All 50 states, Washington DC and 8 territories — the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, 
American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 
Islands, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the 
Republic of Palau — are considered states under the HEA. 

GAO-03-197T 




44 



grant only once and that the grants must be competitively awarded. 
Partnership grants must include at least three partners — teacher training 
programs, colleges of arts and sciences, and eligible local school 
districts 1 — to receive partnership grants to improve teacher quality 
tlirough collaborative activities. Partnerships may also include other 
groups, such as state educational agencies, businesses and nonprofit 
educational organizations, as partners. Recruitment grants are available to 
states or partnerships for activities, such as scholarships, to help recruit 
teachers. 

In addition to the grants, the 1998 HEA amendments include an annual 
reporting requirement on the quality of teacher training programs and the 
qualifications of current teachers. This component of the legislation, called 
the accountability provisions, requires an annual three-stage process to 
collect and report information in a uniform and comprehensible manner. 
The legislation requires that Education, in consultation with states and 
teacher training institutions, develop definitions and uniform reporting 
methods related to the performance of teacher training programs. In the 
first stage, nearly every institution that prepares teachers — not just those 
receiving teacher quality enhancement grants — is required to collect and 
report specific information to its state, including the pass rate of the 
institution’s “graduates" on state teacher certification examinations. Then, 
in the second stage, states are required to report to Education the pass 
rate information institutions reported in the first stage, supplemented with 
additional statewide information, including a description of state 
certification examinations and the extent to which teachers in the state 
are teaching on waivers— teaching without being fully certified. The third 
and final stage is comprised of a report to the Congress from the Secretary 
of Education on the quality of teacher training programs and the 
qualifications of current teachers. The first round of institutional reports 
were submitted to states in April 2001; subsequently, state reports were 
submitted to Education in October 2001. Using this information, the 
Secretary of Education reported to the Congress in June 2002J 



’School district eligibility is limited to those with (l) a high percentage of students whose 
families fall below the poverty line and (2) a high percentage of secondary school teachers 
not teaching in the content area in which the teachers were trained to teach, or a high 
teacher turnover rate. 

^U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, Meeting the Highly 
Qualified Teachers Challenge: 7 he Secretary's Annual Report on Teacher Quality, June 
2002 . 



(i AO-03-197T