xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam a22 u 4500
controlfield tag 008 c20029999azu 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E11-00290
Educational policy analysis archives.
n Vol. 10, no. 42 (October 14, 2002).
Tempe, Ariz. :
b Arizona State University ;
Tampa, Fla. :
University of South Florida.
c October 14, 2002
Legislating equity : the distribution of emergency permit teachers in California / Laura Goe.
Arizona State University.
University of South Florida.
t Education Policy Analysis Archives (EPAA)
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
mods:mods xmlns:mods http:www.loc.govmodsv3 xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govmodsv3mods-3-1.xsd
mods:relatedItem type host
mods:identifier issn 1068-2341mods:part
mods:detail volume mods:number 10issue 42series Year mods:caption 20022002Month October10Day 1414mods:originInfo mods:dateIssued iso8601 2002-10-14
1 of 36 Education Policy Analysis Archives Volume 10 Number 42October 14, 2002ISSN 1068-2341 A peer-reviewed scholarly journal Editor: Gene V Glass College of Education Arizona State University Copyright 2002, the EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS ARCHIVES .Permission is hereby granted to copy any article if EPAA is credited and copies are not sold. EPAA is a project of the Education Policy Studies Laboratory. Articles appearing in EPAA are abstracted in the Current Index to Journals in Education by the ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation and are permanently archived in Resources in Education .Legislating Equity: The Distribution of Emergency Permit Teachers in Ca lifornia Laura Goe University of California, BerkeleyCitation: Goe, L. (2002, October 14). Legislating e quity: The distribution of emergency permit teachers in California, Education Policy Analysis Archives 10 (42). Retrieved [date] from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n42/.AbstractThere is a significant negative relationship betwee n the percentage of teachers on emergency permits and student achieveme nt at the school level in California schools, after controlling for other student and school characteristics. Generally, the more emergency perm it teachers there are in a school, the lower the school's achievement. Th is phenomenon is examined in the context of other contributors to st udent achievement such as socio-economic status and school size. The effects of teacher distribution and school selection as contributing f actors are considered. In addition, policy and legislative initiatives rel ated to emergency permit teachers that have been recently debated in Califor nia will be discussed.
2 of 36Finally, a set of initiatives is proposed that atte mpt to decrease the need for emergency permit teachers and ensure that those that must be hired due to shortage conditions have the support they ne ed to become credentialed teachers.IntroductionClass size reduction, teacher retirement and attrit ion, and a burgeoning school-age population have all played roles in recent severe s hortages of qualified K-12 teachers throughout California (EdSource, 2001). One of the consequences of shortages of qualified personnel is that large numbers of teache rs have been hired on emergency permits. In the 2000-01, 34% of all first year teac hers in California were emergency permit (EP) teachers, and 10% of all California teachers held emergency permits (Note 1) As will be documented in this paper, EP teachers tend to be concentrated in schools with low standardized test scores, high percentages of minority students and English learners, and high percentages of students with fre e or reduced-price lunch status. Because of the correlation between high percentages of EP teachers in schools and low student test scores on standardized assessments suc h as the SAT-9, California legislators proposed several pieces of legislation in 2001 desi gned to limit the number of EP teachers in schools and districts. The proposed bil ls varied from an outright cap on the percentage of EP teachers in a district to complex formulas for determining the Â“teacher qualityÂ” in a given school and district accompanied by a plan to improve the quality of the teaching force. All of the proposals were desig ned to decrease the number of EP teachers employed by districts, and/or redistribute EP teachers where they are concentrated in low-performing schools.In this paper, I will 1) examine the current distri bution of emergency permit (EP) teachers; 2) discuss the association between EP tea chers and low test scores; 3) consider current legislative solutions to the EP teacher Â“pr oblemÂ” in California; 4) discuss how the policy system can influence teacher distribution; 5 ) discuss the preparation available to teachers who are currently entering teaching on eme rgency permitsTeacher Credentials and QualityEmergency permit teachers California has been hard-pressed in recent years t o find enough fully credentialed teachers to fill its clas srooms. Shortages of qualified teachers are not spread across all schools and districts equ ally, and some schools and districts suffer more severely from hiring difficulties than others. Urban districts in particular have had difficulty recruiting sufficient numbers of qua lified teachers. The problem of recruiting teachers to work in urban schools is not confined to California, and urban areas in many states have faced similar shortages (Fidele r, Foster, & Schwartz, 2000). Urban schools frequently hire EP teachers to fill their s taffing needs after exhausting other teacher hiring mechanisms (Note 2) Teacher quality. Since legislation passed in 1990 making it possibl e for teachers to begin K-12 teaching careers without full credentials, the re has been ongoing concern about the quality of EP teachers. Studies in California have suggested that the students most in need of qualified, highly trained teachers are leas t likely to get them (Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning, 2001; Public Polic y Institute of California, 2000;
3 of 36Shields et al., 2001). The students generally consi dered most in need of highly qualified teachers are those attending schools where student standardized test scores are low and where there are large percentages of low-income stu dents and/or minority students and English learners. Teacher quality and student achievement. As shown in Figure 1 below the percentage of EP Teachers increases monotonically as student achi evement (using school API scores (Note 3) ) decreases. Thus, the top-performing schools in th e state (Decile 10), have about 5% EP teachers on average, though many schools in t his decile have no EP teachers. Conversely, schools in the lowest performing school s in the state (Decile 1) have an average of about 23% EP teachers, though there are some schools with more than half the faculty teaching on emergency permits. It should be emphasized that the high correlation between having many EP teachers and having low test scores demonstrates an association but does not necessarily suggest a causal relationship. Figure 1. Relationship of CAP Performance Index and Percentage of EP Teachers Data Source: California Department of Education (se e Appendix A) Note: Decile 1 is lowest -performing, Decile 10 is highest -performing Figure 1 demonstrates the relationship between perc entages of EP teachers and decile rankings on California's Academic Performance Index Data for EP teachers and state rankings are based on school year 1999-2000.Research has shown that teaching has an important a nd substantial impact on student achievement. A study using Texas data matching stud ent gain scores to teachers demonstrated that individual teachers have a much s tronger influence on student achievement than previously suspected (Hanushek, 19 98). But does teacher credentialing
4 of 36matter? Many studies suggest that uncredentialed te achers are less effective in the classroom than teachers with credentials as measure d by student achievement. (Darling-Hammond, 1994; Darling-Hammond, 2000; Fetl er, 1999; Fuller, 2000; Goldhaber & Brewer, 2000; Hawk, Coble, & Swanson, 1 985). While it is difficult to prove a causal connection between EP teachers and poor student ac hievement, (Note 4) there is strong and substantial evidence of a corre lation between these variables, even after other potential sources of influence, such as socioeconomic status of students and other school resources, are taken into account.Some researchers contend that there is insufficient empirical evidence to claim that having teacher certification results in better teac hing and higher student achievement (Ballou & Podgursky, 1999; Goldhaber & Brewer, 1996 2000, 2001; Hanushek, 1994). The lack of consensus among education researchers i s an indication of how difficult it is for observational research to establish connections between particular teacher qualities and qualifications (such as credentials) and partic ular student outcomes (such as test scores).Even if it is possible to connect student achieveme nt with particular teachers, it is more difficult to establish which particular practices, strategies, skills, knowledge, communication ability, etc. contributed to the stud ents' achievement, whether good or bad. Further, the school conditions and context in which teachers work may have a substantial impact on their ability to teach effect ively. And since many EP teachers work in schools where facilities are inadequate, teachin g resources are scarce, and teaching conditions are difficult, it is hard to determine w hat percentage of a students' test scores are related to teacher credentialing and what perce ntage are related to extraneous factors in the classroom or school.Researchers who are concerned about the quality of EP teachers realize that more research needs to be done in this area. The questio n to be considered in looking closely at EP teachers' impact on student achievement is Â“ How does certification matter?Â” As Darling-Hammond has pointed out, it is crucial to d etermine what certification actually means in terms of different qualities and performan ce among teachers (Darling-Hammond, Berry, & Thoreson, 2001).Some states (Tennessee, for example) have developed or are developing student-level record-keeping systems that should allow researcher s to better examine the effects of teachers on students (Anderson, 1998). Texas has al so made matched student and teacher data available to interested researchers. With such data, student achievement information can then be further examined with reference to the certification of the teachers. Unfortunately, California is years away from implem enting a student-level tracking system that will allow individual student achieveme nt to be tracked by teacher and school. Thus, further exploration of the associatio n between credentials and student achievement is still a long way off for California.Teacher qualifications States vary widely in the qualifications they deman d of teachers. California relies heavily on a single test, the CBEST (California Basic Educa tion Skills Test) as the initial gateway into teaching,. Credentialed teachers must also pass subject matter tests or complete a subject matter approved program, a test of reading knowledge, and complete
5 of 36other teacher education requirements, but these req uirements do not pertain to the nearly 40,000 teachers on emergency permits or waivers. Ca lifornia places less importance on graduation from an approved preparation program or having a teacher credential than almost any other state, ranking second-to-last in t he nation (just ahead of Florida) in the percentage of districts demanding these qualificati ons (46.4%) (National Center for Education Statistics, 2002). California is moving t owards performance evaluation and induction as requirements for teacher credentialing but little evidence exists about how induction benefits new teachers, including those wi thout preservice preparation, or how performance evaluation helps ensure better teaching There are many factors that contribute to student a chievement that cannot be measured by whether or not teachers have clear credentials. Con sider that there are many schools in California that are Â“underperformingÂ” (Note 5) even though they do not have high percentages of EP teachers. An analysis of API scor es and percentages of EP teachers in schools reveals that 15% of California schools that were Â“underperformingÂ” in 1999-00 had below the median number of EP teachers. There w ere more than 200 schools that scored in the lowest two deciles of the API (consid ered seriously underperforming) yet had fewer than 8% EP teachers. And there were 60 sc hools in the lowest two deciles with 1% or fewer EP teachers. These findings illustrate the importance of considering teacher characteristics and qualifications besides teaching credentials that may contribute to student achievement.Teacher education and experience California's EP teachers have generally completed a BA or BS degree and passed the CBEST (California Basic Education Skills Test), but have not completed teacher preparation coursework or passed the required conte nt-area tests for teachers in California. While some EP teachers are transfers fr om out-of-state who teach on an emergency permit while completing California requir ements, most EP teachers are novices who have had no teacher training and who ha ve never taught in a K-12 public school. Many are recruited from teacher education p rograms before they have finished their coursework, a practice which was rampant in C alifornia after class size reductions in the 1996-97 school year and growth in the student p opulation in California resulted in some districts desperately scrambling for teachers.EP teachers not only lack specific teacher preparat ion coursework, they are also less likely to hold higher degrees such as masters' degr ees (Note 6) The evidence about whether teachers' overall education levels are corr elated with student test scores is mixed. For example, while some studies on teachers' educat ion levels have shown that having a master's degree has little effect student achieveme nt (Ferguson & Ladd, 1996; Monk, 1994; Wenglinsky, 2002), other studies have found s mall effects of teachers' education levels on student achievement (Ferguson, 1991; Publ ic Policy Institute of California, 2000).Teaching experience also has been found to ha ve variable effects on student achievement. Some studies find little effect (Monk, 1994; Wenglinsky, 2002), while others suggest that experience has a small overall effect on student achievement (Ferguson & Ladd, 1996; Sutton & Soderstrom, 1999). Other researchers have found that lack of teaching experience appears to have a negat ive impact in the first few years of teaching (Betts, Rueben, & Danenberg, 2000), but th at there is not a clear linear relationship between teaching experience and studen t achievement (Hanushek, 1998). Thus, while teaching experience and higher levels o f education are valuable to schools
6 of 36 and classrooms for many reasons (Note 7) the evidence about how these characteristics impact student performance is inconsistent. Subject-specific training may also be important to student test scores. Several studies have found that having subject-specific training ha s a significant impact on secondary math and science achievement (Fuller, 2000; Goldhab er & Brewer, 1996; Monk, 1994; Wenglinsky, 2002). Thus, ensuring that the teachers hired have an appropriate major or minor for the subject they are teaching may be at l east as important to student test scores as previous teaching experience or advanced degrees This is an important consideration in designing a plan for increasing student achievem ent through higher quality teaching. Pedagogical coursework has also been found to be as sociated with higher student achievement. Wenglinsky used multilevel structural equation modeling on NAEP data and found that some teacher inputs are positively c orrelated with student achievement (Wenglinsky, 2002). He found that particular profes sional development topics (higher-order thinking skills and methods of teachi ng diverse learners) were positively related to student achievement, as were specific cl assroom practices (hands-on learning and employing higher-order thinking skills). This s tudy could be construed as evidence that at least some pedagogical training matters, th ough it is not clear whether teacher preparation programs or professional development ar e better delivery systems for this training (Wenglinsky's measure included both colleg e coursework and in-service training). Similarly, Monk found that pedagogical t raining in subject matter methods was positively correlated with student achievement in m ath and science, sometimes even more strongly than subject matter knowledge (Monk, 1994). Ethnicity of California's EP teachersAs shown in Table 1, EP teachers in California are considerably more likely to be from a minority group than are fully credentialed teachers They are more than twice as likely to be Hispanic or Latino (26.1% vs. 10.7%), more than twice as likely to be African American (10.5% vs. 4.8%), and more likely to be As ian (4.4% vs. 3.9%), Pacific Islander (.3% vs. .2%), and Filipino (1.4% vs. .9%) EP teachers are slightly less likely to be American Indian (.6% vs. .7%), and considerably less likely to be white (55% vs. 77.9%). Table 1 Characteristics of California EP vs. Credentialed T eachers EP TeachersCredentialed Teachers % Doctorate .91.7 % Master's + 30 or more hours4.720.1% Master's degree7.917.5% Bachelor's + 30 or more hours27.246.0% Bachelor's degree only58.413.7
7 of 36 % Less than Bachelor's degree.7.6Years of service in district2.4611.72Years of teaching3.2514.70% Male 34.628.1 % Female 65.371.7 % American Indian/Alaska Native.6.7% Asian 4.43.9 % Pacific Islander.3.2% Filipino 1.4.9 % Hispanic or Latino26.110.7% African American, Not Hispanic10.54.8% White, Not Hispanic55.077.9% Multiple Race or No Response1.6.9% Authorized to teach English8.113.2% Authorized to teach Life Sciences4.74.8% Authorized to teach Mathematics6.96.2% Authorized to teach Physical Science3.73.3% Authorized to teach Special Education15.712.8% Authorized Reading Specialist.52.2% Authorized Bilingual Teaching4.310.1 Data Source: California Department of Education (se e Appendix A) The ethnic composition of California's schools is b ecoming increasingly more minority and less white. Thus, the greater number of minorit y teachers entering the profession through alternative pathways than through tradition al programs may be beneficial to California in terms of moving towards a teaching fo rce that is more representative of the students being taught. This is an important conside ration in planning ways to decrease the numbers of emergency permits while increasing diver sity among the teaching force. Further, it is interesting to note that, unlike whi te teachers, African-American and Hispanic teachers are less likely to transfer away from schools with high percentages of minority students and more likely to transfer into schools with even higher percentages of students of the same ethnic backgrounds as themselv es, regardless of the students' poverty or achievement (Note 8) (Hanushek, Kain, & Rivkin, 2001). It could be argu ed that recruiting more minority teachers into the tea ching force could result in the creation of more stable teaching staffs at schools with high percentages of African-American or Hispanic students.
8 of 36 Teacher DistributionGrade levels taught by EP teachers. EP teachers are most likely to be hired by a middl e school or junior high. One reason for this is that teachers are most likely to transfer away from, rather than into a middle school (Chester, Of fenberg, & Xu, 2001). These vacancies are then disproportionately filled with either new, recently credentialed teachers, or with teachers holding emergency permits. Second to middl e schools, EP teachers are most likely to work in high schools.The distribution of teachers nationally.Data from the National Center for Education Statist ics provides some insight into patterns of hiring by school characteristics (NCES, 1996). The data shows that newly hired teachers in urban schools are more likely to be beginning teachers, and newly hired teachers in urban fringe/large towns (i.e., the sub urbs), are more likely to be transfers. Even more striking is the breakdown of hiring patte rns by student socioeconomic status. The data shows that newly hired teachers in high po verty central city schools are far more likely to be beginning teachers than transfers. In addition, newly hired teachers at schools with 20% or more minority students are considerably more likely to be beginning teachers than transfers (Table 2). Table 2 National Distribution of Newly Hired Teachers (NCES Data) School and Student CharacteristicsBeginning Teachers Transfers Hired in Central City43.2%27.7%Hired in Urban Fringe/Large Town39.6%34.2%Hired in Central City school with 41-100% free/redu ced price lunch students 45.8%25.6% Hired in Urban Fringe/Large Town with 0-5% free/reduced price lunch students 36.2%42.3% Hired in Urban Fringe/Large Town with 41-100% free/reduced price lunch students 52.2%25.7% Hired in Rural/Small Town with 41-100% free/reduced price lunch students 56.028.5% Hired in schools with less than 20% minority studen ts42.8%35.7% Hired in schools with 20% or more minority students 46.2%29.0% Source: NCES (1996) Sources of Supply of Newly Hire d Teachers This national data can be construed as confirmation of what district level researchers are finding about teacher transfers, i.e., that they ar e transferring away from high-poverty, high-minority schools into schools with lower level s of poverty and fewer minority students (Chester et al., 2001). Research done at t he state level in New York reveals a
9 of 36 similar trend, with teachers moving away from schoo ls with mostly high poverty, low-achieving students and into schools with fewer minorities, less poverty, and better achievement (Lankford, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2001). Some of this effect appears to be due to the fact working conditions and salaries are fre quently also lower in these schools. In California, recent analyses suggest that these fact ors matter even more than student characteristics in predicting high levels of teache r turnover (Loeb, Darling-Hammond, & Luczak, 2002).The distribution of EP teachers across the state of California The statewide average of EP teachers per school was 11.5% (Note 9) in 1999-2000. But in urban schools, the average percentage of EP teac hers climbed to 14.6% for the same time period, compared to less than 7% in small town s and rural areas. Further details are shown in Table 3. This provides clear evidence that more EP teachers are finding employment in urban school districts, which are lik ely to be lower in student achievement and socio-economic status and higher in the percent age of minority students and English language learners. Table 4 divides the percentage o f EP teachers at schools into two halves at the median. This table confirms that scho ols with higher percentages of EP teachers are also likely to have nearly twice the p ercentages of African American and Hispanic students, and half the percentage of white students. Similarly, much higher percentages of EP teachers are found in schools wit h low income students. And in schools with higher percentages of EP teachers, the re are nearly twice as many English language learners. Table 3 Distribution of California EP Teachers by Populatio n Population StatusMean Percentage of EP TeachersN (s chools) Large City (pop > 250K) 14.611427 Mid-Size City (pop < 250K) 9.01973 Urban Fringe of Large City 11.813210 Urban Fringe of Mid-Size City9.47425Large Town (pop > 25K) 10.1833 Small Town (pop < 25K but >2500)6.25179Rural (pop < 2500) 6.94217 Data Source: California Department of Education (se e Appendix A) Table 4 California Student Characteristics by EP Teachers Emergency permit teachers above and below median 2000 API Score % African American % Hispanic % White % Low SES % English Language Learners
10 of 36 0-8% EP teachers (below median) 721.075.9026.2653.6137.1315.48 9-85% EP teachers (above median) 607.0910.7350.2226.3758.9430.24 Total664.248.3138.2140.0348.0022.84 Data Source: California Department of Education (se e Appendix A) EP teachers are more likely to find placements in s chools that are low-performing, which are more likely to be found in urban areas. Table 5 shows a crosstabulation of 2000 API scores divided into deciles and the population stat us for the schools. The table demonstrates that in large cities, schools are far more likely to appear in the lowest deciles of the API than in the highest. In the urba n fringe (i.e., suburbs) of large cities, more schools are found in the high end of the API d istribution. Table 5 California API Scores in Deciles by Population** API Scores by Deciles Large City (pop > 250K) Mid-Size City (pop < 250K) Urban Fringe of Large City (Suburbs) Urban Fringe of Mid-Size City 1st Decile: 346-493 314 (146.3)*71 (99.9)*215 (329.2)*44 (43.6)* 2nd Decile: 494-542 202 (139.0)*107 (94.9)*251 (312.9)*45 (41.4)* 3rd Decile: 543-589 158 (143)*115 (97.6)*290 (321.8)*41 (42.6)* 4th Decile: 590-628 132 (143.0)*124 (97.6)*299 (321.8)*54 (42.6)* 5th Decile: 629-665 106 (143.9)*123 (98.2)*317 (323.8)*46 (42.9)* 6th Decile: 666-703 104 (141.0)*100 (96.3)*332 (317.3)*45 (42.0)* 7th Decile: 704-741 99 (144.3)*94 (98.5)*341 (324.8)*46 (43.0)* 8th Decile: 742-785 96 (141.5)*92 (96.6)*335 (318.3)*55 (42.1)*
11 of 36 9th Decile: 786-836 115 (144.6)*68 (98.7)*395 (325.3)*37 (43.1)* 10th Decile: 837-969 101 (140.4)*80 (95.8)*436 (315.8)*12 (41.8)* *First number is observed value; number in parentheses is expected value. **Large and small towns and rural areas excluded du e to relatively small counts. Data Source: California Department of Education (se e Appendix A) The percentage of EP teachers is correlated with st udent, teacher, and school characteristics as well, as shown in Table 6. The P earson correlation between the percentage of EP teachers in a school and the perce ntage of students on free or reduced price lunch is .439, and the correlation between th e percentage of EP teachers in a school and the percentage of Hispanic students is .493. Bo th correlations are significant at the .01 level (one-tailed). These correlations suggest that Hispanic students and low-income students are more likely to be taught by EP teacher s than students from other ethnic groups and students from higher-income families. Table 6 California EP Teachers Correlated with Selected Stu dent, Teacher, and School Characteristics % EP Teachers % African-American students.243**% Asian students-.094**% Hispanic students.493**% Students on free/reduced price lunch.439**% Parents not high school graduates.378**% Parents that attended graduate school-.281**% 1st year teachers .401** School Size .148** **Correlation is significant at the .01 level (1-ta iled) Data Source: California Department of Education (se e Appendix A) The distribution of EP teachers within districtsBesides the substantial variation in the distributi on of EP teachers across the state, variation is also found within districts. A distric t may have vast differences in
12 of 36 percentages of EP teachers found in particular scho ols. For example, the distribution of EP teachers in Visalia Unified School District's el ementary schools ranges from zero to 20%, with a mean of 6.56% (Note 10) In many cases, the percentages of EP teachers are h igh throughout the entire district. For instance, Buena Vista Elementary District, Columbin e Elementary District, Ravenswood City Elementary District, and Compton Unified Schoo l DistrictÂ—all districts serving predominantly minority studentsÂ—had 1999-2000 avera ges of 50% or more EP teachers for the district. That year, Compton Unified had th e dubious honor of having the highest percentage of EP teachers in California, with an av erage of 56.29% EP teachers district-wide, and a high of 85% EP teachers in one school! However, as Table 7 shows, there are a far greater number of districts with fewer than 10% EP teachers than districts with more than 10% EP teachers. New Haven Unified School Dis trict, well known for its emphasis on teacher quality and aggressive recruitm ent of the best teachers (Note 11) had the distinction in 1999-2000 of having the smallest percentage of EP teachers in the state. However, other districts, such as San Diego Unified have recently changed their hiring policies to eliminate or curtail the numbers of EP teachers hired. San Diego Unified will no longer hire teachers on emergency permits. Table 7 Distribution of EP Teachers by District in Californ ia Number of Districts% EP Teachers 450% or more 1830-40%7120-30% 18810-20%387Fewer than 10% Data Source: California Department of Education (se e Appendix A) Redesignation of EP teachers as Pre-Interns.It is interesting to note that a change in credenti aling designations which recently occurred in California has led to the appearance of a decrease in EP teachers. The change is the addition of a new category called Â“pre-inter n,Â” which is the next step up from emergency permit on the credentialing ladder. In or der to qualify for this designation, teachers must have met the EP requirements and they must have enrolled in a teacher preparation program. By encouraging or forcing EP t eachers to immediately enroll in teacher preparation programs, districts can seem to have fewer EP teachers, while in fact they still have about the same number of underquali fied teachers.Variables Correlating with Student AchievementMultiple regression results.
13 of 36 To examine variables that impact student achievemen t, a multiple regression was performed using the 1999-2000 API data (Note 12) Data for 6,387 California schools was used for the regression. The dependent variable used was the school-wide API score. The coefficients are shown in Table 8. The regressi on demonstrated that factors that are significantly negatively correlated with API scores (in order of standardiz ed coefficient beta size) include the percentage of students quali fied for free/reduced price lunch, the percentage of Hispanic students, the percentage of parents without a high school diploma, school size, the percentage of African-American stu dents, the percentage of emergency permit teachers, and the percentage of first-year t eachers. The factors that were significantly positively correlated with API scores were the percentage of parents who had attended graduate school and the percentage of Asian students. A production function for this regression yields: ZPredicted API score= -.349 Z% Free lunch-.198 Z% Hispanic students-.173 Z% Parents with no HS diploma -.155 ZSchool size -.055 Z% Emergency permit teachers-.031 Z% 1st year teachers +.199 Z% parents completed grad school +.076 Z% Asian studentsThe R of .905 and the adjusted R2 of .819 suggests that most of the variation in tes t scores at the school level is explained by this set of variables (Note 13) With an N of 6,389 and nearly all eligible California schools in cluded in the regression (Note 14) these results are significant and interesting (though not particularly surprising) demonstrating that most of the variation among schools is account ed for by factors that are beyond the immediate control of schools, districts, or the sta te, including student ethnicity (Note 15) student poverty, and parent education (Note 16) In fact, there are only three variables in this model that could conceivably be impacted by st ate or district actions: the percentage of EP teachers and first-year teachers at school si tes, and school size. While policy changes could affect all of these factors, none are easily changed by simple mandate. The EP teacher coefficient in the regression is sig nificant but small relative to the other coefficients (see Table 8. However, it is clear fro m the regression that the percentage of EP teachers in a school does have an association wi th API scores above and beyond factors such as the socio-economic status of the st udent body and school size. Furthermore, although inexperience and EP status ar e highly correlated, both exert independent effects on student achievement. School size is an additional factor that has been found in other research to influence student a chievement, along with teacher characteristics. Table 8 Regression Coefficients Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients tSig Correlations BStd Error BetaPartialPart (Constant)809.5272.371341.423.000
14 of 36 % African American Students -1.382.067-.135-20.480.000-.248-.109 % Asian Students .828.063.07613.177.000.163.070 % Hispanic Students -.908.051-.198-17.892.000-.219-.095 % Free Lunch-1.469.048-.349-30.879.000-.361-.164% Parents Not H.S. Grads -1.181.064-.173-18.423.000-.225-.098 % Parents Attended Grad School 2.006.072.19927.890.000.330.149 % Emergency Permit Teachers -.618.076-.055-8.143.000-.101-.043 % 1st Year Teachers -.588.112-.031-5.242.000-.065-.028 School Size-.127.005-.155-27.463.000-.325-.146 N = 6,387 (schools)R = .905, Adjusted R2 = .819 Constant (Dependent Variable): Academic Performance Index Score for School Data Source: California Department of Education (se e Appendix A)Policy, Politics, and California Teacher Preparatio nIt is rather puzzling that California has such an i ncoherent, conflicting, and poorly coordinated set of policies for the recruitment, pr eparation, development, and retention of teachers. Cynics who might believe that most state policies are incoherent have only to look closely at the efforts of other states to disc over that policies do exist for teacher recruitment, preparation, and development that are focused and consistent. One example is Connecticut, where there has for years been a co ncerted effort focused on improving teacher quality, rather than a single Â“silver bulle tÂ” strategy (Wilson, Darling-Hammond, & Berry, 2001). Connecticut also built on initial p olicies rather than switching to new strategies. This continuity of efforts and the part icipation of experienced educators in the formation and evaluation of policy at all levels he lped the state policy maintain coherence over time. Many believe that Connecticut's improvem ent in student achievement is a direct result of the improvement in teacher quality that resulted from the state's policy. It is relatively easy to find examples of Californi a state policies that have served to hurt teacher quality in the state, and which have probab ly impacted student learning as a result. Perhaps the most glaring example is the ins titution of class size reduction (CSR) in the state of California, an event that occurred pre cipitously and with little thought to
15 of 36collateral consequences. Without careful considerat ion about where teachers would be found to fill the additional classrooms created by CSR, the legislation was passed and classes in grades K-3 were limited to 20 students. There is little doubt that CSR might be beneficial, at least in early grades, in terms of s tudent learning and teacher and parent satisfaction (Mosteller, 1995). However, the impact of CSR on California's students is less clear, and a recent report has indicated that there is no clear causal connection between improved achievement and CSR (CSR Research Consortium, 2002). However, RAND researchers have suggested that smaller class size is one of the most important factors in differences between math scores on the m ost recent NAEP assessment (Note 17) (Grissmer, Flanagan, Kawat, & Williamson, 2000). T he Public Policy Institute of California noted the negative effects of CSR on tea cher characteristics, stating that Â“CSR led to a dramatic increase in the percentages of in experienced and uncertified teachersÂ” (p. 1) (Public Policy Institute of California, 2002 ). As policy analysts have pointed out, the effects of improvements (in this case, improvements resulting from CSR) must be considered in context and in terms of their interaction effects, not in isolation (Hatch, 2000) CSR, a program that was intended to be beneficial to students and teachers, opened the doo r to increasing numbers of emergency permit teachers by making jobs readily available. W ith districts clamoring to hire teachers with or without a credential, CSR served as a disin centive for students in teacher preparation program to continue their efforts at ob taining a teaching credential through traditional pathways. Teacher training institutions were raided by desperate districts looking to fill teaching slots that had been create d virtually overnight. In response to the changed teacher training landscape, teacher trainin g institutes were forced to immediately expand their course offerings to nights and weekend s and change course requirements and expectations to accommodate teachers who had al ready become teachers of record for their own classrooms.The most unfortunate consequence was that the very children that stood to benefit most from CSR were the ones most hurt by the precipitous nature of the policy implementation, for two reasons. The first is that the suddenly increased demand for teachers in schools with middle-class students, hig h test scores, and fewer challenges meant that many teachers who had been in more chall enging schools were able to take advantage of an opportunity to transfer into these Â“betterÂ” teaching placements. A RAND study on California schools found that districts an d schools with large proportions of Black and Hispanic students had higher initial vaca ncy rates for teachers (Carroll, Reichardt, & Guarino, 2000). They also found that t eachers tended to transfer away from these schools, and that districts with large propor tions of Black and Hispanic were not as successful as other districts in recruiting credent ialed teachers. Thus, the openings that were available for the legions of emergency permit teachers needed to fill classrooms were openings in the schools with higher proportion s of Black and Hispanic students, which also tend to be schools with higher poverty r ates and lower student achievement. While the students in these schools gained the bene fit of smaller class sizes, evidence shows that they became even more likely to be taugh t by underqualified teachers (CSR Research Consortium, 1999).In terms of preparing emergency permit teachers, th ere are numerous instances in official California state policy where regulations make it d ifficult to assist EP teachers to be more effective. For example, the state-funded Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment (BTSA) program discourages districts from funding t he induction of emergency permit
16 of 36teachers. BTSA's website introduction states that B TSA Â“provides opportunities for fully-prepared first and second year teachers to expand and deepe n their teaching knowledge and skill" (italics added) (Beginning Tea cher Support & Assessment, 2000). However, the idea that Â“fully-preparedÂ” teachers sh ould be given priority in terms of funding and slots in the program seems like a contr adiction in terms. The first of BTSA's stated purposes is to "Provide an effective transit ion into the teaching career for firstand second-year teachers in California" (under "BTSA Basics"). The second purpose is to "Improve the educational performance of students th rough improved training, information, and assistance for new teachers." If t hese are the primary purposes of BTSA, it seems that emergency permit teachers need the su pport of BTSA at least as much as teachers who are already much farther along in thei r training. Further, once EP teachers have completed two or three years of teaching while attending school at night and on weekends, they will be understandably reluctant to participate in BTSA, a program designed for Â“firstand second-year teachers.Â” How ever, it is also clear that reshaping BTSA to include EP teachers would result in a progr am that would be less useful to traditionally-prepared firstand second-year teach ers. Another example of ways in which policy conflicts a re making it difficult for EP teachers to receive the training and support they need is th at pre-interns and EP teachers can legitimately teach in a classroom as the teacher of record, but they are not permitted to student teach until they have passed their subject matter requirements. Thus, an EP teacher or pre-intern is not allowed to student tea ch under the supervision and guidance of an experienced teacher, but they are allowed to teach a class by themselves, without support! Additionally, California has provided scholarships for teachers to support them as they complete their teacher preparation program and obta in their credentials. But the funding available for these scholarships is adequate only t o support a few hundred teachers each year. Consider that there were about 10,000 new EP teachers hired in California last year, many (perhaps most) of whom chose an alternative cr edentialing route because they did not have sufficient funds for traditional teacher p reparation. The funding provided for helping teachers complete their preparation program s is clearly inadequate, even though reducing the numbers of EP teachers is a priority f or the state, judging by the legislation addressing the issue, as will be discussed in more detail in the next section.Legislative Solutions to the Emergency Permit Probl emAs noted previously, most of the variables negative ly correlated with API scores are beyond the direct control of policymakers. The legi slature cannot easily solve child poverty, which explains most of the variance in tes t scores at the school level. They can, however, try to impact teacher quality and thus ind irectly help student achievement. Some legislation has sought to mandate reductions i n emergency permits without responding systemically to the underlying problems that have produced the shortage of qualified teachers and the maldistribution of under qualified teachers (Note 18) In the 2001-02 Regular Session of the California Le gislature, several bills were introduced in an attempt to impact the distribution and/or preparation of EP teachers, to increase the overall number of qualified teachers, or to increase the percentages of credentialed teachers in low performing schools. Ta ble 9 summarizes these bills and their status (Note 19) Some of the bills that seek to eliminate or reduc e the percentages of EP
17 of 36 teachers in schools are problematic. Without state support and incentives, the goal of eliminating EP teachers would be difficult or impos sible for many districts, particularly in the four California districts where 50% or more of all teachers are teaching on emergency permits (Note 20) Table 9 2001 California Legislative Proposals Related to EP Teachers Bill and Author StatusSummary AB 833 (Steinberg) Vetoed by Davis 10/5/01 Establishes the Public School Teacher Qualification Equity Program which provides for a teacherqualification index (TQI)*. The bill would require that school districts calculate a TQI for each school an d make efforts to increase the TQI for each school un til it obtains a specified rating. The original version of the bill called for specific interventions if the distr icts did not meet its TQI goals within a certain length of t ime, but this part was taken out of the final submission of the bill.*TQI is based on the number of underqualified teach ers within the district and within each school. Fewerunderqualified teachers result in higher TQI scores AB 721 (Steinberg) Under submission Establishes the Teachers for Low-Performing SchoolsRenewable Grant Program designed to encouragepostsecondary institutions with teacher preparationprograms to Â“recruit, prepare, and support new teac hers to work and be successful in low-performing schools .Â” The bill is premised on the belief that low-perform ing schools suffer particularly from a shortage ofcredentialed teachers. SB 57 (Scott)Approved by Davis 9/8/01 Clears the way for quicker credentialing of private school teachers who decide to teach in public schoo ls and for district interns to complete their credenti aling program early if they pass certain assessments. SB 743(Murray) Vetoed by Davis 10/13/01 Provides funds and mandate for the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing to address theissue of emergency permit teacher distribution andmake specific recommendations to districts with lar ge numbers of EP teachers in low-performing schools inlow-income communities, including recommendations for recruitment and retention policies. SB 837 (Scott)Approved by Davis Requires school districts to meet specific requirem ents in a diligent search for certificated teachers.
18 of 36 10/5/01Documentation will be required from district s hiring teachers on emergency permits to demonstrate that t hey made a diligent search for credentialed teachers pr ior to offering positions to non-credentialed teachers. SB 508 (Vasconcellos) Suspended by Assembly 9/12/01 Extensive set of recommendations to assist Â“Califor nia Unrealized Learners,Â” i.e., schools in the lowest t wo deciles of the API. Provides for additional funding as well as improved recruitment and retention strategi es in the form of extra salary and bonuses, professionaldevelopment, extended school year, outreach andassessment consultants, benefits to highly qualifie d teachers who teach in these schools, loan assumptio ns for new credentialed teachers, limits on the number of underqualified teachers at the schools, smaller cla ss size, etc. SB 321 (Alarcon) Unfinished business 10/15/01 Authorizes Los Angeles Unified School District to create a pilot program for offering a 30-day traini ng session to all emergency permit teachers who areassigned to schools have 20% or more teachers onemergency permits. The training would take placebefore the teachers began teaching. SB 319 (Alarcon) Set for hearing 1/16/02 Amends the Teaching as a Priority Block Grant that awards grants to schools districts to attract crede ntialed teachers for low-performing schools. The amendmentwould require that the school district meet its APIperformance goal and that the district agrees to in crease credentialed teachers in all schools to 90% or more in order to be eligible for grants. AB 833The authors of AB 833 proposed a Teacher Qualificat ion Index (TQI) that is comprised of two separate school scores. A school would recei ve a Â“quantity ratingÂ” of Â“10Â” at the high end of the spectrum if it had fewer than 5% un derqualified teachers, and a Â“1Â” at the low end of the spectrum if it had 45% or more under qualified teachers. A school would receive a Â“distribution ratingÂ” of Â“10Â” at the high end if its percentage of underqualified teachers was less than or equal to the average perc entage of such teachers for the entire district, and garner a Â“1Â” if its percentage of und erqualified teachers was greater than 80 percent more than the average for the district. A s pecial adjustment would be made for schools with low percentages of underqualified teac hers, since it would be possible for a school with only 4% underqualified teachers to get the lowest distribution rating in a district where the average was 1%. An average of th e two ratings provides the single number designated TQI. In order to raise a particul ar school's TQI, the number of underqualified teachers would have to be reduced at the school to improve the quantity rating, and would have to be reduced in comparison to the district average in order to improve the district average. Thus, the district is provided with an incentive to redistribute both credentialed and EP teachers with in the district more evenly.
19 of 36This bill encourages districts to equalize placemen ts of EP teachers among schools, a legislative act that might carry some weight at the bargaining table. Teacher unions might agree to stricter transfer rules in order to preven t the continual turnover in low-performing schools that would result in the sch ools being constantly out of compliance. However, as the bill evolved, it lost its enforceme nt section. Districts that were out of compliance would have had to submit to an evaluatio n of the problem and development of a Teacher Quality Improvement Plan (TQIP). Subse quent to this examination, the Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team might also conduct their own investigation and recommend changes in the district in an attempt to achieve compliance. According to earlier drafts of the bill, some of th e actions the State Board of Education might then mandate were class size reduction in certain schools and grades; pay incentives for teachers willing to work at cert ain schools; housing subsidies for teachers willing to teach at selected schools; increased funding for materials, books and technolo gy at certain schools; facility improvements; and focused staff development for beginning teachers. While these measures alone might not have resolved the teacher distribution problem, they might have alleviated some of the reasons for high teacher turnover, thus providing hope for maintaining a stable staff as the new teac hers gain experience and the EP teachers achieve their clear credentials. However, after the language regarding the TQI was deleted, the bill passed but was vetoed by Gove rnor Davis. SB 508This is a comprehensive proposal that attempts to w ork on some of the systemic problems underlying poor student performance in the state (as defined by the two lowest deciles of the API). The belief that is demonstrate d throughout this bill is that good teaching matters. The bill focuses simultaneously o n a number of important aspects of improving the quality and distribution of the teach er workforce in districts with low-performing schools, including: improving recruitment and retention, providing increased salaries and bonuses for highly qualified teachers, offering professional development for teachers in l ow-performing schools, extending school years in low-performing schools wi th extra days being used for professional development and for developing working relationships with parents, offering extra benefits for highly qualified teache rs willing to work in low-performing schools, providing outreach consultants to help schools deve lop working relationships with parents and community members, providing assessment consultants so that schools ca n better understand where their students are failing and thus develop measures to d irectly address the areas of greatest need, providing loan assumption opportunities for new cre dentialed teachers (not EP
20 of 36teachers) willing to teach in low-performing school s, setting limits on the numbers of underqualified tea chers at low-performing schools, reducing class size in low-performing schools. These measures are intended to act in concert to as sist low-performing schools in improving their achievement (as measured by the API ). The combined effects of these measures might in fact go a long way towards helpin g these schools, but they will be costly. Besides the bonuses, incentives, and loan r eductions payable directly to teachers, there would be substantial costs for reducing class size, hiring consultants, and extending the school year. The current economic crisis in Cal ifornia (and in the nation) will make such expensive measures less likely to meet with ap proval. Whatever the fate of the bill might have been before September 11th, the fact that the bill was suspended by the Assembly on September 12th suggests that it was seen as too sweeping and too expensive to gain acceptance in the current economic climate. The bill remains in suspension, lacking appropriations.Two pieces of legislation that were approved by Gov ernor Davis require little in the way of additional expenditures, but their impact on the hiring and distribution of EP teachers will probably be slight. SB 57 makes it easier and faster for private school teac hers to get their credentials to become public school teachers in California. The bill also allows district interns to take certain assessments (perfo rmance and written) that will allow them to gain their credentials earlier, though exactly w hat these assessments are and who will judge acceptable completion of the required assessm ents is not clarified. SB 837 mandates that districts meet specific requirements in a diligent search for certificated teachers. Documentation of the districts' efforts i n this search will be required from districts who hire EP teachers in order to demonstr ate that they made a concerted effort but were unable to find and hire qualified teachers .An Alternative Proposal for Reducing the Number of EP Teachers in CaliforniaAnother approach would be to focus efforts on impro ved retention rather than focusing most of the efforts on the teacher labor market, th rough the following mechanisms. I. Help EP teachers quickly obtain their clear cred entials Many EP teachers in California work for years to ge t their clear credential. While districts may be willing to help these teachers, most distric ts are not providing the sort of guidance and assistance that EP teachers need in order to su rmount the obstacles. EP teachers interviewed for a report sponsored by the Bay Area Consortium for Urban Education (BACUE) expressed a longing for more assistance thr ough the district, the county office and the universities where many of them were taking the courses they need for their credential (Goe, Castro, & Curry, 2001). One way to help these teachers would be for the state to provide funds to districts with high perce ntages of EP teachers to develop pilot programs to assist these teachers in more quickly g etting their credentials. Districts that create very successful programs (as judged by how q uickly and effectively they were able to prepare high-quality teachers and move them from EP to clear credential status (Note 21) ) could then share their models with similar distri cts.
21 of 36Many EP teachers are valuable to schools for a vari ety of reasons. In a state with a very diverse student population, hiring and keeping mino rity teachers is a priority, and EP teachers are more likely to be minorities than trad itionally certified teachers. In addition, many EP teachers are willing to teach in urban scho ols and schools with high percentages of minority students, and retaining teachers in tho se schools is crucial. EP teachers in California are more likely to be male than the curr ently certified teachers, and are teaching in subjects where there is a great need (s uch as math, physical science, and special education) in higher percentages than are r egularly certified teachers (Note 22) Thus, the state could benefit from finding ways to assist and train these teachers while moving them efficiently through the system to obtai n their clear credentials. One possibility is to create a second branch of Cal ifornia's Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment system (BTSA) specifically for EP te achers. Many EP teachers already participate in BTSA, though they are discouraged fr om doing so because BTSA was designed for teachers who had completed a tradition al teacher preparation program. The advantage to creating a second branch of BTSA for E P teachers would be to create improved regulation of teacher training for EP teac hers, while extending to them the support and mentorship new teachers receive through BTSA. Under the existing system, EP teachers have no provisions for training, suppor t, and assessment other than what is provided by school districts (Note 23) and by colleges where teachers are taking courses in order to earn their clear credential. This resul ts in substantial variability in the types of support and training that these EP teachers are rec eiving. Providing a regulated, uniform set of standards for the training of EP teachers co uld be of great benefit to the EP teachers as they work towards their clear credentials.II. Create incentives for experienced, credentialed teachers to teach in low-performing schoolsSome states, including Connecticut, have legislated that supplementary grants be given to poorer school districts to enable them to hire and retain high quality teachers (Wilson et al., 2001). Salary increases or one-time bonuses co uld be offered as incentives to attract experienced, qualified teachers into low-performing schools with high turnover and high percentages of EP teachers, though the effectivenes s of such incentives remains to be seen. In California, the Teaching as a Priority (TA P) grant program serves a similar purpose, providing allocations to schools with an A PI rank of 1-3 with $44.00 per student and schools with an API of 4-5 with $29.00 per stud ent. However, districts must apply for the grants on a c ompetitive basis, and the funding is limited. In addition, there are few regulations on how the district may use the funds, other than the requirement that the funds must be used fo r Â“retention and recruitment of credentialed teachers to work in low-performing sch oolsÂ” (California Department of Education, 2001). Thus, districts, working either i ndependently or in consortiums, may use the funds for signing bonuses, housing subsides vested annuities, and improving working conditions. Obviously, the ways in which di stricts will use funds will vary considerably, and it remains to be seen how success ful these funds will be in attracting credentialed teachers to underperforming schools. I t is possible that different uses for the funds are differentially successful in attracting t eachers. Geographic differences may also contribute to the success of various uses of the fu nds, with housing subsidies undoubtedly appealing to teachers in areas with soaring housing costs, such as San Francisco.
22 of 36It might be most productive to create financial inc entive packages for experienced, credentialed teachers that include 1) a contract re quiring a certain number of years of service in the low-performing school, and 2) an agr eement to mentor an EP or novice teacher. This requirement would help stabilize teac her turnover in low-performing schools by building a base of teachers who are comm itted to staying with the school and by providing assistance to EP or novice teachers wh o might then be more successful in their first years of teaching and more willing to s tay at the school. An added bonus of requiring mentoring is that mentoring a new teacher within the BTSA program as a support provider has been found to be very benefici al to the mentoring teacher (Wing et al., 2002). Thus, both the beginning teacher and th e more experienced teacher are likely to benefit from the relationship.Another approach which could be tried is paying tea chers at underperforming schools a salary based on a longer work day. The justificatio n is that the teachers at these schools have a more challenging workload and thus spend mor e hours on the job. The difficulty is that all teachers at such schools are assumed to wo rk longer hours, including the EP teachers. Thus, it may be difficult to justify diff erential pay for only the credentialed teachers.III. Emphasize new teacher retentionThe state might provide low-performing schools with substantial targeted funds that would be used solely to provide bonuses to teachers designated by the schools as Â“keepers,Â” i.e., teachers that the principal (perha ps with the help of an advisory committee of teachers and parents) felt had the pot ential to become excellent teachers at that school This would allow the principal to go beyond simpl y asking particular teachers to stay for the good of the school by offe ring the teachers an incentive to stay for their own good as well. The bonus would thus provid e the Â“keepersÂ” with clear affirmation that they were considered valuable to t he school, and might provide enough of an incentive to prevent their transferring to ot her less challenging schools. In addition, new teachers are lower on the salary scale and thus might see even relatively small bonuses as substantial incentives, meaning that thi s could be a cost-effective strategy. Those new teachers who did not receive the bonuses would feel free to move on to other schools. It should be clarified that the Â“non-keepe rsÂ” would not necessarily be Â“badÂ” teachers. Rather, such teachers might be poor match es for the particular schools they were in, and a transfer would give them an opportun ity to find schools that were better suited to their particular talents and needs.Most bargaining agreements allow transfers after on ly one year of teaching. Keeping the best new teachers in their initial placements could greatly benefit low-performing schools by providing a stable faculty of teachers beyond th e first year. Such a faculty may increase in experience, knowledge, and cohesiveness each year, all of which may benefit students. As an added bonus for these schools, scho ol reform efforts that are hampered by continual turnover of staff will have an improved c hance of success. In addition, each year after the first year, teachers would earn an a dditional bonus if they chose to remain, up through the first five years.IV. Provide adequate resources, training, and facil ities for low-performing schools
23 of 36The items listed in AB 833 as the Â“sanctionsÂ” for d istricts that are unable to achieve compliance under the TQI plan should be provided to underperforming schools as a matter of course not as a reward or a punishment. It is clear from the regression shown in this article that most of the variance in student t est scores at the school level appears to be associated with variables that are beyond the contr ol of the state, district, or school. Districts with high percentages of minority and low -income students may have little flexibility in teacher hiring, and may not be able to avoid hiring EP teachers. Rewarding or punishing districts based on their test scores o r their hiring practices flies in the face of these realities. If the state provides better suppo rt, more resources, improved training, and adequate facilities at low-performing schools, teac her attrition should decrease, and thereby lower the demand for additional teachers. A s demand falls, it will be possible to become more selective in hiring practices so that f ewer EP teachers will be needed. With less demand for EP teachers, more teachers will see k credentials through traditional teacher preparation programs. The requirements for entering teaching under an emergency permit could also be augmented at that po int to discourage all but the most serious applicants from taking an emergency route t o their credentials. In addition, schools with high percentages of minor ity students and/or poor students should receive additional resources from the states for targeted professional development aimed at better equipping teachers to understand an d work with the challenges that their students may face. Many teacher preparation program s inadequately prepare teachers for these challenges, resulting in teachers leaving the profession because they are unable to cope with the demands. Teaching in high-poverty sch ools can be rewarding, and with appropriate training and support, teachers can disc over the rewards and overcome many of the frustrations. One approach to preparing teac hers for working in low-performing schools is to assign some teachers (Note 24) to these schools for student teaching, under the guidance of a strong, effective teacher While inexperienced teachers may be reluctant to take on the challenges of a low-perfor ming school, a student teaching experience with a strong supervising teacher might give them an opportunity to see for themselves that good teaching and learning is possi ble even in low-performing schools, and to develop strategies that would increase their confidence that they, too, could be successful in such a setting.V. Provide more state funding for teacher preparati on scholarships Since many EP teachers choose to complete their tea cher credentials while they are teaching because of financial burdens, offering gre ater incentives for them to complete traditional programs may discourage this trend. How ever, the incentives should be focused on recruiting more minority teachers to traditional teacher preparation progra ms, since California's teaching force is very short of minority teachers, particularly given the high percentage of minority students in California' s schools. And since minority teachers are more likely to take an alternative route into t eaching than to take the traditional route, it is important to consider providing additional in centives to recruit high-quality minority candidates into traditional teacher preparation pro grams. VI. Place EP teachers in high-performing schools wi th reduced loads There may be useful reasons to keep teachers curren tly on emergency permits as part of the teaching force for many reasons. However, their current pathway into full credential status usually starts in an underperforming school, an unfortunate starting place for both
24 of 36the EP teachers and the students, whose poor test s cores may indicate greater academic needs. In these underperforming schools, they are u sually relegated to the grades and classes that the teachers with more seniority do no t want. They are typically assigned full class schedules, with no release time for observing other teachers, meeting with mentor teachers (if they even have one), etc. They are usu ally placed in schools that are particularly challenging in terms of high percentag es of low-SES students or English language learners. And they are usually placed in s chools where greater-than-average percentages of the teachers are also teaching on em ergency permits, are new teachers, or both. Thus, the schools' capacity to help these beg inning teachers is limited by their inability to provide on-site mentoring and support.Most bargaining agreements do nothing to prevent th is placement of EP teachers at the most challenging low-performing schools, but in at least one case (Los Angeles) there have been efforts to ensure that at least the EP te achers are not all concentrated in high numbers at particular schools, and that teaching ex perience is more spread out among schools. Such efforts were likely the result of lon g negotiations, but they are at least a possibility for other districts. Legislation that m andated a lighter load for EP teachers (60-70% of the regular teaching load) accompanied b y intensive training programs (under the umbrella of district induction programs) design ed specifically for EP teachers could go far to ensure that these teachers are quickly br ought up to speed and that they develop the talents and knowledge that put them on the road to becoming excellent, credentialed teachers.Putting EP teachers on reduced loads throughout the state is certainly an expensive proposition. One factor in making the spending of a dditional resources more cost effective would be to adopt a graduated schedule fo r EP teachers, so that their greatest reduction in teaching load would occur their first year in the classroom, and teaching loads would increase each year after that. Progress towards their credential would be closely monitored and remediation supplied as neede d. However, given the expense of such a plan, it is es sential that regulatory mechanisms are built into the system that so that the reduced load and additional support provided by EP teachers does not become an incentive for teachers to bypass traditional teacher training programs. Emergency permits were intended to serve districts in emergency situations and this method of beginning teaching was never int ended to be institutionalized as a legitimate alternative to traditional teacher prepa ration. If California were to subsidize the preparation of large numbers of EP teachers with re duced loads and additional help, safeguards should be developed to avoid institution alizing this as a credentialing mechanism. One safeguard would be that districts wo uld have to demonstrate that they made every possible effort to recruit and hire cred entialed teachers. Further, it is essential that specific demands on t eachers to progress towards their credential be set and adhered to; otherwise, it mig ht be tempting for teachers to enter the profession on an emergency permit to take advantage of the comparatively lighter load. By demanding demonstrated progress on a set schedul e, it would be clear to teachers that the advantages of a lighter load were far outweighe d by the progress requirements. In addition, in the interest of recruiting more min ority teachers and bilingual teachers, the plan could be offered only to teachers meeting cert ain district-level needs. For example, in a district with a very high percentage of Spanis h-speaking students, priority could be given to bilingual Spanish/English emergency permit teachers.
25 of 36Further, in the interest of cost-effectiveness in a cash-strapped state, it is important that state subsidies for assisting EP teachers be used f or teachers that are genuinely interested in a career in teaching, as opposed to those who ar e just Â“trying outÂ” the profession to see how it suits them. Teachers who wanted to take adva ntage of EP status and support should demonstrate, perhaps through a contractual a greement with the state or a particular district, that they are serious about teaching as a profession, committing to a minimum of three years of classroom teaching in exchange for s tate and district support. This would exclude short-term teachers such as those placed on two-year assignments through Teach for America in hard-to-staff schools (Note 25) VII. Focus class-size reduction funds on underperfo rming schools When California policymakers decided to approve ove r a billion dollars a year for class-size reduction, they restricted the funds to grades K-3, but made no requirements in terms of school performance for the funds. Thus, hi gh-performing schools with upperand middle-class students were entitled to the same small classes as schools with high-poverty students or mostly English language le arners, students who ostensibly need extra teacher attention much more. Most studies of class-size reduction find greater benefits for minority students and for high-poverty students than for students with high socioeconomic status. While CSR is a popular reform its cost-effectiveness in terms of student benefits for middleand upper-income stude nts has not been demonstrated. However, teachers are decidedly in favor of smaller classes. By limiting CSR to K-3, California has effectively concentrated many of its best multiple-subject teachers in these grades, since te achers with more seniority often have a greater choice in what grade they will be teaching. Teachers in grades four and five do not receive the CSR benefits, so there is a sharp d ivision between what both teachers and students experience at the classroom level in the e arly grades as contrasted with grades four and five. My proposal would encourage teachers who desire smaller classes to remain in (or transfer into) underperforming school s by prioritizing CSR funding for schools in the bottom deciles of the state's Academ ic Performance Index. The way CSR is currently structured, even schools t hat already had fewer than 20 students qualified for the CSR funds, so districts that already had small class sizes (suggesting that they had an ample supply of teache rs as well), qualified for and received the additional funding for making no change whatsoe ver in class size! From a cost-effectiveness standpoint, such a policy is ser iously flawed. Further, districts have always been able to choose to implement CSR in only certain schools, and even in certain classrooms, as long as they follow the state's requ irement of implementing CSR first in grade one, then in grade two, and then in either ki ndergarten or grade three (Note 26) But since the state provides no incentives whatsoever t o implement CSR only in certain grades or in certain classrooms; districts tend to implement it across the board if they can find enough teachers (credentialed or otherwise) to staff the classrooms. I propose that California adopt new legislation tha t would phase out CSR in high-performing schools with stable teaching forces and phase in CSR at grades four and five in low-performing schools. While there are no guarantees that this would improve student achievement at these schools, it might redu ce teacher turnover at underperforming schools by reducing teacher workloa ds and increasing teacher
26 of 36satisfaction. Likewise, it would be an incentive fo r teachers to choose to teach in (or transfer into) underperforming schools if they want ed to teach smaller classes, or to remain in these schools rather than transferring to higher-performing schools, thus stabilizing the teaching force and reducing the nee d to hire new or emergency permit teachers. Optimally, a balance would be achieved du ring the phase-in that would reduce the statewide need for additional teachers to suppo rt CSR, which triggered the influx of EP teachers in the past few years. New teachers wil l continue to be needed in large numbers in California due to the growing number of teachers nearing retirement age and the burgeoning school-age population (at least in s ome areas of California). It is hoped that a combination of traditional teacher preparati on programs and selective, subsidized, well-supported emergency permit programs could supp ly sufficient numbers of new teachers to meet the demands.Coherency and Coordination of PoliciesThe policy solutions suggested in the previous sect ion focus on using various forms of incentives (support, mentoring, release time, monet ary awards, targeted class-size reduction, and training opportunities) to: increase retention in the profession and in underpe rforming schools; increase teacher commitment to underperforming scho ols; increase enrollment in traditional teacher preparat ion programs, particularly among minority and bilingual teachers; provide additional supports to EP teachers and move them systematically towards full credential status. This set of solutions attempts to build upon struct ures that are already working successfully in California, phase out programs or p olicies that are ineffective, and focus resources where they are most likely to benefit stu dents. As a coordinated effort, such policies would have to be implemented carefully and systematically, with constant reference to both collateral effects of the policy and to the context for implementation (i.e., ensuring capacity before stressors are added to existing systems).ConclusionCalifornia's accountability system has created an i nteresting opportunity to better understand what matters most in school achievement. Researchers and policy makers, as well as the general public, can now clearly connect student achievement (at the school level) with a number of other variables, including the percentages of underqualified teachers. Seeing these connections, like the stairstep pattern of test scores and teacher credentials in Figure 1 presented above, can be sho cking. However, it is important that policy makers and legislators do not rush to judgme nt and condemn all EP teachers as the cause of poor student achievement. Rather, both the EP teachers and the students are victims of poverty and state policy. Poverty cannot be so easily addressed, but state policy can be. State and district policies have made it ne cessary, possible, and even desirable for teachers with limited funds to begin teaching befor e they are fully credentialed and then to transfer to Â“betterÂ” schools when they get senio rity. State policy has also allowed conditions in some California schools to deteriorat e to such an extent that both teachers and students are depressed and frustrated by their teaching and learning conditions, as evidenced by the recent class action suit against t he state of California filed by students in
27 of 36underperforming, underresourced schools (Sahagun & Helfand, 2000). There can be no question that all students should h ave a well-qualified and highly trained teacher, and California should work towards that go al at a reasonable pace, using incentives to encourage redistribution of experienc ed, credentialed teachers into low performing schools and to encourage more teachers t o complete their full credential before taking full responsibility for the education of California's children. In particular, minority teachers should be aggressively recruited into teaching through traditional teacher preparation programs where they can be bett er supported and provided with added incentives to encourage them to make teaching a career. Finally, researchers into the connection between teacher quality and student achievement should focus on clarifying the skills, qualities, and characteristi cs that a full credential represents, and should ensure that teacher preparation programs, cr edentialing mechanisms, and induction programs focus on building those skills, qualities, and characteristics.Notes 1. Shields et al. shows 14% of CA teachers on emergen cy permits or waivers (Shields et al., 2001). The difference in these figures is like ly due to data sets used and how teacher credentials are designated. 2. It is widely believed that some California distric ts have Â“dysfunctionalÂ” hiring processes which result in missed opportunities to h ire qualified teachers. Interest is growing among education reform organizations and th ose who sponsor reform efforts in California to consider Â“deepÂ” human resources refor m as a mechanism for improving district-level teacher recruitment and retention. 3. Academic Performance Index scores are single score s given to California schools based on the SAT-9 scores for students in grades 211. The Index will eventually include other measures, such as scores on the state standar ds tests, but these measures are still being tested for reliability and validity. The Inde x is composed of weighted SAT-9 scores so that students moving from lower quintiles of the SAT-9 into higher quintiles earn more points for the school than do schools moving f rom middle quintiles into higher quintiles. For further information on the API, see the California Department of Education website: http://api.cde.ca.gov/ 4. Since true experimental designs are rarely possibl e in education, evidence is generally developed through triangulation of studies using a range of correlation methods and quasi-experimental designs. 5. Â“UnderperformingÂ” for API purposes means that the schools received a score of 5 or below in the API, i.e., that they are performing in the bottom half of the API statewide. 6. 35% of California teachers had a master's degree ( data year 1999-2000). 7. Experienced teachers can serve as mentors and supp ort providers to less experienced teachers. They are also more likely to feel compete nt to serve on school site committees and assist in leading professional development sess ions. And they are important for school continuity in reform efforts. 8. However, the results of this study controlled for teacher preparation status. It could
28 of 36thus be argued that the transfer patterns would be different for teachers depending on their credential and preparation status. 9. Using 1999-2000 school year data. The 2000-01 data shows a slight decrease in the number of EP teachers to about 10%, though there ha s been an equivalent increase in the numbers of pre-interns. 10. 1999-2000 data. 11. For a description of New Haven's strategies, see S nyder, J. (2000). New Haven, California's Teaching Quality System: What States C an Learn from One District's Success. The State Education Standard, 1 (1), 7-11. 12. Additional details about the regression can be fou nd in Appendix B 13. It is important to note that because the data are aggregated at the school level rather than the individual level, there is undoubtedly mor e unexplained variation within schools than is captured by this between school analysis. 14. Schools that were missing API scores or missing da ta for one of the other variables were omitted from the regression. 15. Since student ethnicity is highly correlated with socio-economic status in California, it is likely that ethnicity serves as a proxy for S ES in the regression. 16. Parent education probably serves as a proxy for so cio-economic status in the regression. 17. The other factors named by the authors are higher rates of pre-kindergarten attendance and Â“more of the resources necessary to teach.Â” 18. Many underlying problems have been listed in the l iterature on teacher recruitment and retention, including: lack of incentives to att ract new teachers, salaries that are not competitive with other jobs teachers might qualify for, the requirement of additional education beyond a baccalaureate degree, school con ditions that teachers find frustrating, de-professionalization of teaching, and recently, h igh-stakes testing and the resulting emphasis on test preparation. 19. Status as of December, 2001. Full text versions of the bills and their histories are publicly available at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/bilinfo.html 20. In 2000-01, Compton Unified had 56% EP teachers, a nd three elementary districts had 50% or more EP teachers: Ravenswood City, 55.11 ; Columbine and Buena Vista, 50% each. 21. It is important that the effectiveness of a progra m designed to move teachers quickly towards a clear credential is judged not only by it s speed but by the quality of the resulting teachers. Effectively prepared teachers s hould be as competent as teachers prepared in traditional teacher training programs. 22. However, it must be noted that EP teachers may not be credentialed in the field in which they are currently teaching. In other words, they may be teaching math because
29 of 36they were the only teacher available, not because t hey have a degree and training in teaching math. 23. Some districts have redirected PAR (Peer Assistanc e and Review) funding to provide support to some new teachers, thus ensuring that ev ery teacher receives the support they need, regardless of their credential status. PAR wa s originally formed to provide assistance and mentoring to struggling teachers who had been in the teaching force for a while, under the assumption that new teachers would receive ample support from BTSA. But the burgeoning population of EP teachers caused many districts to prioritize the funding for new teachers. 24. It would be important to ascertain initially wheth er the student teacher had an open mind about teaching in a low-performing school, so as not to waste the opportunity of working with a strong teacher on a student teacher with a confirmed disinterest in such schools. 25. This is not meant to penalize TFA teachers, but on ly to ensure that resources are spent in a cost effective manner, i.e., where there is a likelihood that they will contribute most to the development of a pool of qualified, permanen t teachers for California. It is also assumed that TFA teachers have other means of suppo rt and mentoring through the TFA organization. 26. For further information on CSR and the rules gover ning its implementing, see the CSR page on the CDE website: www.cde.ca.gov/classsize/sy0102/question.htm ReferencesAnderson, M. (1998, November 29). Value-added puts Tennessee on the map The Commercial Appeal, pp. A18-20. Ballou, D., & Podgursky, M. (1999). Reforming Teach er Preparation and Licensing: What is the Evidence? Teachers College Record Beginning Teacher Support & Assessment. (2000). About BTSA [web site]. California Department of Education. Available: http://www.btsa.ca.gov [2000, August 3, 2000]. Betts, J. R., Rueben, K. S., & Danenberg, A. (2000) Equal Resources, Equal Outcomes? The Distribution of School Resources and Student Ac hievement in California San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California.California Department of Education. (2001). Request for Applications: Teaching as a Priority (TAP) Grant Program. Sacramento, CA: Calif ornia Department of Education. Carroll, S., Reichardt, R., & Guarino, C. (2000). The Distribution of Teachers Among California's School Districts and Schools (MR-1298-0-JIF): RAND. Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning. (20 01). The status of the teaching profession 2000: An update to the Teaching and Cali fornia's Future Task Force : Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning.Chester, M. D., Offenberg, R., & Xu, M. D. (2001). Urban teacher transfer: A four-year
30 of 36cohort study of the school district of Philadelphia faculty. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, Washington. CSR Research Consortium. (1999). Class Size Reduction in California 1996-98: Early Findings Signal Promise and Concerns (report): CSR Research Consortium. CSR Research Consortium. (2002). Class Size Reduction in California: Summary of Findings from 1999-00 and 2000-01 Darling-Hammond, L. (1994). Who will speak for the children? How "Teach for America" hurts urban schools and students. Phi Delta Kappan 21-34. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher Quality and Stu dent Achievement: A Review of State Policy Evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8 (1). Available http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n1/.Darling-Hammond, L., Berry, B., & Thoreson, A. (200 1). Does teacher certification matter? Evaluating the evidence. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23 (1), 20. EdSource. (2001). Update on California's teacher workforce issues (Report): EdSource. Ferguson, R. F. (1991). Paying for Public Education : New Evidence on How and Why Money Matters. Harvard Journal on Legislation, 28 (457), 465-498. Ferguson, R. F., & Ladd, H. (1996). How and why mon ey matters: an analysis of Alabama schools. In H. Ladd (Ed.), Holding Schools Accountable. Performance Based Reform in Education Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institute. Fetler, M. (1999). High School Staff Characteristic s and Mathematics Test Results. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 7 (9). Fideler, E. F., Foster, E. D., & Schwartz, S. (2000 ). The urban teacher challenge: Teacher demand and supply in the Great City Schools : Recruiting New Teachers, Inc., Council of the Great City Schools, and Council of t he Great City Colleges of Education. Fuller, E. (2000, April, 2000). Do Properly Certified Teachers Matter? Properly Certified Algebra Teachers and Alegebra I Achivemen t in Texas. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Goe, L., Castro, S., & Curry, S. (2001). Factors Affecting Emergency Credential Teachers' Completion of Full Certification in a Bay Area School District Berkeley: Bay Area Consortium for Urban Education.Goldhaber, D. D., & Brewer, D. J. (1996, July 1996) Evaluating the effect of teacher degree level on educational performance. Paper presented at the NCES State Data Conference.Goldhaber, D. D., & Brewer, D. J. (2000). Does teac her certification matter? High school teacher certification status and student achievemen t. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22 (2), 129-145. Goldhaber, D. D., & Brewer, D. J. (2001). Evaluatin g the evidence on teacher
31 of 36certification: A rejoinder. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23 (1), 7. Grissmer, D., Flanagan, A., Kawat, J., & Williamson S. (2000). Improving Student Achievement: What State NAEP Test Scores Tell Us Santa Monica: RAND. Hanushek, E. A. (1994). Making Schools Work: Improving Performance and Cont rolling Costs (1st ed.). Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institu tion. Hanushek, E. A. (1998). Teachers, Schools, and Academic Achievement (Working Paper). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Hanushek, E. A., Kain, J. F., & Rivkin, S. G. (2001 ). Why Public Schools Lose Teachers (NBER Working Paper 8599). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Hatch, T. (2000). What happens when improvement programs collide Working Paper, Carnegie Foundation.Hawk, P., Coble, C. R., & Swanson, M. (1985). Certi fication: It Does Matter. Journal of Teacher Education, 36 (3), 13-15. Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2001). Teacher Sorting and the Plight of Urban Schools: A Descriptive Analysis Loeb, S., Darling-Hammond, L., & Luczak, J. (2002). Teacher turnover: The role of working conditions and salaries in recruiting and r etaining teachers San Francisco: Stanford University.Monk, D. H. (1994). Subject Area Preparation of Sec ondary Mathematics and Science Teachers and Student Achievement. Economics of Education Review, 13 (2), 125-145. Mosteller, F. (1995). The Tennessee Study of Class Size in the Early School Grades. The Future of Children, 5 (2), 113-127. National Center for Education Statistics. (2002). T able 1.04--Percentage of public school districts that required various teacher qualificati ons when considering teacher applicants, by state: 1999-2000, Schools and Staffing Survey, 1999-2000 : U.S. Department of Education.NCES. (1996). Sources of Supply of Newly Hired Teachers [Internet]. National Center for Education Statistics. Available: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs/ce/c9656d)1.html [2000, June 27, 2000].Public Policy Institute of California. (2000). School Resources and Student Achievement in California (Research Brief). San Francisco: Public Policy Ins titute of California. Public Policy Institute of California. (2002). Relationships between class size reduction, new teachers, and student achievement (Research Brief): Public Policy Institute of California.Sahagun, L., & Helfand, D. (2000, May 18, 2000). AC LU Sues State Over Conditions in Poor Schools Los Angeles Times
32 of 36Shields, P. M., Humphrey, D. C., Wechsler, M. E., R iehl, L. M., Tiffany-Morales, J., Woodworth, K., Young, V. M., & Price, T. (2001). Teaching and California's Future: The Status of the Teaching Profession 2001 Santa Cruz: The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning.Sutton, A., & Soderstrom, I. (1999). Predicting ele mentary and secondary school achievement with school-related and demographic fac tors. The Journal of Educational Research, 92 (6), 330-338. Wenglinsky, H. (2002). How Schools Matter: The Link Between Teacher Classroom Practices and Student Academic Performance. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10 (12). Available http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n12.htm l. Wilson, S. M., Darling-Hammond, L., & Berry, B. (20 01). Connecticut's Story: A Model of Teaching Policy (Policy Brief): Center for the Study of Teaching a nd Policy. Wing, J., Paek, P., Thompson, M., Goe, L., Urrieta, L., Pegram, J., Jinks, T., & Storms, B. (2002). 2000-2001 Evaluation of CFASST: Report on the 2001 Box Review (Evaluation Report): Educational Testing Service.AcknowledgementMany thanks to three thoughtful anonymous reviewers and to colleagues who critiqued drafts of this manuscript: Linda Darling-Hammond, N orton Grubb, Paul Holland, Bob Jorgensen, Luis Urrieta, Jr., Sam Lucas, and Kendyl l Stansbury.About the AuthorLaura GoeResearch AssociatePolicy, Organizations, Measurement, and EvaluationGraduate School of EducationUniversity of California, Berkeley3659 Tolman HallBerkeley, CA 94720 Email: email@example.com Laura Goe is a Research Associate in Policy, Organi zations, Measurement, and Evaluation at the Graduate School of Education at t he University of California, Berkeley. Currently finishing her Ph.D., she holds a BA in La nguage and Learning Theory in Social Context from the University of California, San Dieg o, and an MS in Educational Policy and Leadership from the University of Memphis. A fo rmer special education teacher and English teacher, she began teaching on an emergency permit and was subsequently credentialed in two states. She is the Research Coo rdinator for the Bay Area Consortium for Urban Education (BACUE) and a Research Associat e for Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE). Her dissertation is a mixed-methods longitudinal evaluation of the effects of California's Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program (II/USP) on middle schools. Other research interests include equity, school finance, assessment policy, accountability, teacher supply and distribution, and teacher
33 of 36recruitment, preparation, and retention.Appendix AData Used in this Study Data sources Title I reporting requirements as well as the rec ent push for school, district, and state accountability for student achievement ha s resulted in many states offering public access to the data used in making judgments about schools. California is no exception. Starting in 2000, the California Departm ent of Education (CDE) began posting data files containing school-level variables and Ac ademic Performance Index scores on its website. These files are available for download ing by the public. Other databases with school-level information are also available. For this study, variables were analyzed from a numb er of different data sets. All data files are available at the CDE website, www.cde.ca.gov/demographics (teacher and school variables data files) or at http://api.cde.ca.gov/datafiles.html (API data files). Some of the files are updated by the CDE regularly during the y ear or as new information becomes available. Thus, the files downloaded at one point in time may have undergone changes. The sources for the files used for this study are a s follows: Teacher credentials and experience (tchcrd99). Cont ains a breakdown by school of teacher experience and credentials, aggregated at t he school level into total numbers and/or percentages. Profile of certificated staff, by school (prcert99) Contains school-level aggregated variables on gender, race, degrees held, age, and y ears of service in education. List of California public school districts and scho ols (pubschls). Contains information on schools such as grade span, charter status, and categories of populous areas such as urban and rural. Teachers (full-time equivalent) by subject area and school (teasch99). Contains numbers of teachers in secondary subject areas, spe cial education, etc. API (api2Kbdbf). Contains API scores for 1999 and 2 000, along with breakdowns of scores by student race and other designations su ch as socio-economically disadvantaged and English language learners. Also c ontains parent education variables and percentages of teachers with full or emergency credentials. More recent API scores for 2000-01 school year are also used, but less extensively because this article was nearly finished when they were made available. The file is api01g.dbf. PAIF (paif.97_98, paif.98_99, paif.99_00, paif.00_0 1). Staff characteristics by record identification and CDS code from the CBEDS P rofessional Assignment Information Form (PAIF). Contains information on al l California teachers, identified with a unique record identification code that changes each year. Provides teacher-level information on gender, credential sta tus, ethnicity, education level, years of service, and subject authorized to teach. Data Analysis All files were downloaded as zipped dbf files to a personal computer. After unzipping, files were opened in SPSS statisti cal analysis software. Besides downloading files directly from the internet, a num ber of variables were also created using other sources of information or using the com pute function in SPSS. Figure 1 was created from statistics generated in SPSS and copie d into Excel XP software.
34 of 36 Appendix BMultiple RegressionNumber of schools The entire population of 6,389 elementary, middle and high schools with valid API scores (dependent variable) and vali d data for independent variables for the 1999-2000 school year were included in the regr ession. Fewer than 1,000 schools were missing relevant data and were excluded from t he regression. Dependent variable The dependent variable is the school-level API Sc ore (Academic Performance Index), which is the score received by participating schools for the SAT-9 test taken in spring 2000. For further information about the API, see the California Department of Education (CDE) website: http://www.cde.ca.gov/psaa/api/yeartwo/base/apiinfo gb.pdf The SAT-9 test is given to students in grades 2-11. The CDE then weights the s cores for various subjects (greatest weight is given to reading and math), and weights t he scores according to which of five performance bands students are in. Subgroup scores for significant subgroups (based on ethnicity, English language ability, and socioecono mic status) are calculated separately and are available in the data set. For further info rmation about the calculation of API scores, see the CDE website http://www.cde.ca.gov/psaa/api/yeartwo/base/apicalc .xls Independent variables There are a limited number of variables to choose from in the publicly accessible API data base, including studen t race, parent education levels, free lunch eligibility, English proficiency, student enr ollment in grades tested, and teacher credentialing status. All variables were used direc tly as reported in the data file downloaded from the CDE except for the school size variable. The school size vari able was computed from the enrollment in grades 2-11 rep orted by the CDE divided by the number of grades in the school. The decision to com pute this number and use it as the school size was made because California schools var y widely in grade configuration, with some schools having only one or two grades and othe rs having six or more. The computed school size thus gives a more comparable e stimate of school size across schools with different grade configurations.The model The model was selected after numerous combination s of independent variables were examined. To avoid collinearity, som e variables were omitted. Other variables were omitted because they did not add sub stantial information to the model. The final model is relatively parsimonious while in cluding the variable of interest (teacher credentialing) as well as variables that d emonstrated a strong relationship with the dependent variable. All variables are significa nt at the .00 level.Copyright 2002 by the Education Policy Analysis ArchivesThe World Wide Web address for the Education Policy Analysis Archives is epaa.asu.edu General questions about appropriateness of topics o r particular articles may be addressed to the Editor, Gene V Glass, firstname.lastname@example.org or reach him at College of Education, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 8 5287-2411. The Commentary Editor is Casey D. Cobb: email@example.com
35 of 36EPAA Editorial Board Michael W. Apple University of Wisconsin Greg Camilli Rutgers University John Covaleskie Northern Michigan University Alan Davis University of Colorado, Denver Sherman Dorn University of South Florida Mark E. Fetler California Commission on Teacher Credentialing Richard Garlikov firstname.lastname@example.org Thomas F. Green Syracuse University Alison I. Griffith York University Arlen Gullickson Western Michigan University Ernest R. House University of Colorado Aimee Howley Ohio University Craig B. Howley Appalachia Educational Laboratory William Hunter University of Ontario Institute ofTechnology Daniel Kalls Ume University Benjamin Levin University of Manitoba Thomas Mauhs-Pugh Green Mountain College Dewayne Matthews Education Commission of the States William McInerney Purdue University Mary McKeown-Moak MGT of America (Austin, TX) Les McLean University of Toronto Susan Bobbitt Nolen University of Washington Anne L. Pemberton email@example.com Hugh G. Petrie SUNY Buffalo Richard C. Richardson New York University Anthony G. Rud Jr. Purdue University Dennis Sayers California State UniversityÂ—Stanislaus Jay D. Scribner University of Texas at Austin Michael Scriven firstname.lastname@example.org Robert E. Stake University of IllinoisÂ—UC Robert Stonehill U.S. Department of Education David D. Williams Brigham Young University EPAA Spanish Language Editorial BoardAssociate Editor for Spanish Language Roberto Rodrguez Gmez Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico email@example.com
36 of 36 Adrin Acosta (Mxico) Universidad de Guadalajaraadrianacosta@compuserve.com J. Flix Angulo Rasco (Spain) Universidad de Cdizfelix.firstname.lastname@example.org Teresa Bracho (Mxico) Centro de Investigacin y DocenciaEconmica-CIDEbracho dis1.cide.mx Alejandro Canales (Mxico) Universidad Nacional Autnoma deMxicocanalesa@servidor.unam.mx Ursula Casanova (U.S.A.) Arizona State Universitycasanova@asu.edu Jos Contreras Domingo Universitat de Barcelona Jose.Contreras@doe.d5.ub.es Erwin Epstein (U.S.A.) Loyola University of ChicagoEepstein@luc.edu Josu Gonzlez (U.S.A.) Arizona State Universityjosue@asu.edu Rollin Kent (Mxico)Departamento de InvestigacinEducativa-DIE/CINVESTAVrkent@gemtel.com.mx email@example.com Mara Beatriz Luce (Brazil)Universidad Federal de Rio Grande do Sul-UFRGSlucemb@orion.ufrgs.brJavier Mendoza Rojas (Mxico)Universidad Nacional Autnoma deMxicojaviermr@servidor.unam.mxMarcela Mollis (Argentina)Universidad de Buenos Airesmmollis@filo.uba.ar Humberto Muoz Garca (Mxico) Universidad Nacional Autnoma deMxicohumberto@servidor.unam.mxAngel Ignacio Prez Gmez (Spain)Universidad de Mlagaaiperez@uma.es Daniel Schugurensky (Argentina-Canad)OISE/UT, Canadadschugurensky@oise.utoronto.ca Simon Schwartzman (Brazil)American Institutes for ResesarchÂ–Brazil(AIRBrasil) firstname.lastname@example.org Jurjo Torres Santom (Spain)Universidad de A Coruajurjo@udc.es Carlos Alberto Torres (U.S.A.)University of California, Los Angelestorres@gseisucla.edu