Educational policy analysis archives

Educational policy analysis archives

Material Information

Educational policy analysis archives
Arizona State University
University of South Florida
Place of Publication:
Tempe, Ariz
Tampa, Fla
Arizona State University
University of South Florida.
Publication Date:


Subjects / Keywords:
Education -- Research -- Periodicals ( lcsh )
non-fiction ( marcgt )
serial ( sobekcm )

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
E11-00331 ( USFLDC DOI )
e11.331 ( USFLDC Handle )

Postcard Information



This item has the following downloads:

Full Text
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 c20039999azu 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E11-00331
0 245
Educational policy analysis archives.
n Vol. 11, no. 33 (September 17, 2003).
Tempe, Ariz. :
b Arizona State University ;
Tampa, Fla. :
University of South Florida.
c September 17, 2003
Wanted :a national teacher supply policy for education : the right way to meet the "highly ualified teacher" challenge /Linda Darling-Hammond [and] Gary Sykes.
x Research
v Periodicals.
2 710
Arizona State University.
University of South Florida.
1 773
t Education Policy Analysis Archives (EPAA)
4 856

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 11issue 33series Year mods:caption 20032003Month September9Day 1717mods:originInfo mods:dateIssued iso8601 2003-09-17


1 of 55 A peer-reviewed scholarly journal Editor: Gene V Glass College of Education Arizona State University Copyright is retained by the first or sole author, who grants right of first publication to the EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS ARCHIVES 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 Volume 11 Number 33September 17, 2003ISSN 1068-2341Wanted: A National Teacher Supply Policy for Educat ion: The Right Way to Meet The "Highly Qualified Teacher" Challenge Linda Darling-Hammond Stanford University Gary Sykes Michigan State UniversityCitation: Darling-Hammond, L.. and Sykes, G.. (2003 September 17). Wanted: A national teacher supply policy for education: The right way to meet the "Highly Qualified Teacher" challenge. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11 (33). Retrieved [Date] from a/v11n33/.AbstractTeacher quality is now the focus of unprecedented p olicy analysis. To achieve its goals, the No Child Left B ehind Act (NCLB) requires a “highly qualified teacher” in allclassrooms. The concern with teacher quality has be en driven by a growing recognition, fueled by accumula ting research evidence, of how critical teachers are to student learning. To acquire and retain high-quality teache rs in our Nation’s classrooms will require substantial policy change at many levels. There exists longstanding precedent and strong justification for Washington to create a maj or education manpower program. Qualified teachers are a critical national resource that requires federal in vestment and cross-state coordination as well as other state and local action. NCLB provides a standard for equitabl e access to teacher quality that is both reasonable and feas ible. Achieving this goal will require a new vision of th e teacher


2 of 55 labor market and the framing of a national teacher supply policy. States and local districts have vital roles to play in ensuring a supply of highly qualified teachers; how ever, they must be supported by appropriate national prog rams. These programs should be modeled on U.S. medicalmanpower efforts, which have long supplied doctors to highneed communities and eased shortages in speci fic health fields. We argue that teacher supply policy should attract well-prepared teachers to districts that so rely need them while relieving shortages in fields like speci al education, math and the physical sciences. We study the mal-distribution of teachers and examine its causes We describe examples of both states and local school d istricts that have fashioned successful strategies for stren gthening their teaching forces. Unfortunately, highly succes sful state and local program to meet the demand for qualifiedteachers are the exception rather than the rule. Th ey stand out amid widespread use of under-prepared teachers and untrained aides, mainly for disadvantaged children in schools that suffer from poor working conditions,inadequate pay and high teacher turnover. The feder al government has a critical role to play in enhancing the supply of qualified teachers targeted to high-need fields and locations, improving retention of qualified tea chers, especially in hard-to-staff schools, and in creatin g a national labor market by removing interstate barrie rs to mobility. (Note 0). Recent policy developments have drawn unprecedented attention to issues of teacher quality. To achieve its goals for improved school outcomes, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) requires a “highly qualified teacher” in all classrooms, as well as better-prepared paraprofessionals and publi c reporting of staff qualifications. The concern with teacher quality ha s been driven by a growing recognition, fueled by accumulating research eviden ce, of how critical teachers are to student learning. In this, policymakers have bee n catching up with parents, who have long believed that teachers matter most. (Note 1) To turn the NCLB mandate into a reality, however, t he nation will have to overcome serious labor market obstacles. For one, inequaliti es in school funding—along with widely differing student needs and education costs— produce large differentials in staff salaries and working conditions that affect t he supply of teachers to different schools. For another, teacher labor markets, althou gh starting to change, have been resolutely local. In many states, most teacher s still teach in schools near where they grew up or went to college (Boyd et al, 2003). These factors, together with other labor market conditions, have meant that some schools traditionally have been “hard to staff.” The hardest-hit schools chief ly serve poor, minority and low-achieving children—the same children whose lear ning must increase significantly if the central NCLB goal of closing t he achievement gap between advantaged and disadvantaged pupils is to be accomp lished. To get and keep high-quality teachers in these children’s classroom s will require substantial policy change at all levels.


3 of 55 While more extensive federal roles in curriculum, t esting and school choice are hotly contested, there is longstanding precedent an d strong justification for Washington to create a major education manpower pro gram. As in other key professions such as medicine, where the national go vernment has long provided vital support for training and distributing doctors in shortage areas, the ability of schools to attract and retain well-trained teachers is often a function of forces beyond their boundaries. But without well-qualified teachers for schools with the neediest students, it will be impossible for them t o make the progress on achievement in reading and mathematics that NCLB de mands. In that case, we would continue the historic patter n of failed federal education programs, in which low-income, disabled, language m inority and other vulnerable students are taught by the least qualified teachers and untrained aides, rather than the skilled practitioners envisioned by the Element ary and Secondary Education Act and other national laws. The very purpose of th ese multibillion-dollar programs—to ensure equal education opportunity for the disadvantaged—has long been undermined by local inability or unwillingness to provide teachers capable of meeting the pupils’ needs.As the importance of well-qualified teachers for st udent achievement has become increasingly clear, this source of inequality has b ecome more and more difficult to justify or ignore. On both equity and adequacy grou nds, qualified teachers comprise a critical national resource that requires federal investment and cross-state coordination as well as other state and local actio n. No Child Left Behind provides a standard for equitable access to teacher quality th at is both reasonable and feasible. Meeting this goal, however, calls for a n ew vision of the teacher labor market and development of a national teacher supply policy.Understanding the ProblemsTo make headway on this agenda, it is essential to alter popular misunderstandings about teacher issues. For example: The hiring of unqualified teachers is generally a r esult of distributional inequities, rather than overall shortages of qualif ied individuals. Contrary to what some believe, the United States does not fa ce an overall shortage of qualified teachers. While some schools have dozens of qualified applicants for each position others—mostly those with poor and minority pupils —suffer from shortfalls, a mismatch that stems from an arra y of factors. They range from disparities in pay and working conditions, int erstate barriers to teacher mobility and inadequate recruitment incentives to b ureaucratic hiring systems that discourage qualified applicants, transfer poli cies that can slow hiring and allocate staff inequitably, and financial incentive s to hire cheaper, less qualified teachers. Retaining teachers is a far larger problem than tra ining new ones—and a key to solving teacher “shortages.” In the years ahead, the chief problem will not be producing more new teachers, as many se em to believe. The main problem is an exodus of new teachers from the profe ssion, with more than 30% leaving within five years. This, too, chiefly h urts low-income schools,


4 of 55 which suffer from turnover rates as much as 50% hig her than affluent schools (Ingersoll, 2001, p. 516). Such churning, which res ults in a constant influx of inexperienced teachers, is caused largely by insuff icient preparation and support of new teachers, poor working conditions an d uncompetitive salaries. While the nation actually produces far more new tea chers than it needs, some specific teaching fields do experience shortag es. These include teachers for children with disabilities and those w ith limited English proficiency as well as teachers of mathematics and physical sci ence, two of the three subjects in which NCLB mandates student exams. Incr easing supply in the few fields with shortfalls requires both targeted r ecruitment and helping preparatory institutions expand programs to meet se lect national needs. To address these problems, we need to recognize tha t while teacher supply and demand historically have been local affairs, states and districts alone have been unable to solve these problems. Teacher issues incr easingly are national in origin and consequences. While we should be mindful of the vital roles and prerogatives of states and localities, they need to be supported by appropriate national programs. These programs, we argue, should be model ed in good measure on U.S. medical manpower efforts, which have long supp lied doctors to high-need communities and eased shortages in specific health fields. Similarly, teacher supply policy should help induce well-prepared teachers in to districts that sorely need them—and enable them to succeed and stay there—whil e relieving shortages in fields like special education, math and physical sc ience. It also should help stem departures of new teachers, which cost the nation b illions of dollars a year. Indeed, the cost of the new programs could be entirely sust ained by savings incurred by reducing teacher turnover.The Alternative: Lowering Teacher StandardsThe alternative to such policies is to lower standa rds for teacher knowledge and skills, through either continued emergency hiring o r “quick-fix” programs that send people into difficult classrooms with little traini ng in how to teach or deal with children. This has been the usual answer to teacher shortages, with unhappy results over the better part of a century. There ar e, fortunately, a growing number of new and rigorous alternate-certification programs b ased on careful selection, purposeful preparation, and intensive mentoring and practice teaching that are successful in preparing midcareer recruits from o ther fields. There is evidence that graduates of such programs feel confident about the ir teaching, are viewed as successful with children, and intend to stay in tea ching (e.g. National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future [NCTAF], 1996, p. 93; Miller, McKenna, & McKenna, 1998; Darling-Hammond, Kirby, & Hudson, 19 89). We endorse these approaches.However, we believe the evidence is clear that shor tcut versions—those providing little training and meager support for new teachers —fail to prepare teachers to succeed or to stay, thus adding to the revolving do or of ill-prepared individuals who cycle through the classrooms of disadvantaged schoo ls, wasting district resources and valuable learning time for their students. Unfo rtunately, as some states develop plans to implement NCLB, they are including entrant s into these programs (even before they have completed their modest training) i n their definitions of “highly


5 of 55 qualified” teachers.The evidence to date provides cause for concern abo ut this approach. For example, alternate-route teachers whose training la sts just weeks before they take over classes quit the field at high rates. Recent s tudies have documented such outcomes for recruits from the Massachusetts MINT p rogram, nearly half of whom had left teaching within three years (Fowler, 2002) and the Teach for America program, an average of 80% of whom had left their t eaching jobs in Houston, Texas, after two years (Raymond, Fletcher, & Luque, 2001). Analyses of national data show that individuals who enter teaching witho ut student teaching (which these programs generally omit) leave teaching at ra tes twice as high as those who have had such practice teaching (Henke et al., 2000 ; NCTAF, 2003). Those who enter teaching without preparation in key areas suc h as instructional methods, child development and learning theory also leave at rates at least double those who have had such training (NCTAF, 2003, p. 84).It is not hard to fathom why such teachers swiftly disappear. A former investment banking analyst, for example, tells of the “grim” c ircumstances she faced in a New York City elementary school, scarcely trained, unsu pported, and realizing that “a strong academic background and years in an office a re not preparation for teaching.” Enthusiasm does not compensate for inexp erience, she found, and teacher turnover is “so high that a school’s ‘veter an’ teachers have frequently been around only three years, which makes it hard for ne w teachers to find experienced mentors.” She quit after a year, part of the proble m, not the solution. (Mehlman, 2002).Despite this, the push to lower teacher standards, especially through quick-fix programs or back-door entry paths that skirt prepar ation, has strong adherents. These include some with influence in the U.S. Depar tment of Education, as evidenced by the Secretary of Education’s report to Congress on teacher quality. Called Meeting the Highly Qualified Teachers Challenge (U.S. Department of Education, 2002), the report is highly critical of teacher education, viewing certification requirements (Note 2) as a “broken system” and urging that attendance at schools of education, coursework in education an d student teaching become “optional” (p. 19). By contrast, it regards alterna te-route programs—especially those that eliminate most education coursework, student t eaching and “other bureaucratic hurdles”—as the model option, getting teachers into classrooms on what it calls a “fasttrack” basis. The report’s prescription is f or states to redefine teacher certification to stress content knowledge and verba l ability and to de-emphasize knowledge of how to instruct, assess, motivate or m anage pupils. The problem is not only that the report ignores and misrepresents research evidence, as has been documented in detail elsewher e. (Note 3) It is also that, together with other signals from Washington, it rai ses questions about how the Department of Education will enforce the requiremen t for all teachers to be highly qualified by the end of the 2005-2006 school year. “Highly qualified,” according to NCLB, means that all teachers “must be fully licens ed or certified by the state and must not have had any certification or licensure re quirements waived on an emergency, temporary, or provisional basis.” Teache rs also must demonstrate subject matter competence (Title IX, Part A, Sec. 9 101).


6 of 55 Now, however, the department appears to be signalin g that states can comply in ways that dilute or undercut the law’s standard. Th e statute permits “highly qualified” teachers to obtain full certification th rough traditional or alternative routes. However, the final regulations indicate that the de partment will accept state plans that designate as “highly qualified” those who have simply enrolled in alternative-certification programs, even if they ha ve not completed them, demonstrated an ability to teach, or met the state’ s standards for a professional license. Such teachers may “assume the functions of a teacher” for up to three years without having received full certification an d be considered “highly qualified.” (Note 4) The department’s comments on the final regulations make a point of noting that teachers in alternative routes to certi fication are to be considered an exception to the requirement that “highly qualified ” teachers may not have had certification requirements “waived on an emergency, provisional, or temporary basis.” (Note 5) The comments further suggest that “these alternati ve routes can also serve as models for the certification system a s a whole.” (Note 6) Some states are proposing to meet NCLB requirements by lowering certification standards even further. For example, bills introduc ed in the 2002-2003 legislative sessions in Texas, Florida and California would all ow candidates who have no preparation to teach to be certified so long as the y have a bachelor’s degree and pass a state test. In pressing for the Texas bill, (Note 7) the state comptroller argued that Texas should eliminate teacher educatio n entirely from certification requirements, citing as her primary supporting evid ence the Secretary of Education’s report to Congress and speeches at a co nference sponsored by the department (Strayhorn, 2003). The department, moreo ver, has signaled that it would welcome this further lowering of the bar on t eacher standards. Such interpretations of NCLB involve a sleight of h and on teacher qualifications. If certification requirements are redesigned to requir e less stringent standards than at present, meeting such standards will be an even poo rer guarantee of teacher quality than what already exists. If some tradition al teacher education programs have their flaws, essentially unregulated alternate -route programs lie almost completely beyond careful scrutiny. At this junctur e in our history, encouraging the proliferation of untested alternatives raises the s pecter of a legally sanctioned, two-tiered staffing system. Schools that cannot aff ord competitive salaries, that cannot provide attractive working conditions, and t hat educate the most needy students will be staffed via untested alternate pro grams, while more advantaged schools will continue to recruit teachers with exte nded professional education. This certainly is not the intent of NCLB, but it could w ell be the result. As we describe below, there is no research support for this approach. There is evidence, however, that it would reduce teacher eff ectiveness and contribute to teacher attrition. The chief victims would be the m ost vulnerable children in the hardest-to-staff schools, where underprepared teach ers commonly work during their initial teaching years, before they meet lice nsing standards or leave the profession. This would extend the historic pattern of shortchanging disadvantaged students, even as evidence mounts that teacher qual ity is critical to student achievement. To cite just one of many studies, a 19 91 analysis of 900 Texas school districts (Ferguson 1991) found that combine d measures of teacher expertise—scores on a licensing examination, master ’s degrees and


7 of 55 experience—accounted for more of the interdistrict difference in students’ reading and mathematics achievement in grades 1 through 11 than any other factor, including students’ family income. The effects were so strong and the variations in teacher quality so great that after controlling for socioeconomic status, the large disparities in achievement between black and white students were almost entirely accounted for by differences in teacher qualificati ons. On the central importance of teachers there is, in fact, little disagreement, even among advocates for eased entry requirements. For e xample, the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation states, “The research shows that great teachers are the most important ingredients in any school. Smart, caring teachers can help their students overcome background problems like poverty and limit ed English proficiency.” (Note 8) However, putting teachers with less preparation in classrooms for the neediest children will not provide equal opportunity or an a dequate education. The far better strategy, we believe, is to craft a national teache r supply policy to ensure that well-prepared teachers are available to high-need d istricts, to produce more teachers in shortage fields, and to stem high teach er attrition rates. Even with such a system, of course, most decisions on teachers wou ld remain the domain of state and local school officials, some of whom, as we sha ll see, have made important strides toward filling their classrooms with high-q uality teachers—in part by doing exactly the opposite of what advocates for shortcut s recommend.A Compelling State InterestThose urging few certification requirements want to shift more decisions away from the states and to the local level. But states have a compelling interest in setting meaningful teacher standards. Murnane and colleague s (1991) note, for example, that traditional economic assumptions about consume r competence, priorities, knowledge, and information do not always hold with respect to teacher hiring, that “…some local districts (the purchasers of teachers’ services) are underfunded, incompetent, or have priorities that the state find s unacceptable” (p. 94). If poor information were the only problem, then states coul d concentrate on requiring tests and other measures of the “right stuff,” however de fined. Local districts could then select based on scores and other information. Howev er, if some local districts are likely to hire teachers whom the state finds unacce ptable, then simple information alone will not solve this problem. The consequences of poor choices are not only local:States are concerned because equal opportunity is t hreatened when incompetent teachers are hired, and the costs of inadequate edu cation are borne not only by the children themselves, but also by the larger society Dimensions of these costs include a lower rate of economic growth, higher inc idence of welfare, greater crime rates, and higher unemployment rates (p. 95).Economist Henry Levin (1980) makes a similar point: [T]he facts that we expect the schools to provide b enefits to society that go beyond the sum of those conferred upon individua l students, that it is difficult for many students and their parents to ju dge certain aspects of teacher proficiency, and that teachers cannot be in stantaneously dismissed, mean that somehow the state must be conc erned about the


8 of 55 quality of teaching. It cannot be left only to the individual judgments of students and their parents or the educational admin istrators who are vested with managing the schools in behalf of socie ty. The purpose of certification of teachers and accreditation of the programs in which they received their training is to provide information o n whether teachers possess the minimum proficiencies that are required from the teaching function (p. 7). Without strong, meaningful, and well-enforced certi fication requirements, not only will districts lack important information about can didates, but parents also will lack important safeguards regarding those entrusted with their children. In addition, states will lack the policy tools needed to encoura ge improvements in training and to equalize access to the key educational resource of well-prepared teachers. To demonstrate why combining a national teacher sup ply program with state and local reform is the wiser way to meet the “highly q ualified” teacher challenge, we examine the evidence on five issues: The kinds of teacher preparation that make a differ ence for student achievement. The evidence on alternative routes to certification The current workings of the teacher labor market. The factors influencing teacher distribution. The steps some states and districts have been takin g to ensure teacher quality. We then turn to the elements of a national teacher supply policy for education.I. What Preparation Makes a Difference in Student L earning?There is wide agreement on some teacher attributes that appear to be related to teacher effectiveness and student learning. For exa mple, virtually everyone acknowledges the importance of teachers’ verbal abi lity and knowledge in the subjects taught. Those qualities, along with a libe ral arts grounding, are at the heart of most state certification processes, which began requiring tests and coursework to assure competence in these areas in the early 19 80s. These qualities are also central to the National Board for Professional Teac hing Standards’ voluntary certification process and other efforts to strength en teacher education and professional development. The fact that alternative -certification advocates focus intently on such skills can only be welcomed. The p roblem is that these advocates very nearly stop there, as if little else mattered. Common sense and research evidence, however, tell us otherwise.The Importance of Knowing How to TeachResearch shows that beyond verbal skills, subject m atter knowledge and academic ability, teachers’ professional knowledge and exper ience also make an important difference in student learning. Many other characte ristics also matter for good teaching—enthusiasm, flexibility, perseverance, con cern for children—and many specific teaching practices make a difference for l earning (see e.g., Good & Brophy, 1995). The evidence suggests, in fact, that the strongest guarantee of


9 of 55 teacher effectiveness is a combination of all these elements. (For reviews, see Darling-Hammond, 2000a; Wilson, Floden, & Ferrini-M undy, 2001). It is this combination that most licensure processes seek to e ncourage, through requirements for courses, tests, student teaching a nd the demonstration of specific proficiencies.Much of the research debate about what factors matt er is due to the fact that few large-scale databases allow a comprehensive set of highquality measures to be examined at once. Estimates of the relationships be tween particular teacher characteristics and student learning vary from stud y to study, depending on what factors are examined and when and where the study w as conducted. Moreover, many variables that reflect teacher quality are hig hly correlated with one another. For example, teachers’ education levels typically a re correlated with age, experience and general academic ability. Similarly, licensure status is often correlated with academic skills, content background education training and experience.Studies linking teacher scores on tests of academic ability to student achievement (e.g. Coleman, et al., 1966; Ferguson & Ladd, 1996; Hanushek, 1992, 1996) have led some analysts to suggest that general academic or verbal ability are the primary measurable predictors of teacher quality. However, these studies typically have lacked other measures of teachers’ preparation (for discussions, see Murnane, 1983; Wayne & Youngs, in press). When studies have looked directly at teachers’ knowledge of both subject matter and how to teach, they have found that knowing how to teach also has strong effects on student ach ievement. Indeed, such studies show that knowledge of teaching is as important as knowledge of content (Begle, 1979; Monk, 1994; Wenglinsky, 2000).For example, based on national survey data for 2,82 9 students, Monk (1994) found, not surprisingly, that teachers’ content pre paration, as measured by coursework in the subject field, was often positive ly related to student achievement in math and science. But courses in such subjects a s methods of teaching math or science also had a positive effect on student learn ing at each grade level in both fields. For math, in fact, these teaching-method co urses sometimes had “more powerful effects than additional preparation in the content area” (p. 142). Monk concluded that “a good grasp of one’s subject area is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for effective teaching” (p. 14 2). Wenglinsky (2002) looked at how math and science ac hievement levels of more than 7,000 8th graders on the 1996 National Assessm ent of Educational Progress (NAEP) were related to measures of teaching quality teacher characteristics and student social class background. He found that stud ent achievement was influenced by both teacher content background (such as a major or minor in math or math education) and teacher education or professional development coursework, particularly in how to work with divers e student populations (including limited-English-proficient students and students wi th special needs). Measures of teaching practices, which had the strongest effects on achievement, were related to teachers’ training: Students performed better when teachers provided hands-on learning opportunities and focused on higher-order thinking skills. These practices were, in turn, related to training they had receive d in developing thinking skills, developing laboratory skills and having students wo rk with real-world problems. The


10 of 55 cumulative effect of the combined teacher quality m easures, in fact, outweighed the effect of socioeconomic background on student achie vement. Teacher Certification and Student LearningSince teacher certification or licensure has come i n for criticism, we should look more closely at this factor. Although some analysts view licensure—or the teaching preparation that has typically been one of its majo r components—as unnecessary, the preponderance of evidence indicates that it, to o, is associated with teacher effectiveness. Indeed, studies using national and s tate data sets have shown significant links between teacher education and lic ensure measures (including education coursework, credential status and scores on licensure tests) and student achievement. These relationships have been found at the level of the individual teacher (e.g., Goldhaber & Brewer, 2000; Hawk, Cobl e, & Swanson, 1985; Monk, 1994); the school (Betts, Reuben, & Danenberg, 2000 ; Fetler, 1999; Fuller, 1998, 2000; Goe, 2002); the school district (Ferguson, 19 91; Strauss & Sawyer, 1986), and the state (Darling-Hammond, 2000a). The multilevel findings reinforce the inferences that might be drawn from any single stud y. Goldhaber and Brewer (2000) concluded, for example, that the effects of teachers’ certification on student achievement exceed those o f a content major in the field, suggesting that what licensed teachers learn in the pedagogical portion of their training adds to what they gain from a strong subje ct matter background: [We] find that the type (standard, emergency, etc.) of certification a teacher holds is an important determinant of student outcomes. In ma thematics, we find the students of teachers who are either not certified i n their subject…or hold a private school certification do less well than students who se teachers hold a standard, probationary, or emergency certification in math. Roughly speaking, having a teacher with a standard certification in mathematic s rather than a private school certification or a certification out of subject res ults in at least a 1.3 point increase in the mathematics test. This is equivalent to about 1 0% of the standard deviation on the 12th grade test, a little more than the impact of having a teacher with a BA and MA in mathematics (emphasis added) Though the effects are not as strong in magnitude or statistical significance, the pattern of results in science mimics that in mathematics (p. 139).In this study, beginning teachers on probationary c ertificates (those who were fully prepared and completing their initial 2to 3year probationary period) from states with more rigorous certification exam requirements had positive effects on student achievement, suggesting the value of recent reforms to strengthen certification. (Note 9) Similarly, a number of studies from states with lar ge numbers of underprepared teachers have found strong effects of certification on student achievement. California is a case in point. There, three recent school-level studies found significant negative relationships between the perc entage of teachers on emergency permits and student scores on state exams (Betts, Rueben, & Dannenberg, 2000; Fetler, 1999; Goe, 2002). Similar ly, Fuller (1998, 2000) found that students in Texas schools with smaller proport ions of certified teachers were significantly less likely to pass the Texas Assessm ent of Academic Skills (TAAS),


11 of 55 after controlling for students’ socioeconomic statu s and teacher experience. This and other evidence suggests that it is a mista ke to believe that one or two characteristics of teachers can explain their effec ts on student achievement. The message from the research is that multiple factors are involved and that teachers with a combination of attributes—knowing how to ins truct, motivate, manage and assess diverse students, strong verbal ability, sou nd subject matter, and knowledge of effective methods for teaching that subject matt er—hold the greatest promise for producing student learning. Those aspects of prepar ation that enable teachers to teach students with the greatest educational needs are, of course, most needed for teachers who will work with such children, a point that advocates of reduced standards for teachers in hard-to-staff schools (wh ich serve these children) seem to miss. States and local districts should be pursuing fully prepared teachers, especially for the neediest students. They are the teachers whose training includes all of the attributes intended by the NCLB “highly qualified” definition.II.The Evidence on Alternate Routes to Certificatio nThe evidence on alternate-route programs is consist ent with the research described above: In general, efforts that include a comprehen sive program of education coursework and intensive mentoring have been found to produce more positive evaluations of candidate performance than models th at forgo most of this coursework and supervised support.Just as a quality distribution exists for conventio nal programs of teacher education, so there appears to be an even wider quality distri bution for alternate programs (Darling-Hammond, Chung, & Frelow, 2002). At one en d of the spectrum is a state alternativecertification program in New Hampshire that provides little structure or support. Candidates take “full responsibility for s tudents prior to any preparation, and [have] three years to acquire 14 stateidentif ied competencies through workshops or college courses” (Jelmberg, 1996, p.61 ). A study found that these alternate-route teachers were rated significantly l ower than traditional teachers on instructional skills and instructional planning by their principals, and they rated their own preparation significantly lower than did tradit ionally certified teachers. Some programs impart more systematic training and s upport. In a 1992 study of Connecticut’s alternative-certification program—who se two-year training model provided “a significantly longer period of training than in any other alternateroute program” at the time (Bliss, 1992, p. 52)—superviso rs gave mixed reviews of recruits’ performance. Weaknesses were noted in rel ation to other teachers in terms of classroom management, but some strengths w ere found in teaching skills. A study of the Los Angeles Teacher Trainee Program, another two-year training model, also produced mixed results: University-trai ned English teachers were rated as more skillful than alternate-route (intern) teac hers, while the levels of skill appeared more comparable but lower overall for math teachers from both groups (Stoddart, 1992).In California, the Commission on Teacher Credential ing has worked to overcome shortcomings found in many local internship program s (McKibbin, 1998). A recent study of California State University teacher educat ion graduates, however, found that those who prepared to teach after having enter ed teaching through emergency


12 of 55 routes or internships felt less well prepared than those who had experienced a coherent program of pre-service preparation, and th ey also were perceived as less competent by their supervisors (California State Un iversity, 2002a; 2002b). A recent study by Stanford Research International echoed the se concerns: Principals reported that interns were less well pre pared than fully credentialed recent hires in terms of their subject matter knowl edge, their knowledge of instructional and assessment techniques, and their ability to teach basic skills to a diverse student population (Shields et al., 2001, p 37). The Dallas Schools’ alternative-certification progr am provides summer training and then places recruits in mentored internships during the school year while they complete other coursework. In a study of this progr am, supervisors’ perceptions of recruits were positive for the 54% who completed th e intern year without dropping out or being held back due to “deficiencies” in one or more areas of performance (Lutz & Hutton, 1989). The study also reported data from an evaluation of the program by the Texas Education Agency (Mitchell, 19 87), which surveyed principals, finding that:The principals rated the [traditionally trained] be ginning teachers as more knowledgeable than the AC interns on the eight prog ram variables: reading, discipline management, classroom organization, plan ning, essential elements, ESL methodology, instructional techniques, and instruct ional models. The ratings of the AC interns on nine other areas of knowledge typical ly included in teacher preparation programs were slightly below average in seven areas compared with those of beginning teachers (Lutz & Hutton, 1989, p 250). Only two controlled studies of student achievement outcomes of alternate-route and traditionally trained teachers have been report ed, again with mixed results. One, examining data from the Dallas program noted a bove, found that students of traditionally prepared teachers experienced signifi cantly larger gains in language arts than those of alternate-route teachers (Gomez & Grobe, 1990). The other, using data from a well-designed program with strong pedagogical preparation and mentoring, found student outcomes comparable across the two groups (Miller, McKenna, & McKenna, 1998). This study focused on a university-sponsored program that provided 15 to 25 credit hours of cour sework before interns entered classrooms. There they were intensively supervised and assisted by university personnel and schoolbased mentors while they comp leted additional coursework needed to meet full state licensure requirements. B ecause this design is so different from the many quick-entry, alternate-rout e programs, Miller, McKenna and McKenna (ibid) concluded that their studies . provide no solace for those who believe that anyone with a bachelor’s degree can be placed in a classroom and expect to be equally successful as those having completed tradit ional education programs . The three studies reported here supp ort carefully constructed AC programs with extensive mentoring co mponents, post-graduation training, regular in-service classe s, and ongoing university supervision (p.174). One other program often cited in reference to alter native certification is Teach for


13 of 55 America, although TFA is a recruiting program rathe r than an alternative-certification program. After controllin g for teacher experience and school and classroom demographics, one study found that TF A recruits in Houston were about as effective as other inexperienced teachers in schools and classrooms serving high percentages of minority and low-income students, which is where most underqualified teachers in the district are placed (Raymond et al., 2001). In 1999-2000, the last year covered by the study sampl e, about 50% of Houston’s new teachers were uncertified, and the researchers reported that 35% of new hires lacked even a bachelor’s degree, so TFA teachers we re compared to an extraordinarily ill-prepared group. Raymond and col leagues did not report how TFA teachers’ outcomes compare to those of trained and certified teachers. However, a separate study in Arizona that examined this questi on found that students of TFA teachers did significantly less well than those of certified beginning teachers on math, reading and language arts tests (Laczko-Kerr & Berliner, 2002). Ideally, we would like to know more about the effec tiveness of different kinds of alternate-route programs. Although the research is not definitive (see Wilson, Floden, & Ferrini-Mundy, 2001 for one synthesis, SR I International, 2002, for another), most studies to date tend to support more extensive training over speeding recruits into classrooms with little prepa ration or support. Given the evidence suggesting the importance of the preparation intended by NCLB, the question is whether it is possible for st ates to comply in the face of what appear to be substantial teacher shortages in some places? The evidence suggests that states can indeed comply—with targete d policies that better organize and more equitably distribute their own teaching fo rce, supplemented with a national system that, among other things, works to correct the maldistribution of well-qualified teachers.III. The Teacher Labor MarketTo understand how teachers become so inequitably di stributed, we need to examine how teacher supply and demand operate, what causes teacher attrition, and why there are teacher shortages in particular f ields. We will then look at the chief causes of the inequitable distributions that are the target of No Child Left Behind.More Supply Than Demand. The nation currently is in the midst of a teacher hiring surge that began in the early 1990s. Annual demand recently has averaged about 230,000 teachers—demand that can easily be met with existing well-prepared teachers from our three main supply sources. Only o ne of these sources is newly prepared teachers, who generally constitute no more than half the teachers hired in a given year. (Note 10) In 1999, for example, when U.S. schools hired 232, 000 teachers who had not taught the previous year, fewe r than 40% (about 85,000) had graduated from college the year before. About 80,00 0 were from the second source—re-entrants from the reserve pool of former teachers (NCTAF, 2003). (Note 11) Of the remaining 67,000, most were from the third source—delayed entrants who had prepared to teach in college but w ho had taken time off to travel, study, work in another field or start a family. (Note 12) In the aggregate, worries about preparing many more new teachers to meet


14 of 55 demand are misplaced. As a nation, we produce many more new teachers than the 100,000 or fewer that are needed annually. In 2000, for example, the 603 institutions counted in the AACTE/NCATE joint data system—representing about half of all teacher training institutions and about three-quarters of teachers in training—reported 123,000 individuals who completed programs that led to initial teaching certification. So the newly prepared pool that year was well above 160,000, (Note 13) before counting those who entered teaching through alternative pathways that were not university-based. (Note 14) (see Figure 1). Overall, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, more than 6 mi llion people in the nation held a bachelor’s degree in education in 1993. This repr esented only a fraction of the credentialed teacher pool, since most teachers now enter teaching with a major in a disciplinary field plus a credential or master’s de gree in education. So excluding the 2.5 million active teachers at that time, more than 4 million people were prepared to teach but were not doing so.If we have no overall “shortage” of individuals pre pared to teach, why are there so many unqualified teachers in some states and cities ? What we do have is a maldistribution of teachers, with surpluses in some areas and shortfalls in others. In 2000, for example, there were surpluses of teachers in most fields in the Northwest, the Mid-Atlantic and much of the South but shortage s in the far West, the Rocky Mountain States, and Alaska (American Association f or Employment in Education, 2000). With slowed employment in other sectors of t he economy during 2002 and teacher salary hikes in some places that had previo usly had hiring problems, newspapers across the country carried stories of sh ortages being resolved (see, e.g. Gormley, 2003; Zhao, 2002). In some growing ar eas, enrollment increases will likely continue to create hiring pressures, while e nrollment declines promise to expand teacher surpluses elsewhere. By 2007, for ex ample, enrollments are projected to climb by more than 20% in California a nd Nevada while shrinking in most parts of the Northeast and Midwest. But enroll ment levels are not the central problem. The Exodus of Beginning Teachers. A much larger challenge than preparing new teachers is retaining existing teachers. Since the early 1990s, the annual outflow


15 of 55 from teaching has surpassed the annual influx by in creasingly large margins, straining the nation’s hiring systems. While school s hired 232,000 teachers in 1999, for example, 287,000 teachers left the profession t hat year (see Figure 2). Retirements make up a small part of this attrition. Only 14% of teachers who left in 1994-1995 listed retirement as their primary reason (Ingersoll, 2001). More than half left to take other jobs and/or because they we re dissatisfied with teaching. Especially for hard-tostaff schools, the largest exodus is by newer teachers who are dissatisfied with working conditions or have ha d insufficient preparation for what they face in classrooms (Ingersoll, 2001; Henke, et al., 2000). The early exodus of teachers from the profession ha s been a longstanding problem. Studies indicate that as many as 20% of ne w teachers may leave teaching after three years and that closer to 30% q uit after five years. (Note 15) Departure rates for individual schools and district s run higher, as they include both “movers,” who leave one school or district for anot her, as well as “leavers,” who exit the profession temporarily or permanently. Together movers and leavers particularly affect schools serving poor and minori ty students. Teacher turnover is 50% higher in high-poverty schools than in more aff luent ones (Ingersoll, 2001, p. 516), and new teachers in urban districts exit or t ransfer at higher rates than suburban counterparts (Hanushek, Kain, & Rivkin, 19 99). In addition, teachers quit schools serving low-performing students at much hig her rates than they quit successful schools (Hanushek, Kain & Rivkin, 1999, p. 15). As a result, these schools are often staffed disproportionately with i nexperienced as well as ill-prepared teachers.The costs of early departures from teaching are imm ense, as evidenced by a recent study in Texas that employed different model s to estimate the costs of teacher turnover. Based on the state’s current turn over rate of 15.5%, which includes more than 40% of beginning teachers quitti ng the field in their first three years, the study found that, “Texas is losing betwe en $329 million and $2.1 billion per year, depending on the industry cost model that is used” (Benner, 2000, p. 2). This represents between $8,000 and $48,000 for each beginning teacher who leaves. The larger figure, truly a staggering numbe r, stems from a model that includes separation costs, replacement or hiring co sts, training costs, and learning-curve loss. Using even the lowest estimate for this one state, however, it is clear that early attrition from teaching costs the nation billions of dollars each year.


16 of 55 Such churn among novices also reduces overall educa tion productivity, since teacher effectiveness rises sharply after the first few years in the classroom (Hanushek, Kain, & Rivkin, 1998; Kain & Singleton, 1996). It drains affected schools’ financial and human resources. These schoo ls, which typically can least afford it, must constantly pour money into recruitm ent and professional support for new teachers, many of them untrained, without reapi ng benefits from the investments. Other teachers, including the few who could serve as mentors, are stretched thin by the needs of their colleagues as well as their students (Shields et al., 2001). Scarce resources are wasted trying to r e-teach the basics each year to teachers who arrive with few tools and leave before they become skilled (Carroll, Reichardt, & Guarino, 2000). Most important, the co nstant staff churn consigns a large share of children in high-turnover schools to a parade of relatively ineffective teachers.Shortage Fields. While U.S. teacher supply is sufficient on the who le to meet demand, there are nonetheless longstanding shortage s in particular fields. These result largely from more attractive earnings opport unities outside teaching. Mathematics and science teaching, for example, suff er larger wage disparities than those for English and social studies. Thus college graduates trained in mathematics and the sciences typically must forgo greater salar ies in order to teach. Likewise, increased demand for special education and bilingua l education teachers, and the skill sets that trained teachers in these fields po ssess, have produced shortfalls in many states and localities. (Note 16) These shortages, again, particularly hurt disadvant aged students. This is not only because of pupils taught by unqualified special edu cation and bilingual education teachers. It is also because less advantaged minori ty students disproportionately end up with unqualified teachers of science and mat h as well. In 1993-1994 only 8% of public school teachers in wealthier schools t aught without a major or minor in their main academic assignment—compared with fully a third of teachers in high-poverty schools. Moreover, nearly 70% of those in poor, minority schools taught without at least a minor in their secondary field (National Center for Education Statistics, 1997). In 1998, the proportio ns of out-of-field math and science teachers, though somewhat lower, were still much higher in low-income, minority and urban schools (NCES, 2000) (see Figure 3).


17 of 55 The Children Who Suffer Most. With all of these problems—whether the general maldistribution of teachers, the exodus of younger teachers from the profession, or shortages in special fields—the chief victims are d isadvantaged students in big cities or poor rural areas. This heavily reflects t he nation’s inequitable funding of education. In most states, the wealthiest districts have revenues and expenditures per pupil that are two or three times those of the poorest districts (Educational Testing Service, 1991; Kozol, 1991). Poor rural dis tricts typically spend the least, and urban districts serving students with multiple needs spend much less than surrounding suburbs, where students and families ha ve far fewer challenges. These inequities translate into differentials in sa laries and working conditions—resources that greatly affect teacher la bor markets. A recent report from the Education Trust (2002) fou nd that, in many states, the quartile of districts with the highest child povert y rates receives less state and local funding per pupil than the most affluent quartile. The study indicated that, nationwide, this disparity decreased slightly betwe en 1997 and 2000, a somewhat hopeful sign. (Note 17) Nevertheless, the disparities persist, and their e ffects are amplified by the needs students bring to school. A recent large-scale study of young children found that children’s socioeconomic status (SES) is strongly related to cognitive skills at school entry. For example, t he average cognitive scores of entering children in the highest SES group are 60% above the average scores of the lowest SES group (Lee & Burkham, 2002). As the study documents, low-SES children then begin kindergarten in systematically lower-quality schools than their more advantaged peers, no matter what measure of qu ality is used—qualified teachers, school resources, teacher attitudes, achi evement or school conditions. From the outset of schooling, then, inequalities as sociated with family circumstances are multiplied by inequalities of edu cation. Those unequal opportunities then continue throughou t the students’ educations. In almost every field, central city schools with the l argest numbers of disadvantaged children are much more likely than other schools to report unfilled teacher vacancies (NCES, 1997, Table A8.11). These schools are also far more likely than others to fill vacancies with unqualified teachers. The funding inequalities also lead


18 of 55 to enlarged class sizes and lack of access to highe r-level courses as well as to poorer teaching (Choy, et al., 1993).California data provide a dramatic example of the m aldistribution of qualified teachers and its effects. On the one hand, many Cal ifornia districts have little difficulty hiring qualified teachers. In 20002001 for example, about 47% of districts (41% of schools) had fewer than 5% uncred entialed teachers, and about 25% hired no unqualified teachers at all (Shields, et al., 2001, p. 21-23). However, in another quarter of California schools, more than 20% of teachers were underqualified (i.e., lacking a preliminary or prof essional clear credential), and in some schools a majority of teachers lacked full cer tification. As Figure 4 shows, the presence of underqualified teachers is strongly rel ated both to student socioeconomic status and to student achievement, wi th students who most need highly qualified teachers least likely to get them. Across the nation, disparities in access to qualifi ed teachers occur not only among districts but also among schools within districts. Among other things, recent studies show: Nonwhite, low-income and low-performing students, p articularly in urban areas, are disproportionately taught by less qualif ied teachers (Hanushek, Kain, & Rivkin, 2001; Ingersoll, 2002; Jerald, 2002 ; Lankford, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2002). Teachers most often transfer out of schools with po or, minority, and low-achieving students (Ingersoll, 2001; Lankford, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2002; Hanushek, Kain, & Rivkin, 2001; Scafidi, Sjoquist, & Stinebrickner, 2002). School and district disparities in teacher qualific ations persist over time and have worsened in the past 10 to 15 years as teacher demand and funding inequities both have increased (Jerald, 2002; Lankf ord, Loeb, & Wyckoff,


19 of 55 2002; NCES, 2002).IV. What Factors Influence Teacher Distribution?Researchers have examined what factors influence wh o teaches where and how long they stay. These include wages and benefits, “ nonpecuniary” considerations such as working conditions and student characterist ics, teacher preparation and district personnel policies (Lankford, Loeb, & Wyck off, 2002, pp. 38-39). Disentangling these factors is essential to the eva luation of policy alternatives. If teachers generally prefer teaching white, middle-cl ass, high-performing students, for example, that preference may be hard to influen ce. But if teachers object to working conditions that often attend teaching poor and minority children, those are potentially alterable. Many analysts (e.g., Ballou, 1996, Ballou & Podgursky, 1997; Wise, DarlingHammond, & Berry, 1987) also contend that districts and schools often fail to hire the best candidates, at any give n salary level, introducing inefficiencies into the labor market for teachers. So the joint preferences of individuals and organizations interact to determine who teaches and where they teach. A brief tour of this terrain suggests the ki nds of policies needed. The Draw of Home. The first feature of note is the longstanding tend ency for many teachers to seek positions close to where they grew up or, to a lesser extent, went to college. As Boyd and colleagues (2003) note: “Th e importance of distance in teachers’ preferences particularly challenges urban districts, which are net importers of teachers” (p.12). While teachers who g rew up in cities often are inclined to teach in their hometowns, the number of urban recruits falls short of the number needed, requiring urban districts to seek te achers from elsewhere. If urban districts cannot offer compensating incentives, urb an recruits are likely to be less qualified overall than those who teach in suburbs. The differential qualifications of teachers in disadvantaged urban schools appear to b e at least as much a function of first-job placements as differential exits or tr ansfers accounts. Geography, then, clearly plays a powerful role, a point to which we return in our policy recommendations.Salaries. Even if teachers may be more altruistically motiva ted than many other workers, teaching must compete for talented college graduates in ways that include pay. On this score, although overall teacher demand can be met, there is reason for concern. Teacher pay not only is relatively low but during the 1990s it also declined relative to other professional salaries (s ee Figure 5). Even after adjusting for the shorter work year in teaching, teachers ear n 15% to 30% less than college graduates who enter other fields.Today’s troubled economy is temporarily offsetting these trends because of the relative stability of teaching compared with such h ard-hit sectors as high technology. Thus in the Silicon Valley area, the fl ow of technology workers into math and science teaching recently has swelled, and reports indicate that applications are up elsewhere as well (Hayasaki, 20 03). The profession needs to maximize this temporary opportunity, ensuring that enough new entrants, especially from highneed fields, receive sufficient training and support to succeed, adding to the long-term supply of high-quality teachers. Othe rwise, demand from career-switchers may increase pressure for fast-tra ck training, creating teachers who may soon become part of the exodus from the pro fession. It is important to


20 of 55 recognize, moreover, that the economyÂ’s cycles are temporary, so before too long many careerswitchers may return to more lucrative occupations if they do not find satisfying work in teaching. What happens with resp ect to school revenues, teacher salaries, and subsidies for decent training for the se new entrants will determine whether schools can benefit from these trends. There is evidence that wages are at least as import ant to teachers in their decision to enter and quit the profession as they are to wor kers in other occupations (Baugh and Stone, 1982). Teachers are more likely to leave the field when they work in districts with lower pay and when their salaries ar e low compared to other wage opportunities (Brewer, 1996; Mont & Rees, 1996; Mur nane, Singer & Willett, 1989; Theobald, 1990; Theobald & Gritz, 1996). These fact ors are strongest at the start of the teaching career (Hanushek, Kain & Rivkin, 19 99; Gritz & Theobald, 1996) and for teachers in highdemand fields like math a nd science (Murnane and Olsen, 1990; Murnane, et al., 1991).But do pay increases result in better educational r esults? To find out, some analysts have examined the relationship between cha nges in teacher salaries and student achievement. Based on a meta-analysis of ab out 60 production function studies, for example, Greenwald, Hedges and Laine ( 1996) found larger effects for student achievement associated with increased teach er salaries (as well as with teacher experience and education, which are rewarde d in salary schedules) than for such other resources as reduced pupil-teacher r atios. FergusonÂ’s (1991) analysis of student achievement in Texas also concl uded that student gains were associated with the use of resources to purchase hi gher-quality teachers. In an analysis of hiring practices and salaries in Califo rnia counties, Pogodzinski (2000) found that higher salaries appeared to attract bett er-prepared teachers. Finally, in a study looking across states from 1960 through 1990 and across districts in California from 1975 through 1995, Loeb and Page (2 000) found that student educational attainment increased most in states and districts that increased teacher wages.


21 of 55 Studies confirm that salaries are widely disparate both within and across states—and that school systems serving large number s of low-income and minority students often have lower salary levels than surrou nding districts (Lankford, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2002). Nationally, teachers in schools s erving the largest concentrations of low-income students earn, at the top of the scal e, salaries one-third less than those in higher-income schools (NCES, 1997), while they also face lower levels of resources, poorer working conditions, and the stres ses of working with students and families who have an array of needs. Pogodzinsk i (2000) found that large differences in teachers’ wages across schools distr icts within the same county are a significant factor in explaining the use of emergen cy permits and waivers. Once teachers begin work, however, transfers to oth er schools often appear to be influenced only modestly by salaries and more by ot her factors (Loeb & Page, 2000). While one study found that teacher transfers tended to improve salary slightly (Hanushek, Kain, & Rivkin, 2001), another found that salary variation seemed to contribute little to teacher sorting amon g schools (Lankford, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2002). We conclude, then, that teacher sal aries are important in attracting individuals to teaching from the college-educated p ool and in influencing early career behavior. They also have an effect on attrit ion. But other factors also matter to teachers’ decisions about whether and where to c ontinue teaching. Working Conditions and Dissatisfaction. Surveys have long shown that working conditions play a large role in teacher decisions t o change schools or leave the profession. Reasons for remaining in teaching or le aving are strongly associated with such matters as how teachers view administrati ve support, available education resources, teacher input into decisionmaking, and s chool climate (Darling-Hammond, 1997; Ingersoll, 2001, 2002). Mor eover, there are large differences in the support teachers receive in affl uent and poor schools. Teachers in more advantaged communities experience easier wo rking conditions, including smaller class sizes and pupil loads, more materials and greater influence over school decisions (NCES, 1997, Table A 4.15). In 199 4-1995, more than a quarter of all school leavers listed dissatisfaction with t eaching as a reason for quitting, with those in high-poverty schools more than twice as li kely to leave because of this than those in wealthier schools (Darling-Hammond, 1 997). A number of studies have found that teacher attriti on appears related to student demographics, with teachers transferring out of hig h-minority and low-income schools (e.g., Carroll, Reichardt, & Guarino, 2000; Scafidi, Sjoquist, & Stinebrickner, 2002) or out of low-performing schoo ls into better-performing ones (Hanushek, Kain, & Rivkin, 2001). Given the conflue nce of negative conditions in schools serving low-income and minority students, t he question is whether these demographic variables can be disentangled from othe r nonpecuniary factors that are amenable to policy influences.There is evidence that working conditions are an im portant independent cause of teacher attrition, beyond the student characteristi cs frequently associated with them. For example, a survey of California teachers (Harris, 2002) found that teachers in highminority, low-income schools repo rted significantly worse working conditions, including poorer facilities, fewer text books and supplies, less administrative support and larger class sizes. Furt hermore, the teachers were


22 of 55 significantly more likely to say that they planned to leave a school soon if working conditions were poor. The relationship between teac hers’ plans to leave and schools’ demographic characteristics was much small er. A multivariate analysis of these California data fo und that turnover problems at the school level are, in fact, influenced by student ch aracteristics, but that demographic variables become much less significant when working conditions and salaries are considered. Working conditions—ranging from large c lass sizes and facilities problems to multi-track, year-round schedules and f aculty ratings of teaching conditions—proved to be the strongest predictors of turnover problems, along with salaries (Loeb, Darling-Hammond, & Luczak, forthcom ing). We believe that such conditions constitute a primary target for policies aimed at retaining qualified teachers in high-need schools.Finally, a new aspect of working conditions that af fects teacher retention may be traced to unexpected consequences of the new accoun tability. In many states today, schools that fail to meet performance standa rds on state assessments are being targeted for special attention, often associa ted with new labels. Low-performing schools frequently are identified in the local press and may be subject to sanctions and interventions. Such target ing can be valuable in identifying schools that most need more help, but it can also s tigmatize such schools, affecting staff morale and leading to a teacher exodus. Evide nce of such effects is beginning to emerge. A Florida report described teachers leav ing schools rated “D” or “F” in “droves” (DeVise, 1999). A North Carolina study fou nd “failing” schools lagging behind others in their ability to attract more high ly qualified teachers, a trend researchers attribute to the accountability system (Clotfelter et al., 2003). In the California study noted above, teachers rated more n egatively than any other working condition the state tests they are required to administer. This was a component of the measure that significantly predict ed turnover (Loeb, Darling-Hammond, & Luczak, 2003).Teacher Preparation and Support A factor often overlooked in economic analyses is the effect of preparation on teacher re tention. A growing body of evidence indicates that attrition is unusually high for those with little initial preparation. A recent NCES study found, for example that 49% of uncertified entrants left the profession within five years, mor e than triple the 14% of certified entrants who did so (Henke, et al., 2000). This rep ort and an analysis of another NCES data base both showed attrition rates for new teachers who lacked student teaching at rates double those of those who had had student teaching (NCTAF, 2003).In California, the state standards board has found that 35% to 40% of emergency permit teachers leave the profession within a year (Darling-Hammond, in press; Tyson, Hawley, & McKibbin, 2000, p. 3). National da ta from the Recent College Graduates Survey indicate that about two-thirds of novices who enter without teacher education (neither certified nor eligible f or certification) leave teaching within their first year (Grey, et al., 1993). As no ted previously, moreover, studies of entry paths to teaching that offer only a few weeks of training before assumption of full teaching responsibilities have also found high attrition rates. Conversely, accumulating evidence indicates that be tter-prepared teachers stay


23 of 55 longer. For example, a longitudinal study of 11 ins titutions found that teachers who complete redesigned 5-year teacher education progra ms enter and stay in teaching at much higher rates than 4-year teacher education graduates from the same campuses (Andrew & Schwab, 1995). The 5-year progra ms allow a major in a disciplinary field, intensive training for teaching and long-term student teaching. In addition, both 4and 5-year teacher education grad uates enter and stay at higher rates than teachers hired through alternatives that offer only a few weeks of training before recruits are left on their own in classrooms (Darling-Hammond, 2000b). These differences are so large that, considering th e costs to states, universities and school districts of preparing, recruiting, inductin g and replacing teachers due to attrition, the cost of preparing a career teacher t hrough a 5year program is actually far less than that of preparing larger num bers, many of whom leave, through short-term routes (see Figure 6). Graduates of 5-year programs also report higher levels of satisfaction with their preparatio n and receive higher ratings from principals and colleagues. Similarly, Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) data for 1999-2000 show big differences in plans to stay in teaching between fi rst-year teachers who felt well prepared and those who felt poorly prepared. On suc h items as preparation in planning lessons, using a range of instructional me thods and assessing students, two-thirds of those reporting strong preparation in tended to stay, compared to only onethird of those reporting weak preparation. The differentials hold true for actual attrition as well. Analyses of SASS Teacher Followup data show that new recruits who had training in such aspects of teaching as sel ecting instructional materials, child psychology and learning theory, who had pract ice teaching experience and who received feedback on their teaching left the pr ofession at rates half as great as those who did not have such preparation (NCTAF, 200 3) (see Figure 7). Similarly, a survey of 3,000 beginning teachers in New York City found that recruits who felt better prepared were more inclined to stay in teach ing, to feel effective, and to say they would enter through the same program or pathwa y again. Graduates of teacher education programs felt significantly bette r prepared and more effective than those entering through alternative routes or w ith no training (DarlingHammond, Chung, and Frelow, 2002).


24 of 55 The effects of strong initial preparation are likel y to be enhanced by equally strong induction and mentoring in the early teaching years School districts such as Cincinnati, Columbus and Toledo, Ohio, and Rocheste r, New York, have reduced beginning-teacher attrition rates by more than twothirds by providing expert mentors with release time to coach beginners in the ir first year (NCTAF, 1996). These young teachers not only stay in the professio n at higher rates, but they also become competent more quickly than those who learn by trial and error. States increasingly are requiring induction program s, some with strong results. Unfortunately, quality can decline as programs expa nd. In an assessment of one of the oldest, California’s Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment (BTSA) Program, for example, early pilots with carefully d esigned mentoring systems found rates of newteacher retention exceeding 90% in th e first two to three years on the job. However, as the program scaled up with more un even implementation across the state, a later study reported that only 47% of BTSA participants had received classroom visits from their support provider at lea st monthly, and only 16% of novice teachers participating in other induction pr ograms had received such visits. Often, districts provided orientation sessions and workshops rather than on-site mentoring, the most powerful component of induction programs (Shields, et al., 2001, p. 101). While state induction programs for b eginning teachers rose from seven in 1996-97 to 33 in 2002, only 22 states fund the programs, and many do not require regular, on-site coaching (NCTAF, 2003). To reap the gains that well-designed programs have realized, state-mandate d induction programs must include real support and followthrough.Particularly in hard-to-staff schools, then, polici es encouraging strong initial teacher education are warranted, along with strong inductio n and continuing support. Initial preparation cannot overcome poor working conditions and inadequate support, but it can launch teachers successfully, reducing the o dds that they will leave teaching altogether.Personnel Management. Finally, how districts and schools—within the cons traints of state policies and collective bargaining agreeme nts—recruit, hire, assign, support and manage transfers of teachers plays a la rge role in determining shortages. Studies in locales ranging from large ci ties to small rural districts make clear how local management preferences and practice s shape who teaches in which schools—and how such preferences can systemat ically enhance or


25 of 55 undermine both efficiency and effectiveness.Some states, for example, enforce redundant require ments for fully qualified and credentialed candidates from other states, making i t difficult for them to enter the local teaching force. (Note 18) Additional barriers include late budget decisions by state and local government, teacher transfer provis ions that push new hiring decisions into August or September, lack of pension portability across states and loss of salary credit for teachers who move. Nor do es the list stop there. For example, most districts have salary caps for experi enced candidates. As a result, some highly desirable teachers must take pay cuts i f they want to teach in new schools where they have moved. Changing professions can look like a better option in those circumstances. Likewise, few districts rei mburse travel and moving expenses, yet another barrier to mobility in the te acher labor market. Atop all of this, many districts do not hire the be st applicants because of inadequate information systems or antiquated and cu mbersome procedures that discourage or lose candidates in seas of paperwork (Wise, Darling-Hammond, & Berry, 1987). For example, before its recent overha ul, the 62-step hiring process in Fairfax County, Virginia, mirrored those of many ot her large districts that attract a surplus of qualified applicants but cannot find an efficient way to hire them (NCTAF, 1996). A process that takes months and features lon g lines and delays can discourage all but the most persistent.In districts with high demand relative to supply, l ate hiring and disorganized hiring processes can undermine the recruitment of qualifie d teachers. In one recent study, conducted in four states, researchers found that one-third of a sample of new, young teachers were hired after the school yea r had already started; only 23% had any sort of reduced load; 56% received no extra assistance; and 43% went through the entire first year with no observations from a mentor or more experienced teacher (HGSE, 2003, April). In another study, nearly 50% of newly hired California teachers were hired after August 1 and 25% were hired after the start of the school year (Shields, et al., 1999). T eachers in schools with large numbers of underprepared teachers were significantl y less likely to report that they had been actively recruited or assisted in the hiri ng process and more likely to report that the hiring process had been slow and fi lled with obstacles (Shields, et al., 2001, p. 84). The California State Fiscal and Crisis Management Team reports hiring and screening procedures that are erratic an d fraught with glitches, application processes that are not automated or wel l-coordinated, applicants and vacancies that are not tracked, and recruitment tha t is disorganized in districts that hire large numbers of underqualified teachers (Darl ing-Hammond, in press). Various studies have uncovered still more reasons f or district hiring of unqualified teachers. These include patronage, a desire to save money on salaries by hiring low-cost recruits over betterqualified ones, and beliefs that more qualified teachers are more likely to leave and less likely t o take orders (Pflaum & Abramson, 1990; Schlechty, 1990; Wise, Darling-Hamm ond, & Berry, 1987). Testimony before the California Assembly Select Com mittee on Low Performing Schools (2001) pointed to the prevalence of such co ncerns: [I]n some situations districts hire emergency permi t holders because [they] can be paid less; need not initially be provided with bene fits; cannot be placed on a tenure


26 of 55 track; can be dismissed easily; and need not be pro vided with systematic support and assistance… (p. 5).Yet other influences on the assignment of teachers may operate at the school level. In schools serving advantaged families, parents wil l tolerate less mediocrity in teaching and are more likely to exert pressure to h ire and retain well-qualified teachers. At the classroom level, some parents pres sure administrators to obtain or avoid certain teachers for their children. Respondi ng to such informal pressures may systematically alter the availability of effect ive teachers for students who lack vocal and knowledgeable parent advocates. Such info rmal, “micro-level” processes are likely to operate unless countervailing tendenc ies are present (see Bridges, 1990, Clotfelter, et al., 2003).Finally, in many states collective bargaining agree ments influence the effective deployment of teachers. In particular, contract pro visions that regulate transfers among schools by seniority often mean that hard-tostaff schools systematically lose experienced teachers. Turnover in such schools is high, with a steady influx of young, inexperienced teachers who often are ill sup ported by mentor or induction programs. In some locales, progressive labor-manage ment relations have resulted in bargaining agreements that create more equitable staffing patterns, but these are the exceptions.Several critical points emerge from this thicket of issues. First, incentives that influence teacher entry and mobility often fail to support an equitable distribution of teachers across districts, schools and classrooms. Salaries and working conditions are unequal, and they fail to provide compensating inducements in support of hard-to-staff schools. Second, teacher preferences and school system behaviors influence teacher distribution. Many states and dis tricts manage hiring inefficiently for reasons ranging from fiscal conditions to manag ement procedures, contract provisions and parent pressures. Taken together, th ese factors create a maldistribution of teachers that is systemic in nat ure and that will require coordinated responses across the levels of governme nt and education to solve. As we discuss in the next section, some locales have b egun to develop policies and practices that make genuine headway on these proble ms. These and other exemplars suggest how policies can be developed tha t directly address the sources of longstanding disparities.V. Lessons from State and District ExperiencesIn this section, we describe examples of both state s and local school districts that have fashioned successful strategies for strengthen ing their teaching forces. These approaches inform our recommendations at the end of this paper. A. State ApproachesBeginning in the 1980s, Connecticut and North Carol ina enacted some of the nation’s most ambitious efforts to improve teaching On the heels of these efforts, these states, which serve sizable numbers of low-in come and minority students, (Note 19) registered striking gains in overall student learn ing and narrowed achievement gaps between advantaged and disadvantag ed pupils. During the 1990s, for example, North Carolina posted the large st student achievement gains


27 of 55 of any state in math and sizable advances in readin g, putting it well above the national average in 4th grade reading and math, alt hough it had entered the decade near the bottom of state rankings. Of all st ates during the 1990s, it was also the most successful in narrowing the minority-white achievement gap (National Education Goals Panel, 1999). In Connecticut, also following steep gains throughout the decade, 4th graders ranked first in the nation by 1998 in reading and math on the NAEP, despite increased poverty and language diversity among its public school students. Its minority-white achi evement gap, too, narrowed notably. The proportion of Connecticut 8th graders scoring at or above proficient in reading was first in the nation. In the world, more over, only top-ranked Singapore could outscore Connecticut students in science (Bar on, 1999). Among the reforms that contributed to such gains we re the significant improvements in both statesÂ’ teaching forces, inclu ding in inner cities and rural areas. How did they accomplish this? With ambitious teacher initiatives that introduced standards, incentives and professional l earning for teachers, along with curriculum and assessment reforms for schools (Darl ing-Hammond, 2000a; Wilson, Darling-Hammond, & Berry, 2000).Notably, neither state succeeded by relaxing teache r education or licensure. On the contrary, they strengthened both. For a teaching li cense, for example, Connecticut insisted on additional preparation at entry, meanin g a major in the content area taught and more pedagogical training as well as lea rning to teach reading and special-needs pupils and passing basic skills and c ontent tests before entry to teaching. The state also eliminated emergency licen sing and toughened requirements for temporary licenses. Teachers must complete a masterÂ’s degree and a rigorous performance assessment modeled on th at of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards to gain a professio nal license. North Carolina likewise increased licensing require ments for teachers and principals (in the form of increased coursework in content and pedagogy as well as licensing tests), required schools of education to undertake professional accreditation through the National Council for Accr editation of Teacher Education (NCATE), invested in improvements in teacher educat ion curriculum, and supported creation of professional development scho ols connected to schools of education. Both states also developed mentor progra ms for beginning teachers that extended assistance and assessment into the first y ear of teaching, and both introduced intensive professional development for v eteran teachers. A recent study of North CarolinaÂ’s reforms noted the strong qualit y of teachers in the state as a whole and in schools serving diverse student popula tions. The authors write: Like the dog that did not bark in the night . w hat is most significant is what is absent. One does not see teachers without pedagogic al training, teachers with inadequate content knowledge, or teachers whose own literacy and mathematical skills are poorÂ…. (Asher, et al., forthcoming).These efforts were successful because both states c reated strong labor market incentives linked to their teacher standards. Among measures they adopted: Increased and Equalized Salaries, Tied to Standards Both states coupled major statewide increases in teacher salaries with improved pay equity across


28 of 55 districts. In Connecticut, for example, the average teacher salary climbed from $29,437 in 1986 to $47,823 in 1991, with the e qualizing nature of the state aid making it possible for urban districts to compete for qualified teachers. Because Connecticut’s state teacher salar y assistance could be spent only for fully certified teachers, districts had greater incentives to recruit those who had met the high new standards, and indiv iduals had greater incentives to meet these standards. North Carolina created standards-based incentives by adopting notable salary increases for teachers to pursue National Board Certification, so that North Carolin a now has more teachers certified by the National Board than any other stat e. Recruitment Drives and Incentives. To attract bright young candidates, both states initiated programs to subsidize teacher education in return for teaching commitments. The highly selective North Ca rolina Teaching Fellows program, for example, paid all college costs, inclu ding an enhanced and fully funded teacher education program, for thousands of high-ability students in return for several years of teaching. After seven y ears, retention rates for these teachers exceeded 75%, with many of the remai ning alumni holding public school leadership posts (NCTAF, 1996). Conne cticut’s service scholarships and forgivable loans similarly attract ed high-quality candidates and provided incentives to teach in high-need schoo ls and shortage fields, while the state also took steps to attract welltr ained teachers from elsewhere. By 1990, nearly a third of its newly hir ed teachers had graduated from colleges rated “very selective” or better in t he Barron’s Index of College Majors, and 75% had undergraduate grade point avera ges of “B” or better (Connecticut State Board of Education, 1992, p. 3). Support Systems. Both states bolstered support systems that make a difference in stemming teacher turnover. North Caro lina launched a mentoring program for new teachers that greatly inc reased their access to early career support (National Education Goals Pane l Report, 1998). Connecticut provided trained mentors for all beginn ing teachers and student teachers as part of its staged licensing process. F or existing teachers, North Carolina created professional development academies a North Carolina Center for the Advancement of Teaching, and teacher development networks such as the National Writing Project and analogous institutes in mathematics. This was in addition to its incentives for National Board Certification. Connecticut, among other things, required continuin g professional development, including a master’s degree for a prof essional license. Such teacher reforms began paying off early on. Aft er Connecticut’s $300 million 1986 initiative, for instance, the higher salaries and improved pay equity, combined with the tougher preparation and licensing standard s and an end to emergency hiring, swiftly raised teacher quality. An analysis found, in fact, that within three years, the state not only had eliminated teacher sh ortages, even in cities, but also had created surpluses (Connecticut State Department of Education, 1990). Even as demand increased, the pool of qualified applican ts remained solid. A National Education Goals Panel report (Baron, 1999) found th at in districts with sharply improved achievement, educators cited the high qual ity of teachers and administrators as a critical reason for their gains and noted that “when there is a teaching opening in a Connecticut elementary school there are often several hundred applicants” (p. 28).


29 of 55 These teacher initiatives occurred alongside other education changes—increased investments in early childhood education and in pub lic schools generally, as well as wide-ranging, standards-based reform—which also con tributed to the states’ student achievement gains. There is little doubt, h owever, that higher-quality teachers supplied to all schools were substantial c ontributors to these other reforms as well as to the overall achievement increases. Bo th states sought to increase not only salaries and the quality of preparation for te achers, but also the incentive structure for distributing teachers to fields and l ocations. Both sharply reduced hiring of unlicensed and underprepared staff. Most notably, both held to the course of teacher improvement over a sustained period—more than 15 years in each case. They demonstrate what state policy in support of go od teaching can accomplish. B. District ApproachesDistrict success stories reflect the importance of recruiting, inducting and supporting qualified teachers using policy tools av ailable at the local level and leveraging state assistance. Following are just fou r examples of what urban districts in high-demand states have done.New York City. New York City illustrates how a focus on recruitin g qualified teachers, coupled with necessary salary increases, can have a large effect in a brief period. The city long had hired thousands of underprepared teachers, typically filling as many as half of its vacancies with uncer tified applicants, many well after September. The state, however, pressured the city t o hire qualified teachers and mandated that uncertified teachers could no longer teach in low-performing schools. This, plus awareness of pending NCLB requi rements, led to the improvements. The district focused on more aggressi ve recruiting and hiring of qualified teachers and implemented a steep increase in salaries—averaging 16% overall and more than 20% for beginning teachers—to make them more competitive with surrounding suburban districts. Wi th these policies, 2002-2003 vacancies were filled by July, and 90% of new hires were certified, up from 60% the year before. The remaining 10% were in programs tha t would lead to certification by the end of the school year (Hays & Gendar, 2002) Community School District #2. Much earlier, New York City’s Community District #2 was an oasis widely heralded as a turnaround sto ry, with a strategic emphasis on professional development for teachers and princi pals. But student achievement gains clearly relied on both a development and recruitment strategy (Elmore & Burney, 1999). In 1996, after a decade of reforms f ocused on strengthening teaching, this “majority minority” district—which s erves large numbers of low-income and immigrant students—realized sharp ac hievement gains that ranked it 2nd in the city in reading and math.Sweeping changes instituted by Superintendent Antho ny Alvarado stressed continuing professional development for teachers an d principals, coupled with a relentless concentration on instructional improveme nt. At the same time, Alvarado recognized the need for more talented and committed teachers and principals. Backed by the teachers’ union, he replaced nearly h alf the teacher workforce and two-thirds of principals over a period of years thr ough a combination of retirements, pressure and inducements. Meanwhile, the central of fice carefully managed the


30 of 55 recruitment, hiring and placement of new teachers a nd principals. It ended the hiring of unprepared teachers and sought recruits f rom several leading teacher education programs in the city, forging partnership s for student teaching and professional development with these institutions as well. Similar programs for developing principals were launched. The district’s growing reputation for quality also attracted other teachers. Salary changes were not within the district’s purview. Its strategies, rather, involved recruiting aggress ively, creating university partnerships to develop a pipeline of well-prepared teachers, and supporting teachers with strong mentoring and professional dev elopment. New Haven, California. California success stories are particularly notabl e because that state in recent years has ranked first in the nation in the number of unqualified teachers. In this high-demand context, with state p olicies that were, until recently, relatively unsupportive (e.g., low expenditures, la ck of reciprocity with other states, restricted teacher education options), some distric ts have nonetheless achieved significant staffing improvements. New Haven Unifie d School District, just south of Oakland in Union City, which enrolls 14,000 mostly low-income and minority students, is one that has succeeded while neighbori ng districts have not. New Haven combined high salaries, aggressive recruiting and close mentoring with a high-quality training program worked out with area universities. Although not a top-spending district, it invested its resources in teacher salaries and good teaching conditions. In 1998, for example, New Haven’s salar ies were more than 30% higher than nearby Oakland’s, where large numbers of unqua lified teachers were hired, even though New Haven’s per-pupil spending was belo w Oakland’s (Snyder, 2002). Thus, over an extended period it built a well-prepa red, highly committed and diverse teaching staff. For the 2001-2002 school ye ar, 10 of its 11 schools had no uncredentialed teachers. The district averaged 0.1% uncredentialed teachers—while some neighboring districts averaged more than 20% (Futernick, 2001). New Haven uses advanced technology and a wid e range of teacher supports to recruit from a national pool of excepti onal teachers and to hire them quickly. The district was one of California’s first to implement a Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment Program that assists teacher s in their first two years in the classroom; all beginning teachers get help from a trained mentor, who is given release time for the purpose. In addition, New Have n collaborated with California State UniversityHayward on the right kind of alte rnative-certification program, combining college coursework and an internship, inc luding student teaching, conducted under the close supervision of university and school-based educators. As a result of these initiatives, the district has a teacher surplus in the midst of general shortages (for details, see Snyder, 2002).San Diego, California Using similar strategies, San Diego City Schools recently overhauled its teacher recruitment and retention sy stem, aggressively recruiting well-trained teachers, collaborating with universit ies on new training programs in high-need fields, and creating smooth pathways with local schools of education. It offers contracts to well-prepared teachers as early as possible (sometimes as much as a year in advance of hiring) and reaches out to teachers in other states. In addition, the district streamlined the hiring proce ss, putting the entire system online, improving its capacity to manage hiring data, vacan cy postings and interviews that had slowed the process and caused many candidates t o give up and go elsewhere. In the fall of 2001, districts like San Francisco a nd Los Angeles hired hundreds of


31 of 55 uncredentialed teachers, and the state as a whole h ired more than 50% of novices without full credentials. But San Diego filled almo st all of its 1,081 vacancies with credentialed teachers, eliminating all but 11 of th e hundreds of previously hired emergency permit teachers who had been assigned lar gely to high-minority, lowincome schools. (Darling-Hammond, et al., 2002).What State and Local Successes Tell UsTaken together, these state and local cases demonst rate that determined, well-focused, and sustained efforts can make a diff erence in staffing even hard-to-staff schools, which in turn greatly increa ses the probability of student learning. These cases also make clear that schools can be staffed without lowering the bar on teacher standards by counting untrained novices as “highly qualified” or by encouraging states to dilute certification requi rements. While it is important to broaden the sources of supply for teaching, it is a lso essential to safeguard the quality of that supply if the NCLB goals for childr en’s learning are to be achieved. This can be achieved by clarifying three aspects of the law: Teachers should be considered “fully certified” und er NCLB’s definition of “highly qualified” when they have completed a traditional or alternative-route program. “Full certification” should continue to include con tent and pedagogical preparation. Standards should be adopted for acceptable alternat e-route (and traditional) programs. One careful synthesis of teacher preparat ion research (Wilson, Floden, & Ferrini-Mundy, 2001, p. 30) suggests, for example, that the following components should be included in highqu ality, alternate-certification programs (components that c ould be applied equally as well to traditional programs): High entrance standards. Intensive training in instruction, management, curr iculum, assessment and how to work with diverse students. Extensive mentoring and supervision by well-prepare d teachers. Frequent and substantial evaluation. Guided practice in lesson planning and teaching, wi th benchmarks for competence prior to taking full responsibility as a teacher. High exit standards tied to state standards for tea ching. Around such standards states and districts can impr ove teacher preparation, with Washington developing incentives to attend such pro grams, thereby boosting supply while encouraging the elimination of ineffec tive alternatives.VI. The Need for a National Teacher Supply PolicyWhile we can learn a good deal from state and local successes, such cases are the exceptions to the rule. They stand out amid widespr ead use of underprepared teachers and untrained aides, mainly for disadvanta ged children in schools that suffer from poor working conditions, inadequate pay and high teacher turnover. Thus while much that must be done lies at the state district and even school level, the federal government has a critical role to play, focused on three goals:


32 of 55 Enhancing the supply of qualified teachers targeted to high-need fields and locations. Improving retention of qualified teachers, especial ly in hard-tostaff schools. Creating a national labor market by removing inters tate barriers to mobility. This can be accomplished, we believe, by drawing in part on the federal experience with medical manpower programs. Since 1944, Washing ton has subsidized medical training and facilities to meet the needs of unders erved populations, to fill shortages in particular fields and to increase dive rsity in the medical profession. (Note 20) The federal government also collects data to monit or and plan for medical manpower needs. This consistent commitment, on which we spend hundreds of millions of dollars annually, has contr ibuted significantly to AmericaÂ’s world-renowned system of medical training and care. Although the teacher labor market is also vital to the nationÂ’s future, federa l efforts in this area have tended to be modest, fragmented and inconsistent over time. (Note 21) Washington has periodically adopted programs to enhance teacher su pply, but these have not continued on the scale and with the targeting neede d to address the problems noted. There has been little investment in developi ng a national system to monitor and adjust the teacher labor market. (Note 22) There have been scarce efforts to develop the capacity of training institutions to en sure teacher supplies in high-demand locales and fields. There has been no s erious attempt to establish comprehensive federal-state partnerships like those created to meet specific health-field shortages. Thus we recommend a series of measures to create a federal teacher supply program that substantially a ddresses the problems we face. The general strategy is to supply grants to individ uals and institutions, with funds concentrated where they are needed most, where they will create new institutional capacity, and where they will work to relieve the m aldistribution of teaching talent.Increasing Supply in Shortage Fields and AreasWhile there have long been surpluses of candidates in elementary education, English, and social studies in most states, there a re inadequate numbers of teachers trained in high-need areas like mathematic s, physical science, special education, bilingual education and English as a Sec ond Language (ESL). The nation requires targeted incentives to attract qual ified teachers to schools and areas that historically have been undersupplied. A two-pronged approach seems warranted. First, Washington should consolidate all of its small-scale fellowship, scholarship, and loan forgiveness programs into a s ingle, sustained program of service scholarships and forgivable loans that incl udes the following elements: Scholarships allocated both on the basis of academi c merit and indicators of potential success in teaching, such as perseverance capacity and commitment. Scholarships targeted in substantial part to areas of teaching shortage. Washington would allocate half the funds to nationa l priorities, reserving the other half for states to establish their own priori ties. Scholarships awarded in exchange for teaching in pr iority schools, defined on the basis of such criteria as poverty rates and the percentage of language minority students. Awards available for training at either the undergr aduate or graduate level,


33 of 55 with scholarships forgiven over three to five years in exchange for teaching in high-need areas and fields. Because the chances of staying in teaching increase significantly after three years, calibrati ng the length of the service required with an inducement of sufficient size woul d be important to the initiative’s success. The federal government is the appropriate primary s ource of such programs for two reasons. First, the program can influence the flows of talent across areas of the country. Second, the budgetary implications are ext remely modest for Washington relative to the states. This is an area where a rel atively small federal outlay can go a long way—and actually save the nation sizable sum s. Assume, for example, that the country needs an annu al influx of 40,000 new teachers supported by such scholarships (Note 24) and that each candidate would receive up to $20,000 to cover tuition for undergra duate or graduate teacher preparation. (Note 25) Such a program, costing $800 million a year, could meet most of the nation’s teacher supply needs in a few years. Given that we currently lose billions of dollars each year due to early att rition from teaching—much of it a result of hiring underprepared teachers—this progra m would repay itself many times over if it induced recipients to remain in te aching even for several more years.Such a program alone, however, would not be suffici ent to attack the systemic nature of teacher shortages in urban and isolated r ural schools. Recall that teacher labor markets are intensely local and that many you ng teachers have a strong preference to teach close to home, hurting some dis tricts’ efforts to attract qualified applicants. Urban and rural schools must either lur e applicants from other areas, which is often difficult, or enhance the pool of co llege graduates who grew up in neighborhoods served by urban schools. This second prospect suggests a recruitment strategy that might underwrite the deve lopment of “grow your own” programs in urban and rural areas. (Note 26) Grants are needed to build the capacity of teacher preparation programs within cities where the problems are most severe. These pr ograms would need to meet three criteria: ensuring a high-quality teacher pre paration experience, attracting local residents to the programs, and ensuring a pip eline from preparation to hiring. Some cities have many higher education opportunitie s, but not all are affordable to local residents or have close ties with the distric t to facilitate an easy pathway from preparation to hiring. The value of many alternateroute programs is that they finance and prepare candidates explicitly for a giv en district; thus the district reaps the investment’s benefits, and candidates know they will have a job. When these are high-quality programs with the components descr ibed earlier, the bargain is a good one. Some cities, like New York and San Diego, have created local university partnerships that include underwriting the preparat ion of candidates, with service in the city’s schools required in exchange. Some of th ese universities enable candidates to engage in practice teaching in profes sional development schools that are particularly successful with urban and minority teachers, so that they learn effective practices rather than mere survival. And some programs target both local residents and longtime paraprofessionals already kn owledgeable about and committed to their communities. The key is a combin ation of strong training


34 of 55 targeted at local talent and strong incentives for hiring and retention in the district. Such opportunities could be encouraged by a new fed eral grant program, possibly with a state or local matching requirement, directe d to urban universities and districts to create or expand programs that meet th e standards for program quality that we have described and that support local candi dates from preparation through hiring. Some funds could be used for program develo pment or expansion, while others could provide subsidies to enable candidates to attend, with pledges for service in the district. Analogs are available in f ederal support for urban medical training models (see Appendix A). [from ldh: Note I use federal instead of Washington because Washington is a city or a state, NOT a level of government]. If we wanted these institution-building grants to o perate in the 50 largest cities, with an average of two programs per city (calibrated to size and need), and if each developmental grant allocated $1 million per progra m for each of five years, the annual cost would be $100 million (with attendant a dministrative and evaluation costs adding marginally to this sum). This would ad d only modestly to the previously noted scholarship program and still keep total yearly expenses far below the noted savings. If we wanted to spread these cos ts over time, moreover, the programs could be phased in over, say, a decade.The models that emerged might well be richly divers e, including new forms of professional development schools that emulate the t eaching hospitals used to develop state-of-the-art medical practices. They mi ght include new applications of distance technology, new forms of collaboration by the private and public sectors, and new kinds of partnerships among schools, distri cts and the multiple universities. This would make the investment worth its weight in gold, especially given the subsequent diffusion of successful models .Improving Teacher RetentionIn addition to incentives for entering teaching, im proving teacher retention in high-need areas would be an essential goal of a fed eral teacher supply program for education. Growing evidence indicates that high tur nover, particularly in the early years, is a major part of the problem for the syste m, especially in hard-to-staff schools. Washington could help stem such attrition by becoming engaged in several areas, starting with helping to ensure that teachers in such schools receive appropriate preparation and mentoring.a. Preparation and Support. While quality local programs to prepare urban teachers would go a long way toward supplying schoo ls, a great unfinished task in American education is to create conditions for bett er support of new teachers, encompassing hiring procedures, protected initial a ssignments, steady provision of mentor and other support, and improved evaluation t o help novices. These matters have been neglected for too long, and they particul arly harm hard-to-staff schools that need greater personnel stability if they are t o create effective learning communities. The intervention point here clearly is induction, beginning with hiring and assignment practices, reduced teaching loads, c lose fits between qualifications and teaching duties, and the orchestration of suppo rt from experienced teachers and administrators. How might more effective induct ion practices be promoted?


35 of 55 State certification policy is one vehicle. As evide nced by such cases as Connecticut, states can establish conditions for ef fective induction through certification requirements established for new teac hers. In addition to encouraging such innovations through the U.S. Department of Edu cation’s leadership activities, Washington could create a targeted, matching grant program aimed explicitly at supporting effective induction practices. Since man y states and some districts have created induction programs, some resources already are focused on these needs. Relatively few programs, however, ensure that exper t mentors in the same teaching field are made available for inclassroom support, the component of induction with the greatest effect on teacher retention and learni ng. Part of such a program would supply grants to state agencies willing to develop statewide induction programs that would be integrat ed with their licensure and certification requirements. States might use such g rants to fund universities, districts and other agencies to develop and test mo del induction programs, concentrating on support for new teachers in hard-t o-staff schools. Another part of the program would distribute grants to high-need di stricts to support induction practices such as mentor cadres and related support s. The annual costs would again be exceedingly modest. The grants to states might supply startup funds, with the pledge that states w ould continue effective programs and practices after that period. If individual stat e grants averaged $500,000 annually for three years running and were phased in 10 states at a time, the total direct cost of this part would be $75 million, allo cated over seven years. The grants to local districts might allocate an average of $25 0,000 a year for three years of startup funds, also with the requirement that distr icts continue effective practices. If 100 district grants were given to 20 districts a ye ar and phased-in over time, the second part would total $75 million, also spread ov er seven years. If Washington took on the role of evaluating and disseminating kn owledge from these programs, the nation would benefit considerably from new poli cies and practices that receive hardy tests under a variety of conditions.b. Pay and Working Conditions These factors clearly are of great importance, as is evident from states and localities that have imp lemented successful policies directed at salaries, benefits and working conditio ns. Too many urban districts are doubly disadvantaged in the competition for teachin g talent. They have difficult living and working conditions, and they offer salar ies below those of nearby suburban districts. As noted, Connecticut provides an example of how a state dealt with these problems by both raising and equalizing salaries. While issues of pay and working conditions are cent rally the concerns of states and localities, Washington could encourage more states to address these issues by sponsoring research within and across states on the success of various strategies in different contexts. These might include systemic state strategies like Connecticut’s and local experiments with compensati on plans. Experiments with extra pay for teaching in hard-to-staff schools (so metimes known as “combat pay”) generally have proven ineffective, but some states and districts are exploring further innovation with compensation and working co nditions that bear watching. For example, some analysts have advocated advanceme nt on teacher salary schedules based on indicators of performance in tea ching, including National Board


36 of 55 Certification and other measures of merit or accomp lishment. California implemented $10,000 bonuses for National Board-cert ified teachers, increased to $30,000 for such teachers who taught in low-perform ing schools. California also implemented its Teachers as a Priority Program, whi ch sent resources to high-need schools to recruit and retain fully certified teach ers through improving working conditions, adding mentors, reducing class sizes an d providing hiring bonuses. Moreover, hard-to-staff districts might experiment with pay packages that include, for example, special housing, parking, or transport ation allowances, additional medical and retirement benefits, or summer-based pr ofessional development opportunities for travel, workshops, institutes and other experiences. In addition to sponsoring research, Washington migh t play a role in stimulating the development and testing of innovative compensation and support models explicitly designed to retain effective teachers in needy scho ols and districts. In this case, the Department of Education or other relevant agency wo uld announce a national grant program that would support two phases of work, the first to develop innovative compensation plans, the second to evaluate trials o f these models to determine their effectiveness. If 10 to 12 such grants were l et, then studied over a significant period, the knowledge return could be substantial, leading to the adoption of new compensation practices in districts that historical ly have had difficulty retaining teachers. Once evaluation research had validated th e worth of such models, there would be a basis for states and districts to invest in these models out of operating funds.c. The Prospect of Success. Finally, teachers are more likely to stay in schoo ls where they feel they can succeed. In this regard, r esearch stresses the importance of professional supports and redesigned schools to build stronger teacher-student relationship that promote trust, motivation, commit ment and collective efficacy (for one example, see Bryk & Schneider, 2002). These “so ft” features of schools are alterable through more skillful management and orga nization, which could be supported through development of new administrative leadership programs and continued support of redesigned schools, such as th ose offered through the New American Schools development program and the Small Schools Act. Teachers in difficult classrooms, however, are unli kely to be encouraged to stay by the perverse incentives that may be encouraged by N CLB. Under that law, schools are being branded as “in need of improvement”—widel y viewed as a euphemism for “failing”—if all students and such subgroups as poor, minority and limited-English-proficient students do not all show adequate yearly progress on test scores. Schools stand to be reconstituted and state s and districts stand to lose funds based on missing testing targets. The problem is not only that school scores are so volatile as to be useless as indicators of i mprovement (Linn & Haug, 2002) and that the targets adopted are likely to result i n more than half the nation’s schools seen as failing over the next few years. Th e problem is also that the stigma is likely to make it even harder for such schools t o recruit and retain highly qualified teachers. These labels and the accompanying pressur e could chase teachers away from such schools even more persuasively than curre nt conditions (Clotfelter et al., 2003; Figlio, 2001; DeVise, 1999; Tye and O’Brien, 2002). If evidence mounts that schools face a teacher exod us because they are seen as failing or because of rising dismay at excessive ac countability pressures,


37 of 55 countervailing measures may be necessary. In additi on to amending NCLB to develop more sensible measures of progress, Washing ton, along with states and localities, may need to create other inducements to teach, and remain teaching, in such schools. Otherwise, even lessqualified indiv iduals may end up instructing these students.3. Facilitating a National Labor Market for Teacher sFinally, Washington can create the foundation of a national labor market for teachers, including the removal of unnecessary inte rstate barriers to teacher mobility. Because teacher supply and demand vary re gionally, the country can only benefit if states with teacher surpluses in particu lar fields can be connected to states with corresponding shortages. Washington cou ld work with states to accomplish three goals: Developing common licensing exams and interstate ag reements about content and pedagogical coursework that would facil itate reciprocity and respond to the standard called for by NCLB. Creating a system of pension portability across the states. Providing labor market data and analyses for federa l, state and local planning. Several groups already are working on these agendas in ways that could be leveraged toward genuine changes. For example, the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium, sponsored by the Council of Chief State School Officers, has brought together more than 30 states to create licensing standards and new assessments for beginning teacher s. The consensus they have forged could be the basis for an eventual national system. The organization of State Higher Education Executive Officers, along wi th the Education Commission of the States, has examined how to achieve teacher pen sion portability, and TIAA-CREF has developed such plans as well. A publi c/private partnership to stimulate the next steps in these plans could be ex tremely productive. Finally, the long-standing federal role of keeping statistics and managing research is well suited to the job of creating a database an d analytic agenda for monitoring teacher supply and demand. Such a system, which wou ld inform all other policies, could document and project shortage areas and field s, determine priorities for federal, state and local recruitment incentives, an d support plans for institutional investments where they are needed.In making all of these recommendations, we are mind ful of the federal deficits that are looming. However, these initiatives could be un dertaken for less than 1% of the $350 billion tax cut enacted in May 2003, and, in a matter of only a few years, they would build a strong teaching force that could last decades. We would stress again, moreover, that these proposals could save far more than they would cost. The savings would include the several billion dollars n ow wasted because of high teacher turnover as well as the costs of grade rete ntion, summer schools and remedial programs required because too many childre n are poorly taught. This is to say nothing, moreover, of the broken lives and broa der societal burdens that could be avoided with strong teachers in the schools that most need them. In the competition for educational investment, the evidenc e strongly points to the


38 of 55 centrality of teacher quality to educational improv ement. That should be a centerpiece of the nation’s education agenda. The b enefits of this strategy, in terms of students’ school success, employability and cont ributions to society, will, we believe, repay the costs many times over.Notes0. The research reported here was originally commis sioned by the Education Commission of the States as part of its 1 0th Amendment Project. A version of the report can be found at Th e authors wish to acknowledge the assistance in preparing this report provided by Debbi Harris and Lisa Ray of Michigan State University, a nd Lisa Marie Carlson of Stanford University. The opinions expres sed, however, are the authors alone. 1. A number of recent polls demonstrate that large maj orities of parents and members of the general public (90%) believe that ge tting and supporting well-qualified teachers is the strategy most likely to improve schools; that such teachers should have knowledge of content, how children learn, and how to teach; and that salaries – and taxes – shoul d be raised if necessary to get well-qualified teachers in all schools. See, fo r example, Educational Testing Service, 2002; Recruiting New Teachers, 199 8. 2. In education, including in the NCLB legislation, “l icensure” and “certification” often are used interchangeably. How ever, in most other professional fields, licensure refers to state requ irements governing entry to a field, while certification denotes advanced standin g based on standards set by a profession. For example, states grant physicia ns a license to practice medicine; professional boards grant certification i n particular medical specialties. Similarly, the National Board for Prof essional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) certifies teachers who demonstrate “accompl ished practice,” while states grant licenses to practice. Here, we conform to general usage, using “certification” and “licensure” as equivalent terms for the mandatory state requirements for entry to teaching. 3. See Darling-Hammond and Youngs (2002) for a review of the evidence on which the report’s recommendations are based. 4. 34 CFR Part 200, Federal Register, Vol. 67, No. 231 (December 2, 2002), p. 71712. Downloaded on April 20, 2003 from 002-4/120202a.html. 5. 34 CFR Section 200.56, Federal Register, Vol. 67, N o. 231 (December 2, 2002), p. 71765. 6. 34 CFR Section 200.56, Federal Register, Vol. 67, N o. 231 (December 2, 2002), p. 71764. 7. HB 318. Downloaded on 5/3/03 from 0381.thm. 8. See Teacher Quality, Introduction, Thomas B. Fordham Foundation Website, s.html. 9. Some opponents of teacher certification have miscon strued one finding of this study to argue against teacher education requi rements. Because students of a small number of science teachers with temporary or emergency certification (24 of 3,469 teachers in the sample) did no worse than students


39 of 55 of certified teachers, these opponents have termed teacher certification unnecessary (see e.g. Strayhorn, 2003). However, th ese teachers, like those with standard certification, were found to be more effective than uncertified teachers. Another analysis of these data (Darling-H ammond, Berry, & Thoreson, 2001) showed that most of the science tea chers in the sample with temporary or emergency certificates had many years of experience and subject matter and education training comparable to that of certified teachers. Their backgrounds and teaching contexts suggested t hat many were previously certified, outof-state entrants workin g on a temporary credential while becoming certified in a new state. Others wer e certified in math or another subfield of science. It is not surprising then, that their students did about as well as those of certified teachers with s imilar qualifications. Only a third of the NELS sample teachers on temporary/emer gency licenses were new entrants to teaching with little education trai ning. The students of this sub-sample had smaller achievement gains than those of the more experienced, traditionally trained teachers in an a nalysis of covariance that controlled for pretest scores, content degrees an d experience. 10. A decade ago, only a quarter to a third of newly hi red teachers were “newly minted.” This proportion has increased with growing demand, reaching as many as half of new hires in the late 1990s. In a few highdemand states like California, the proportion has reached 60 perc ent, but this is unusual. 11. Various studies of teacher supply have found that a bout 20% to 30% of teachers who have left the classroom eventually ret urn to teaching in the same state (Beaudin, 1993; Massachusetts Institute for Social and Economic Research, 1987; Murnane et al., 1991). Some leave t o teach in another state, although most studies have not had data sets to tra ck these individuals. The likelihood that those who have left teaching will r eenter depends heavily on salary levels and work conditions (Beaudin, 1993; 1 995). 12. Boe (1998) and colleagues have found that, national ly, delayed entrants comprise about a third of new entrants to teaching annually, which in this case would be about 50,000. 13. Between 1983 and 1999, annual graduates with a bach elor’s or master’s degree in education jumped from 134,870 to 234,408. However, this does not translate directly into new teacher supply, since b achelor’s degrees in education now represent fewer than half of newly pr epared teachers. Most now receive a degree in a disciplinary field and a second major, minor or master’s in education. While a growing share of tea chers are trained in master’s programs, many master’s degrees are gained after teachers have already completed initial preparation. 14. Because a large majority of alternative programs ar e run by or in collaboration with universities, their graduates ar e counted in university totals. Estimates of alternative-certification programs var y, depending on classification, but by 1999, 40 states and the Dist rict of Columbia had 117 state-authorized programs (Feistritzer & Chester, 2 000). In addition, the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Educat ion (1996) cataloged 328 alternative programs run by colleges and univer sities. 15. Researchers using longitudinal data from the 1993-9 4 Baccalaureate and Beyond survey find a 4-year attrition rate of about 20% for those who entered teaching directly after college (Henke, et al., 200 0). Ingersoll (2001) extrapolates from cross-sectional data on teacher a ttrition (from the 1999-2000 Schools and Staffing Surveys) to estimate a 5-year attrition rate


40 of 55 for beginning teachers of 46%, including private sc hool teachers. However, the 5-year attrition rate for public school teacher s is only about 38%. Furthermore, some individuals who left teaching for childrearing or further study will have returned to the classroom in the fi rst five years—a proportion that, other estimates suggest, could be about 20% o f leavers. With this adjustment, the 5-year cumulative attrition rate wo uld be just over 30% for public school teachers. 16. Analysts have long recognized that salary different ials across teaching areas contribute to shortages, based on the sensibl e proposition that individuals are influenced by salaries available to them. In response, some have argued for altering the structure of public sc hool salary schedules by allowing differential pay across teaching specialti es. Some experiments along these lines have appeared over the years, including recent efforts in Cincinnati, OH, Douglas County, CO, and Denver, CO, among others. In 2003, the Kentucky State Department of Education aw arded grants to ten districts for innovations in salary systems. These experiments are worth careful study, but for the most part salary schedul es have remained uniform and fixed. See Kershaw & McKean (1962) and Murnane, et al. (1991) for further discussion of this issue. 17. Flanagan and Grissmer (2002) point out, however, th at while one-third of the inequality in educational spending is within-st ate, almost two-thirds of the variance is between-state. Even accounting for betw een-state differences in the costs of education, this basic fact points to t he need for equity policies at the federal level. 18. For example, a study for the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CCTC, 1998) documented the difficult ies out-of-state candidates experienced in seeking teaching position s. Problems included costs of courses and exams, confusion about how to complete the many and varied requirements, and redundancy with other requ irements teachers had already met elsewhere. In a survey of out-of-state teachers who had received an initial permit to teach in California, credentia l requirements were the leading factor in decisions to leave the state. 19. In the fall of 1999, Connecticut had 30% students o f color, including the 12th largest Hispanic enrollment in the nation, and in 2002, 36% of students attended Title I schools. In the same years, North Carolina had 38% students of color, including the 8th largest enrollment of A frican Americans, and 38% of students attended Title I schools (NCES, 2001, t able 42; NAEP State Data, 2002, retrieved from rtcard/statedata). 20. See Appendix A for a brief history of federal invol vement in medical teacher supply policy. 21. See Appendix B for a brief history of federal invol vement in the teacher labor market. 22. Although the Schools and Staffing Surveys provide u seful data for monitoring aspects of supply and demand, they have never been fully exploited for this purpose. Modifications to the qu estionnaires have made the data about training and certification too imprecise for some important analyses. Furthermore, the delay between surveys an d the delay in releasing data to the public for outside analysis make them m uch less useful than they could be for monitoring supply trends. Although the SASS was intended to occur every three years, the delayed 1999-2000 surv ey came six years after the 1993-94 survey.


41 of 55 23. While Title I status is a key indicator, the Title I program fails to reach a large portion of students from poor families. Thus a national program of teacher scholarships ultimately should be tied to s ervice targeted at the actual distribution of poor children, not to Title I schoo l status alone. 24. Of the 250,000 teachers hired annually, no more tha n 50,000 enter without standard certification in their main teachi ng field. This overestimates the need, since many of these teachers are certifie d in some field, if not the one they are teaching, and some are in transition f rom one state to another or have been hired without yet taking the state licens ing examinations, so they are only temporarily in the ‘not fully qualified’ c ategory. 25. This is enough to pay full tuition and some stipend in a public college or university for a one-year master’s program in teach ing for recent graduates or mid-career entrants—or enough for 2-3 full years of undergraduate tuition in a state university for juniors and seniors preparing to teach. 26. We are indebted to Susanna Loeb for suggesting this point, and for elaborating it in several papers she has written wi th her colleagues. 27. This might include school improvement measures that rely on aggregated longitudinal scores for individual students, rather than annual cross-sectional estimates that can fluctuate from year to year for a variety of reasons unrelated to school practices; averages of these lo ngitudinal score gains over multiple years; annual targets that are not statist ically unreasonable; and multiple measures of school practice and performanc e that extend beyond test scores. ReferencesAmerican Association of Colleges for Teacher Educat ion. (1996). Alternative paths to teaching: A directory of post-baccalaureate programs Washington, DC: Author. American Association for Employment in Education. ( 2000). Educator supply and demand in the United States: 2000 Research Report. Columbus, OH: Author. Andrew, M. & Schwab, R. (1995). Has reform in teach er education influenced teacher performance? An outcome assessment of graduates of eleven teacher e ducation programs. Action in Teacher Education, 17 43-53. Asher, C., (forthcoming). Improving teaching in Nor th Carolina: How school design intersects with scho ol reform. Seattle: Center for the Study of Teaching a nd Policy, University of Washington. Baron, J. (1999). Exploring high and improving reading achievement in Connecticut Washington, DC: National Educational Goals Panel. Ballou, D. (1996). Do public schools hire the best applicants? Quarterly Journal of Economics 111 (1), 97-133. Ballou, D., & Podgursky, M. (1997). Teacher pay and teacher quality. Kalamazoo, MI: The Upjohn Institute for Employment Research. Baugh, W.H., & Stone, J.A. (1982). Mobility and wag e equilibration in the educator labor market. Economics of Education Review, 2 (3): 253274. Beaudin, B. (1993). Teachers who interrupt their ca reer: Characteristics of those who return to the classroom. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15 (1): 51-64. Beaudin, B. (1995). Former teachers who return to p ublic schools: District and teacher characteristics of teachers who return to the districts they left. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 17 (4): 462-475.


42 of 55 Begle, E. (1979). Critical variables in mathematics education: Findin gs from a survey of empirical literature. Washington, DC: National Council for Teachers of M athematics. Benner, A. D. (2000). The cost of teacher turnover Austin, TX: Texas Center for Educational Research Betts, J. R., Rueben, K.S., & Danenberg, A. (2000). Equal resources, equal outcomes? The distribution o f school resources and student achievement in Califor nia. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California. Bliss, T. (1992). Alternative certification in Conn ecticut: Reshaping the profession. Peabody Journal of Education, 67(3): 35-54. Boe, E., Bobbitt, S.A., Cook, L.H., Barkanic, G., M aislin, G. (1998). National trends in teacher supply and turnover for special and general education Data analysis report no. 1998DAR1. Philadelphia : Center for Research and Evaluation in Social Policy University of Pennsylvania. Boyd, D., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (20 03, March). The draw of home: How teacher preferences for proximity disadvantage urban school s Unpublished paper. Brewer, D. (1996). Career paths and quit decisions: Evidence from teaching. Journal of Labor Economics, 14 (2), 313-339. Bridges, E. (1990). Evaluation for tenure and dismi ssal. In J. Millman & L. Darling-Hammond (Eds.). Handbook of teacher evaluation (pp. 147-157). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications Bryk, T. & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement New York: Russell Sage Foundation. California Commission for Teacher Credentialing (CC TC) (1998a, June). A report on issues involving the recruitment and retention of teachers prepared in o ther states. Sacramento, CA: Author. California State University. (2002a). First system wide evaluation of teacher education p rograms in the California State University: Summary Report Longbeach, CA: Office of the Chancellor, Californ ia State University. California State University. (2002b). Preparing teachers for reading instruction (K-12): An evaluation brief by the California State University. Longbeach, CA: Office of the Chancellor, Californi a State University. California Select Committee on Low Performing Schoo ls. (2001). Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy. (1986) A nation prepared: Teachers for the twenty-first century. New York: Carnegie Forum, Carnegie Corporation of New York. Carroll, S., Reichardt, R. & Guarino, C. (2000). The distribution of teachers among CaliforniaÂ’s sch ool districts and schools. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Choy, S., Henke, R., Alt, M., Medrich, E., & Bobbit t, S. (1993). Schools and staffing in the United States: A statistical profile, 1990-91. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Stat istics, U.S. Department of Education. Clotfelter, C., Ladd, H., Vigdor, J., & Diaz, R. (2 003, February)(revised). D o school accountability systems make it more difficult for low performing s chools to attract and retain high quality teachers? Paper prepared for the annual meeting of the Americ an Economic Association, Washington, DC. Coleman, J., Campbell, E., Hobson, C., McPartland, J., Mood, A., Weinfeld, R., et al. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Connecticut State Department of Education (1990). Impact of Education Enhancement Act, Research Bulletin, School Year 1990, No. 1 Hartford, CT: Author Connecticut State Board of Education. (1992). The other side of the equation: Impact of the teach er standards provisions of the Education Enhancement A ct Hartford, CT: Author. Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). Doing what matters most: Investing in quality teach ing New York: National


43 of 55 Commission on Teaching & America’s Future (0-965453 5-3-7). Darling-Hammond, L. (2000a). Teacher quality and st udent achievement: A review of state policy evidence Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8 (1): Darling-Hammond, L. (Ed.) (2000b). Studies of excellence in teacher education (three v olumes ). Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges fo r Teacher Education. Darling-Hammond, L. (in press). Access to quality t eaching: An analysis of inequality in California’s public schools. Santa Clara Law Review Darling-Hammond, Berry, B., & Thoreson, A. (2001). Does teacher certification matter? Evaluating the evidence. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23 (1), 57-77. Darling-Hammond, L., Chung, R, & Frelow, F. (2002). Variation in teacher preparation: How well do different pathways prepare teachers to teach? Journal of Teacher Education, 53 (4): 286-302. Darling-Hammond, L., Hightower, A., Husbands, J., L aFors, J., & Young, V. (2002, April). Building instructional quality: Inside-out, bottom-up, and t op-down perspectives on San Diego’s school reform. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Americ an Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Darling-Hammond, L., Kirby, S., & Hudson, (1989). Redesigning Teacher Education: Opening the Door for New Recruits to Science and Mathematics Teachin g. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 1989. Darling-Hammond, L. & Youngs, P. (2002). Defining “ Highly Qualified Teachers:” What does “Scientifically-Based Research” Actually Tell Us? Educational Researcher, 31 (9), 13-25. DeVise, D. (1999). A+ Plan Prompts Teacher Exodus i n Broward County. Miami Herald Nov. 5, 1999. Educational Testing Service. (1991). The state of inequality. Princeton, NJ: Author. Educational Testing Service (2002). A national priority: Americans speak on teacher qua lity. Princeton, NJ: ETS. The Education Trust (2002). The funding gap: Low income and minority students r eceive fewer dollars. Washington, DC: Author. /documents/investment.pdf. Elmore, R. & Burney, D. (1999). Investing in teache r learning: Staff development and instructional improvement. In L. Darling-Hammond and G. Sykes (Ed s.). Teaching as the learning profession. Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 263-291). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Feistritzer, E. & Chester, D. (2000). Alternative teacher certification: A state-by-state analysis 2000. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Infor mation. Ferguson, R. F. (1991). Paying for public education : New evidence on how and why money matters. Harvard Journal of Legislation, 28 (2), 465-498. Ferguson, R.F. & Ladd, H.F. (1996). How and why mon ey matters: An analysis of Alabama schools. In H. Ladd (Ed.). Holding schools accountable (pp. 265-298). Washington, DC: Brookings Press. Fetler, M. (1999). High school staff characteristic s and mathematics test results. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 7 (9): Figlio, D. (2001). What might school accountability do? Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Flanagan, A. & Grissmer, D. (2002). The role of fed eral resources in closing the achievement gap. In T Loveless and J. Chubb (Eds.). Bridging the achievement gap (pp. 199-226). Washington, DC: Brookings Press. Fowler, C. (2002). Fast track…slow going? Research Brief. Ed Policy 2 (1). Retrieved September, 2002 from /updatev2i1.pdf. Fuller, E. (1998). Do properly certified teachers matter? A comparison of elementary school performance


44 of 55 on the TAAS in 1997 between schools with high and l ow percentages of properly certified regular education teachers. Austin: The Charles A. Dana Center, University of T exas at Austin. Fuller, E. (2000). Do properly certified teachers matter? Properly cer tified algebra teachers and Algebra I achievement in Texas. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Ameri can Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Futernick, K. (2001, April). A district-by-district analysis of the distribution of teachers in California and an overview of the Teacher Qualification Index (TQI). Sacramento: California State University, Sacramento. Gomez, D., & Grobe, R. (1990). Three years of alternative certification in Dallas: Where are we? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Edu cational Research Association, Boston, MA. Goe, L. (2002, April). Legislating equity: The dist ribution of emergency permit teachers in California Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 10 (42). Retrieved November 8, 2002 from Goldhaber, D.D. & Brewer, D.J. (2000). Does teacher certification matter? High school certification st atus and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22, 129-145. Good, T.L. & Brophy, J.E. (1995). Contemporary educational psychology, 5th edition. NY: Longman, Inc. Gormley, M. (2003, January 2). State: The teacher s hortage is abating. Boston Globe. Greenwald, R., Hedges, L., & Laine, R.D. (1996). Th e effect of school resources on student achievement Review of Educational Research, 66 361-396. Grey, L., Cahahlan, M., Hein, S., Litman, C., Sever ynse, J., Warren S., Wisan, G., & Stowe, P. (1993). New teachers in the job market. 1991 update. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Gritz, M., & Theobold, N. (1996). The effects of sc hool district spending priorities on length of stay in teaching. Journal of Human Resources, 31 477-512. Hanushek, E. (1992). The trade-off between child qu antity and quality Journal of Political Economy, 100 (1), 84-117. Hanushek, E. (1996). School resources and achievement in Maryland. Baltimore: Maryland State Department of Education. Hanushek, E., Kain, J., & Rivkin, S. (1998). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. (Working Paper 6691). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Econ omic Research. Hanushek, E., Kain, J., & Rivkin, S. (1999). Do higher salaries buy better teachers? Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Hanushek, E., Kain, J., & Rivkin, S. (2001). Why public schools lose teachers (Working Paper #8599). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research Harris, P. (2002). Survey of California teachers. Peter Harris Research Group. Hawk, P., Coble, C. R. & Swanson, M. (1985). Certif ication: Does it matter? Journal of Teacher Education, 36 (3), 13-15. Hayasaki, E., (2003, February 10), Teacher Shortage Abates, Los Angeles Times Hayes, E. & Gendar, A. (2002, July 24). Pay hike lu res better-qualified teachers New York Daily News. Henke, R.R., Chen, X., Geis, S., & Knepper, P. (200 0). Progress through the teacher pipeline: 1992-93 college graduates and elementary/secondary school t eaching as of 1997. NCES 2000-152. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Stati stics. HGSE News. (2003, April 22). New research finds school hiring and support practi ces fall short.


45 of 55 Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Ingersoll, R. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 38 (3), 499-534. Ingersoll, R. (2002, January). Out-of-field teaching, educational inequality, and the organization of schools: An exploratory analysis (R-02-1). Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Tea ching and Policy. Jelmberg, J. (1996). College-based teacher educatio n versus state-sponsored alternative programs. Journal of Teacher Education, 47 (1), 60-66. Jerald, C. (2002, August). All talk, no action. Putting an end to out-of-field teaching. Washington, DC: The Education Trust. Kain, J., & Singleton, K. (1996). Equality of educa tional opportunity revisited. New England Economic Review (May/June), 87-111. Kershaw, J. & McKean, R. (1962). Teacher shortages and salary schedules. New York: McGraw-Hill. Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequalities. New York: Crown Publishers. Laczko-Kerr, I., & Berliner, D.C. (2002, September 6). The effectiveness of "Teach for America" and other undercertified teachers on student academic achievement: A case of harmful public policy," Education Policy Analysis Archives 10 (37). Retrieved 5/3/03 from Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2002). Teach er sorting and the plight of urban schools: A descriptive analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24 (1), 3762. Lee, V., & Burkam, D. (2002). Inequality at the starting gate: Social background differences in achievement as children begin school Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute. Levin, H. M. (1980). Teacher certification and the economics of information Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 2 (4), 5-18. Linn, R.L. & Haug, C. (2002). Stability of school-b uilding accountability scores and gains. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24 (1), 29-36. Loeb, S. & Page, M. (2000). Examining the link betw een teacher wages and student outcomes: The importance of alternative labor market opportunitie s and non-pecuniary variation. Review of Economics and Statistics, 82 (3), 393-408. Loeb, S., Darling-Hammond, L., and Luczak, J. (fort hcoming). Teacher turnover: The role of working conditions and salaries in recruiting and retaining teachers. Stanford: Stanford University School of Education. Lutz, R. & Hutton, J. (1989). Alternative teacher c ertification: Its policy implications for classroom and personnel practice. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11 (3), 237-254. Massachusetts Institute for Social and Economic Res earch (1987). Report on the status of teacher supply and demand in Massachusetts. Amherst, MA: Author. McKibbin, M. (1998). Teaching internship programs: Alternative prepration and licensure in California: Purposes, procedures and performance. Sacramento, C A: California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. Mehlman, N., My Brief Teaching Career (June 24, 2002, New York Times, need op ed page # Miller, J., McKenna, M., & McKenna, B. (1998). A co mparison of alternatively certified and traditional ly prepared teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 49 (3), 165-176. Mitchell, N. (1987). Interim evaluation report of the alternative certif ication system (REA87-027-2). Dallas, TX: DISD Department of Planning, Evaluation, and Te sting. Monk, D. (1994). Subject area preparation of second ary mathematics and science teachers and student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 12 (2), 125-142.


46 of 55 Mont, E., & Rees, D. (1996). The influence of class room characteristics on high school teacher turnove r. Economic Inquiry, 34 (1), 152-167. Murnane, R. (1983). Understanding the sources of te aching competence: Choices, skills, and the limits of training. Teachers College Record, 84 (3), 564-589. Murnane, R., & Olsen, R. (1990). The effects of sal aries and opportunity costs on length of stay in teaching: Evidence from North Carolina. Journal of Human Resources, 25 (1), 106124. Murnane, R., Singer, J., & Willett, J. (1989). The influences of salaries and ‘opportunity costs’ on teachers’ career choices: Evidence from North Carol ina. Harvard Educational Review, 59 (3), 325-46. Murnane, R., Singer, J., Willett, J., Kemple, J., & Olsen, R. (1991). Who will teach? Policies that matter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. National Center for Education Statistics. (1997). America's teachers: Profile of a profession, 1993-9 4. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. (1998). Projections of education statistics to 2007. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. (2000). Digest of Education Statistics, 1999. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of National Center for Education Statistics. (2002). Qualifications of the public school teacher workfor ce: Prevalence of out-of-field teaching 1987-88 to 1999 -2000. Washington, DC: Author. National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future. (1996). What matters most: Teaching for America’s future. New York: Author. National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future. (2003). No Dream denied: A pledge to America’s children. NY: Author. National Education Goals Panel. (1999). Reading achievement state by state, 1999 Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Pflaum, S. W. & Abrahamson, T. (1990). Teacher assi gnment, hiring, and preparation. The Urban Review, 22 (1), 17-31. Pogodzinski, J. M. (2000). The teacher shortage: Causes and recommendations fo r change San Jose: Department of Economics, San Jose State University. Raymond, M., Fletcher, S., & Luque, J. (2001). Teach for America: An evaluation of teacher differe nces and student outcomes in Houston, Texas. Stanford, CA: The Hoover Institution, Center for Re search on Education Outcomes. Recruiting New Teachers (1998). The essential profession: A survey of public attitu des toward teaching, educational opportunity, and school reform. Belmont, MA: Author. Rivkin, S., Hanushek, E., and Kain, J. (2000). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. (Working paper #6691, revised). Cambridge, MA: National Bure au of Economic Research. Rothstein, R. (2002, July). Raising school standard s and cutting budget: Huh? New York Times July 7, 2002. Scafidi, B., Sjoquist, D., & Stinebrickner, T. (200 2, September). The impact of wages and school characteristics on teacher mobility and retention. Unpublished manuscript. Schlechty, P. (1990). Schools for the 21st century: Leadership imperative s for educational reform. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Schlechty, P. & Vance, V. (1983). Recruitment, sele ction, and retention: The shape of the teaching for ce. Elementary School Journal, 83 469-487. Shields, P. M., Esch, C., Humphrey, D. C., Young, V M., Gaston, M., & Hunt, H. (1999). The status of the


47 of 55 teaching profession: Research findings and policy r ecommendations. A report to the Teaching and California's Future Task Force Santa Cruz, CA: The Center for the Future of Teac hing and Learning. Shields, P.M., Humphrey, D.C., Wechsler, M.E., Riel L.M., Tiffany-Morales, J., Woodworth, K., Young, V.M. & Price, T. (2001). The status of the teaching profession 2001. Santa Cruz, CA: The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning. Snyder, J. (2002). New Haven Unified School Distric t: A teaching quality system for excellence and equity. In A. Hightower, M. Knapp, J. Marsh, and M. McLaughlin (Eds.). School districts and instructional renewal (pp. 94-110). New York: Teachers College Press. SRI International. (2002, October). Alternative certification: Design for a national st udy. Menlo Park, CA: Author. Strauss, R. P. & Sawyer, E. A. (1986). Some new evi dence on teacher and student competencies. Economics of Education Review, 5 (1), 41-48. Strayhorn, C. K. (2003, January). ED 4: Alleviate t he Texas teacher shortage. E-Texas: Limited Government, Unlimited Opportunity. Downloaded on 5/ 3/03 from Stoddart, Trish (1992). An alternate route to teach er certification: Preliminary findings from the Los Angeles Unified School District Intern Program. Pea body Journal of Education, 67(3). Theobold, N. (1990). An examination of the influenc e of personal, professional, and school district characteristics on public school teacher retention. Economics of Education Review, 9 (3), 241-250. Theobold, N., & Gritz, R. (1990). The effect of sch ool district spending priorities on the exit paths of beginning teachers leaving the district. Economics of Education Review, 15 (1), 11-22. Tye, B. B. & O’Brien, L. (2002). Why are experience d teachers leaving the profession? Phi Delta Kappan, 84 (1), 24-32. Tyson, S., Hawley, H., & McKibbin, M. (2000). Pre-internship teaching program: A progress report to the legislature. Sacramento, CA: California Commission on Teacher Cr edentialing. U.S. Department of Education. (2002, June). Meeting the highly qualified teachers challenge: Th e secretary’s annual report on teacher quality. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Offic e of Postsecondary Education. Wayne, A., & Youngs, P. (in press). Teacher charact eristics and student achievement gains: A review. Review of Educational Research Wenglinsky, H. (2000). How teaching matters: Bringing the classroom back i nto discussions of teacher quality. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Wenglinsky, H. (2002). How schools matter: The link between teacher classroom practices and student academic performance. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10 (12); retrieved from Wilson, S., Darling-Hammond, L., & Berry B. (2000). A case of successful teaching policy: Connecticut’s long-term efforts to improve teaching and learning. Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy. Wilson, S., Floden, R., & Ferrini-Mundy, J. (2001, February). Teacher preparation research: Current knowledge, gaps, and recommendations (R-01-3). Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Tea ching and Policy. Wise, A., Darling-Hammond, L., & Berry, B. (1987). Effective teacher selection: From recruitment to retention. Santa Monica: Rand Corporation. Zhou, Y. (2002, October 5). To find teachers, raise hand high and yell, ‘me! ’ New York Times.About the Authors


48 of 55 Linda Darling-HammondSchool of EducationStanford UniversityLinda Darling-Hammond is Charles E. Ducommun Profes sor of Education at Stanford University School of Education. She also s erved as executive director of the National Commission on Teaching and AmericaÂ’s F uture which produced the 1996 widely cited blueprint for education reform: What Matters Most: Teaching for AmericaÂ’s Future Darling-Hammond's research, teaching, and policy work focus on teaching and teacher education, school restructurin g, and educational equity. She has been active in the development of standards for teaching, having served as a twoterm member of the National Board for Professi onal Teaching Standards and as chair of the Interstate New Teacher Assessment a nd Support Consortium (INTASC) committee that drafted model standards for licensing beginning teachers. She is author of The Right To Learn, A License to Teach and Professional Development Schools: Schools for Developing a Profe ssion along with six other books and more than 200 book chapters, journal arti cles, and monographs on education. Dr. Darling-Hammond works on issues of e ducation policy and practice, including school reform, authentic assessment, prof essional development schools and educational research. She serves as the faculty sponsor for Stanford's Teacher Education Program (STEP). As a leader in the charge for better teacher education and teacher preparedness, Dr. DarlingHammond is i nstrumental in redesigning STEP to better prepare teachers to teach diverse le arners in the context of challenging new subject matter standards. She also is helping to create a network of Bay Area schools of education and professional d evelopment schools (PDS) interested in working together on school reform, an d learning communities for Bay Area practitioners through an ongoing series of wor kshops, institutes, peer coaching networks and study groups.Gary SykesCollege of EducationMichigan State UniversityEast Lansing, MI Email: garys@pilot.msu.eduGary Sikes is a professor in the Departments of Edu cational Administration and Teacher Education, College of Education, Michigan S tate University. Recent work includes two strands. One is on the effects of scho ol choice policies on educational systems; his most recent book, co-edited with David Plank (Choosing Choice: School Choice in International Perspective. Teacher s College Press, 2003) explores this theme. The other strand of work exami nes the effects of policies directed at teaching and teachers. That theme is re presented in a book co-edited with Linda Darling Hammond, Teaching as the Learnin g Profession (Jossey Bass, 1999).Appendix AFederal Funding for Health Professionals


49 of 55 Since 1944, the federal government has offered loan s to students preparing for health professions careers and has supported the de velopment of medical education programs. These programs were expanded du ring the 1950s by the Medical Manpower Act and in 1963 by the Health Prof essions Education Assistance Act, which have been amended and expande d regularly ever since. Over a half century, a strong federal role in manag ing the medical workforce and strengthening medical training has contributed to A merica’s world-class system of medical training. Title 42, chapter 6A, subchapter V of the U.S. Code details the many components of this system, which includes: Forgivable loans, scholarships, fellowships, and tr aineeships that are designed to: Increase the numbers of doctors and nurses in field s of highdemand. a. Improve the geographic distribution of health profe ssionals in medically underserved and rural areas. b. Recruit as medical students individuals who are mem bers of minority groups. c. 1. Investments in health professions schools, which ar e designed to: Underwrite the costs of planning, developing and op erating training programs in specified high-need fields (currently, for example, family medicine, internal medicine, pediatrics and general dentistry), often with special consideration for projects that prepare pra ctitioners to work with underserved populations. a. Create “Centers of Excellence” at specific medical schools for increasing the supply of minority medical students and faculty and improving the capacity of professionals to address minority health issues, including development of community-based he alth facilities. b. Establish area health education centers that assess regional health personnel needs and assist in the development of tr aining programs to meet such needs, especially in underserved areas. ( Some costs are funded by state and local partners). c. Expand training programs for public health workers, especially in “severe shortage disciplines” (e.g. epidemiology, b iostatistics, environmental health, maternal and child health, pu blic health nursing and behavioral and mental health). d. 2. Support for analysis concerning the health professi ons workforce, which aims to: Operate a uniform health professions data reporting system to collect, compile and analyze data on health professions pers onnel and students-in-training. a. Develop a non-federal analytic infrastructure (via grants to states and other institutions) to conduct research on high pri ority workforce questions, including projections of supply and need by specialty and location. b. Conduct program evaluations and assessments. c. 3. Over the years, as needs have been identified, the Congress has continued to develop innovative strategies to address emerging p ersonnel and service needs. For example, recent amendments to the Public Health Service Act (PL 107-251) added, to existing support for health centers and t he National Health Service


50 of 55 Corps, the creation of integrated health care netwo rks in rural areas, grants to expand telehealth resources, and expansion of train ing grants to include mental health professionals and increase participation of individuals in other training fields experiencing shortages, such as dentists. Using par tnership strategies, some grants are directed to states to improve their capa city to recruit and distribute high-need professionals. For example, Section 340G (42 USC 256g) provides for grants to states for innovative programs “to addres s the dental workforce needs of designated dental health professional shortage area s in a manner that is appropriate to the states’ individual needs.” State s may use the funds for loan forgiveness programs for dentists who agree to prac tice in shortage areas or who agree to provide payments on a sliding scale; for r ecruitment and retention efforts; for grants or no-interest loans to help dentists es tablish or expand practices in shortage areas; and for the establishment or expans ion of dental residency programs. Through these evolving strategies and the hundreds of millions of dollars annually allocated to them, the federal government responds to local needs for health professionals and manages the labor market s o that these needs can be better met.Appendix BFederal Funding for Education ProfessionalsFederal involvement in education manpower issues al so emerged in the post-war era in the United States, but it has been more spot ty than the steady, consistent involvement in the health professions. Rather than developing any overarching rationale or policy, federal efforts were attached to other priorities, such as national defense or civil rights, which supplied justificati on for a federal role. In addressing teacher recruitment needs and shortages, the nation al government tended to rely on incentives with limited time horizons.The earliest legislation involved support for veter ans returning from World War II. The Serviceman’s Readjustment Act of 1944 contained a provision to help defray tuition and other costs for G.I.s, with teachers co lleges and normal schools on the list of approved institutions. Subsequently, as the nation was drawn into the Cold War, national defense emerged as the paramount issu e. Among its provisions, the National Defense Education Act of 1958 launched a l oan program that became identified with its chief sponsor, Congressman Carl Perkins. Title II, the National Defense Loan Program, supplied student loans for co llege education, with special consideration for students with a superior academic background who expressed a desire to teach in elementary or secondary school. The program provided that any loans would be canceled, at the rate of 10% annuall y, for each year of service in a public school. The Higher Education Act of 1965 inc reased the rate of cancellation on Perkins loans from 10% to 15% for teachers who s erved in schools with high concentrations of students from lowincome familie s. Such teachers also would be eligible for 100% of loan cancellation, based on ex tended years of service, rather than 50% available to other teachers. The 1998 reau thorization provided Perkins loan cancellations at the rate of 15% for years one and two of service, 20% for years three and four, and 30% for year five of serv ice. The amendments added teachers of learning disabled students to those who teach in high poverty (Title I) schools or in subject-matter shortage areas, includ ing mathematics, science,


51 of 55 foreign languages and bilingual education, among ot hers. These provisions remain in effect. While they are modestly helpful, these l oans are a retroactive support for individuals who find their way into teaching, not a proactive recruitment device to attract college students into training programs tha t ensure they will be induced into shortage fields and well-prepared to teach these di sciplines. A new theme—civil rights—entered the federal mix be ginning in the 1960s. In addition to the Perkins loans, the Higher Education Act of 1965 contained provisions aimed at staffing inner-city and rural s chools. This act established the National Teacher Corps, which operated for the next 15 years. That program worked through grants to institutions of higher edu cation, which were authorized to train recruits, who would serve in schools attended by poor children. Following a few months of initial training, recruits entered sc hools as interns on teams made up of an experienced teacher plus other recruits. Cont inuing their training while working, the interns received starting salaries fro m the districts where they worked, while experienced teachers received added compensat ion for team leadership. Over the years, the program was evaluated regularly and improved upon. For example, the model evolved from isolated placements in individual schools to clusters that included feeder schools to middle and high schools, and the training/program evaluation cycle was lengthened fr om two to five years. The act also funded fellowships that universities could all ocate to support full-time graduate study at the master’s level in education. A number of Master of Arts in Teaching (MAT) programs evolved out of these fellowships. Th ese programs became, in essence, the first alternatives to traditional unde rgraduate teacher education. The early MAT efforts, one-year master’s degree program s at places like Harvard, Stanford, Columbia’s Teachers College, and Duke, la ter became models for many university-based alternative programs in the 1990s.The combination of these investments in recruitment and a reduction in teacher demand led to the virtual elimination of emergency hiring of teachers by 1979. Although there were serious questions about the qua lity of teacher supply at that time (see e.g., Schlecty and Vance, 1983; Carnegie Forum on Education & the Economy, 1986), most federal teacher recruitment pr ograms of the 1960s and 1970s were eliminated in 1981. By the late 1980s, h owever, concern about the quality and supply of teachers began to emerge agai n. In 1986, the Paul Douglas Teacher Scholarship Program (formerly the Congressi onal Teacher Scholarship Program) was authorized. Over a 10-year period unti l its demise in 1996, this program provided scholarships to outstanding high s chool graduates who planned to pursue careers in preK-12 teaching. Applicants h ad to be ranked in the top 10% of their high school graduating class or have GED s cores in the top 10% of the state or nation. The program also operated through the states, which could add their own selection criteria in response to particu lar targets and needs. State criteria often included such factors as recruitment from his torically under-represented groups, from low-SES backgrounds, from candidates w ho wanted to teach in poor schools, and for teaching mathematics and science. The program was modest in size, allocating only $15 million from 1987 through 1994. Loans under the program were forgiven at the rate of two years of teaching service for each year of scholarship award; this provision was modified to o ne year of teaching for one year of scholarship support for teaching in subject shor tage fields. Evaluations indicated that nearly two-thirds of recipients completed teac her certification, and two-thirds of these taught.


52 of 55 Another program begun in 1986 sought to tap retirin g military personnel for teaching. The Army began a pilot program for servic emen to enroll in teacher certification program prior to discharge. The Navy followed several years later with a program of its own. These programs worked through cooperating colleges and universities to ease the transition from the servic es into teaching. Some years later, the Army also established several alternative teach er certification programs for armed forces personnel, with pilots in Texas and Ge orgia. The Troops to Teachers Program (TTT) began as a joi nt venture between the departments of Defense and Education. The 1993 Nati onal Defense Authorization Act (PL 102-484, Section 4441) formally established this program, which offered stipends of up to $5,000 to allow former members of the armed services to obtain teacher certification. In addition, school district s could receive up to $50,000 over five years for every TTT teacher they hired. Both t he stipends and the grants were discontinued after 1995, but in 1999 the TTT progra m was reauthorized and transferred from the Defense Department to the Educ ation Department. TTT, too, has been a very modest effort, with the 2001 approp riation reaching only $3 million, when it was placed within the Eisenhower Profession al Development Program. The program operates through grants to states that subm it proposals outlining the services and activities they will undertake. As of 2000, 22 states had joined the program, and 13 more were considering it. Studies t hat have tracked the program report high rates of participation in math, science special education, and vocational education; more teaching at the high school level; and more teaching in the inner city. Teachers are more likely to be male (86%) and minority (33%) than the overall teacher workforce.Under the No Child Left Behind Act, the TTT Program is a subpart of the Transitions to Teaching initiative but is still a d istinct program. Participants can still receive either stipends of $5,000 a year (up to 5,0 00 may be awarded annually in return for a commitment to teach for three years) o r bonuses of $10,000 (up to 3,000 annually in return for an agreement to teach for three years in a high-need school). The Transitions to Teaching Program author izes 5-year grants to partnerships and eligible entities to establish pro grams to recruit and retain highly qualified mid-career professionals and recent colle ge graduates as teachers for high-need schools, including recruitment via altern ate-route programs that condense the period of preparation. This is a new a uthority in the No Child Left Behind law, but Congress provided $31 million for s imilar activities in 2001. These institutional funds may be used for scholarships, p reor postinduction activities, placement initiatives, payments to schools to suppl y incentives for teachers, collaboration with institutions of higher education to develop recruitment programs and other strategies. Program participants must tea ch in a high-need school for at least three years following receipt of support.In addition to continued funding for the Perkins lo ans, another part of the reauthorized Higher Education Act established the F ederal Family Education Loan Program, together with a Direct Lending provision. Together, these supplied loan and principal forgiveness of up to $5,000 for Staff ord loans for borrowers who agree to teach for five consecutive years in low-in come elementary or secondary schools (i.e., schools where more than 30% of stude nts are eligible for Title I aid). Loan repayment is deferred during the 5-year teachi ng commitment. These


53 of 55 provisions were further amended in 2001-2002 to inc lude three years of Stafford and Federal Supplemental loans for those who teach in a federally designated teacher-shortage area, including subject matter, gr ade level or geographic shortages. The World Wide Web address for the Education Policy Analysis Archives is Editor: Gene V Glass, Arizona State UniversityProduction Assistant: Chris Murrell, Arizona State University General questions about appropriateness of topics o r particular articles may be addressed to the Editor, Gene V Glass, or reach him at College of Education, Arizona State Un iversity, Tempe, AZ 85287-2411. The Commentary Editor is Casey D. Cobb: .EPAA Editorial Board Michael W. Apple University of Wisconsin David C. Berliner Arizona State University Greg Camilli Rutgers University Linda Darling-Hammond Stanford University Sherman Dorn University of South Florida Mark E. Fetler California Commission on Teacher Credentialing Gustavo E. Fischman Arizona State Univeristy Richard Garlikov Birmingham, Alabama Thomas F. Green Syracuse University Aimee Howley Ohio University Craig B. Howley Appalachia Educational Laboratory William Hunter University of Ontario Institute ofTechnology Patricia Fey Jarvis Seattle, Washington Daniel Kalls Ume University Benjamin Levin University of Manitoba Thomas Mauhs-Pugh Green Mountain College Les McLean University of Toronto Heinrich Mintrop University of California, Los Angeles Michele Moses Arizona State University Gary Orfield Harvard University Anthony G. Rud Jr. Purdue University Jay Paredes Scribner University of Missouri Michael Scriven University of Auckland Lorrie A. Shepard University of Colorado, Boulder


54 of 55 Robert E. Stake University of Illinois—UC Kevin Welner University of Colorado, Boulder Terrence G. Wiley Arizona State University John Willinsky University of British ColumbiaEPAA Spanish Language Editorial BoardAssociate Editor for Spanish Language Roberto Rodrguez Gmez Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico Adrin Acosta (Mxico) Universidad de J. Flix Angulo Rasco (Spain) Universidad de Teresa Bracho (Mxico) Centro de Investigacin y DocenciaEconmica-CIDEbracho Alejandro Canales (Mxico) Universidad Nacional Autnoma Ursula Casanova (U.S.A.) Arizona State Jos Contreras Domingo Universitat de Barcelona Erwin Epstein (U.S.A.) Loyola University of Josu Gonzlez (U.S.A.) Arizona State Rollin Kent (Mxico) Universidad Autnoma de Puebla Mara Beatriz Luce (Brazil) Universidad Federal de Rio Grande do Javier Mendoza Rojas (Mxico)Universidad Nacional Autnoma Marcela Mollis (Argentina)Universidad de Buenos Humberto Muoz Garca (Mxico) Universidad Nacional Autnoma Angel Ignacio Prez Gmez (Spain)Universidad de DanielSchugurensky (Argentina-Canad) OISE/UT, Simon Schwartzman (Brazil) American Institutes forResesarch–Brazil (AIRBrasil) Jurjo Torres Santom (Spain) Universidad de A Carlos Alberto Torres (U.S.A.) University of California, Los


55 of 55 EPAA is published by the Education Policy Studies Laboratory, Arizona State University


Download Options

Choose Size
Choose file type
Cite this item close


Cras ut cursus ante, a fringilla nunc. Mauris lorem nunc, cursus sit amet enim ac, vehicula vestibulum mi. Mauris viverra nisl vel enim faucibus porta. Praesent sit amet ornare diam, non finibus nulla.


Cras efficitur magna et sapien varius, luctus ullamcorper dolor convallis. Orci varius natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Fusce sit amet justo ut erat laoreet congue sed a ante.


Phasellus ornare in augue eu imperdiet. Donec malesuada sapien ante, at vehicula orci tempor molestie. Proin vitae urna elit. Pellentesque vitae nisi et diam euismod malesuada aliquet non erat.


Nunc fringilla dolor ut dictum placerat. Proin ac neque rutrum, consectetur ligula id, laoreet ligula. Nulla lorem massa, consectetur vitae consequat in, lobortis at dolor. Nunc sed leo odio.