USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Educational policy analysis archives

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Educational policy analysis archives
Physical Description:
Serial
Language:
English
Creator:
Arizona State University
University of South Florida
Publisher:
Arizona State University
University of South Florida.
Place of Publication:
Tempe, Ariz
Tampa, Fla
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Education -- Research -- Periodicals   ( lcsh )
Genre:
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:
usfldc doi - E11-00419
usfldc handle - e11.419
System ID:
SFS0024511:00418


This item is only available as 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 c20049999azu 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E11-00419
0 245
Educational policy analysis archives.
n Vol. 12, no. 70 (December 20, 2004).
260
Tempe, Ariz. :
b Arizona State University ;
Tampa, Fla. :
University of South Florida.
c December 20, 2004
505
Meeting NCLB goals for highly qualified teachers : estimates by state from survey data / Rolf K. Blank, Doreen Langesen, Elizabeth Laird, Carla Toye [and] Victor Bandeira de Mello.
650
Education
x Research
v Periodicals.
2 710
Arizona State University.
University of South Florida.
1 773
t Education Policy Analysis Archives (EPAA)
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?e11.419


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 12issue 70series Year mods:caption 20042004Month December12Day 2020mods:originInfo mods:dateIssued iso8601 2004-12-20



PAGE 1

E DUCATION P OLICY A NALYSIS A RCHIVES 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 are indexed in the Directory of Open Access Journals (www.doaj.org). Volu me 12 Number 70 December 20 2004 ISSN 1068 2341 Meeting NCLB Goals for Highly Qualified Teachers: Estimates by State from Survey Data Rolf K. Blank Doreen Langesen El izabeth Laird Carla Toye Council of Chief State School Officers Victor Bandeira de Mello American Institutes for Research Citation: Blank, R., Langsen, D., Laird, E., Toye, C. & Bandeira de Mello, V. (2004, December 20). Meeting NCLB goals for highly qualified teachers: Estima tes by state from survey data Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12 (70). Retrieved [date] from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v12n70/. Abstract This article presents results of survey data showing teacher qualifications for their assignments that are comparable from state to state as well as data trends over time. The analysis is intended to help state leaders, educators, and others obtain a pictu re of highly qualified teachers in their state, and to be able to compare their state statistics with states across the nation. Since states have some flexibility in meeting the standard for highly qualified teachers outlined by NCLB, the analyses presente d in this paper from a national survey may be useful as a common benchmark for use by states as they develop their own state specific definitions and measures.

PAGE 2

Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 12 No. 70 2 Introduction States, districts, and schools are now working to implement the many new provisio ns of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law of 2001. One area of the law that has enormous implications for states, districts, and schools is the provisions related to highly qualified teachers. NCLB sets the goal of all teachers in core academic subjects be ing highly qualified teachers by the 2005 06 school year. According to the recent Secretarys report on Teacher Quality, national estimates show that in some fields only slightly more than half of current teachers in K 12 public education meet key measures of highly qualified as defined by the NCLB law. NCLB requires states to report on the professional qualifications of all teachers as defined by the state, the percentage of classes taught by teachers that are highly qualified, and the percentage of c lasses in the state not taught by teachers that are highly qualified (see Section 1111(h) of NCLB). In the September 2003, Consolidated Performance Application, states reported to the U.S Department of Education on their state definition of highly qualifi ed teacher and their plans for collecting and reporting on the status of their teachers (U.S. Department of Education, 2003). Many states are still working on upgrading state information systems, and the data presented here will help states see the implic ations in using the certification and major criteria for highly qualified described under NCLB. To meet the highly qualified standard under NCLB, all teachers must Have completed a bachelors degree; Hold full state certification; and Pass rigorous subject content and pedagogy tests to demonstrate competence in assigned subject; Middle and high school teachers may demonstrate competence in their assigned subject(s) by holding a degree major in the assigned subject (or equivalent co urse work), or For current teachers only state may propose another method of evaluating and reporting on competence of teachers in their assigned subject(s). (NCLB, Section 1111(h); CCSSO, 2002, pp.44 45). For the present work the concept of highly qualified is measured and reported for each state using two of the criteria required by NCLB full state certification in the assigned field and college major in assigned field (indicator of subject competency at secondary level). The percentage of t eachers that meet these criteria allow for comparison of the quality of teacher preparation in specific subject areas. The paper is organized in two sections: Analysis of trends in highly qualified teachers by state Factors contributing to shortage of highly qualified teachers in science and mathematics Analysis of Trends in Highly Qualified Teachers by State CCSSO has completed a detailed analysis of data reported by teachers in the Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS). SASS is conducted by the Nation al Center for Education Statistics (NCES) of the U.S. Department of Education. Data are collected through mail and phone

PAGE 3

Blank et al.: Meeting NCLB goals for highly qualified teachers 3 surveys with 60,000 public school teachers that include representative samples of teachers in each state. The CCSSO analysis is based o n data from the surveys with teachers conducted in the 1999 2000 school year and data from the 1993 94 Survey. The sample of elementary and secondary teachers is selected from a stratified random sample of schools in each state (for Survey details see NC ES, 2002). The analysis conducted by CCSSO focuses on three main questions concerning the level of qualifications and preparation of teachers. The subjects of mathematics and science at the secondary level are used for further analyses of recent trends with highly qualified teachers in the nations public schools. The analysis questions are: 1. How does the level of qualifications of teachers differ by state? How do states differ on key measures of highly qualified teachers? 2. Across all s econdary teachers, what are differences in preparation of high school vs. middle grades teachers? How does the level of preparation of math teachers compare to science teachers, and how do these subjects compare to preparation of teachers in other academic subjects? 3. What has been the extent of improvement or change in level of preparation of teachers? What accounts for differences in preparation by state? What accounts for change over time? Our work includes 50 state tables and bar graphs that portray state by state statistics on the characteristics of highly qualified teachers. Our analysis of the SASS data from 1994 and 2000 employs two primary criteria of highly qualified teachers as outlined in NCLB, state teacher certification in the assigned tea ching subject and college degree major in the assigned subject. These two criteria for highly qualified teachers were reported by NCES in the recent national trends analysis of qualifications of public school teachers (McMillen Seastrom, et al, 2002). The analysis is based on prior studies at the national level using these variables (Ingersoll, 1996, 1999, 2003), and research on the problem of underqualified teachers and the relationship between teacher qualifications and student achievement (National Commi ssion on Teaching and Americas Future, 1996; Ferguson, 1998; Goldhaber & Brewer, 2000; Mayer, Mullens, & Moore, 2000). Note: CCSSO is undertaking a separate analysis of SASS teacher qualifications data by state according to socio economic character istics of students and schools. Highly qualified teachers at the secondary level: Shortages in many states The SASS instrument asked teachers to report about the status of their teaching certification for the specific subject they are assigned to teach with three options: regular or standard certification for the assigned field, less than regular/standard certification, or no certification. Secondly, teachers reported on the major and minor field of their undergraduate degree and graduate degree. Teacher s could report their preparation for their main assignment and a secondary assignment, if applicable.

PAGE 4

Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 12 No. 70 4 The CCSSO analysis of SASS data by state from the year 2000 and trends from 1994 to 2000 provides a state by state picture of the status of highly qualifi ed teachers based on reliable, comparable teacher samples. The SASS data do not include the teacher testing results, but we can analyze the certification and teacher major criteria of highly qualified teachers. Certified teachers in grades 7 12 by state One criterion of highly qualified teachers is whether teachers hold a full, standard certification in their assigned teaching field or subject. The SASS data on certification analyzed by state indicate that many states are far from the NCLB goal of highly qualified teaching staff in all schools and classrooms. Table 1.1 on Math Teachers Certification shows that in 17 states less than 90 percent of math teachers (main or secondary assignment) have a regular/standard certification in math, while in 33 state s over 90 percent of math teachers are certified. State rates vary from Hawaii at 65 percent to Rhode Island and West Virginia at 100 percent certified. The national rate is 88 percent of math teachers that are fully certified to teach math. Among the sta tes with largest enrollments, California, Florida, New York, North Carolina, and Michigan have rates at or around 80 percent certified in math, indicating severe qualified teacher shortages. Also, several states with small enrollments (e.g. Alaska and Hawa ii) have shortages of certified math teachers. Certification rates for science teachers in Table 1.1 show the national rate is also 88 percent of teachers certified in science. Among the largest states, California, Florida, New York, North Carolina, and O hio all have about 80 percent of secondary science teachers certified in science. Note: the sample of science teachers in SASS could be certified in any field of science; thus, for example, teachers certified in chemistry that are teaching physics would be counted as certified. Table 1.2 shows that, nationally, the fields of English and Social Studies have a higher percentage of certified teachers than the fields of Math and Science. Sixteen states have less than 90 percent of English teachers in grades 7 1 2 that are fully certified, while 15 states are below the 90 percent certified level in Social Studies. Rates of certification in most states are substantially higher in English and Social studies than in the fields of Math or Science.

PAGE 5

Blank et al.: Meeting NCLB goals for highly qualified teachers 5 Table 1.1: Math and Science Teachers with Certification in Field, Grades 7-12, 2000 % % Certified in Std. Certified in Std. State Math Error Science Error Alabama 93 3.8 89 2.9 Alaska 79 2.9 90 2.5 Arizona 81 4.5 80 6.4 Arkansas 98 2.0 94 3.1 California 77 4.4 79 3.5 Colorado 81 5.3 82 3.9 Connecticut 83 5.4 86 4.5 Delaware 83 11.3 94 4.5 District of Columbia 87 3.0 . Florida 84 4.8 95 2.2 Georgia 96 2.0 95 2.7 Hawaii 65 5.8 92 2.8 Idaho 95 1.7 100 0.0 Illinois 92 4.1 91 2.5 Indiana 96 1.3 98 1.3 Iowa 91 4.3 97 2.0 Kansas 94 2.6 91 3.0 Kentucky 89 3.8 77 6.1 Louisiana 78 6.9 82 7.5 Maine 86 3.0 95 1.5 Maryland 88 3.4 81 5.8 Massachusetts 94 1.7 80 3.8 Michigan 82 6.3 91 3.3 Minnesota 96 1.6 93 2.8 Mississippi 86 2.6 89 2.9 Missouri 88 4.7 79 6.3 Montana 95 2.0 96 1.4 Nebraska 96 2.5 92 3.7 Nevada 95 1.8 94 2.5 New Hampshire 85 6.5 81 5.2 New Jersey 98 1.0 95 2.4 New Mexico 83 6.8 87 4.5 New York 81 4.0 82 4.3 North Carolina 77 6.6 81 6.6 North Dakota 98 0.7 95 1.2 Ohio 92 4.0 82 5.1 Oklahoma 92 4.8 95 1.7 Oregon 92 3.8 89 3.7 Pennsylvania 88 5.6 93 4.4 Rhode Island 100 0.0 94 1.6 South Carolina 90 4.0 87 3.4 South Dakota 99 0.3 99 0.7 Tennessee 86 5.7 83 6.0 Texas 86 3.5 90 2.4 Utah 92 4.7 93 4.0 Vermont 95 3.8 100 0.0 Virginia 92 2.8 87 4.4 Washington 93 2.6 98 1.5 West Virginia 100 0.0 95 1.8 Wisconsin 95 2.0 92 2.0 Wyoming 94 2.3 100 0.0 United States 88 0.8 88 0.7 % Certified = Regular, standard, or probationary certificate in assigned field (not certified = provisional, emergency, or temporary certificate in assigned field). Teachers = Public school teachers with main or second assignment in subject in grades 7-12 departmentalized instruction. Source: NCES, Schools and Staffing Survey, 1999-2000. Council of Chief State School Officers, Washington, DC, 2003. Math Science

PAGE 6

Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 12 No. 70 6 Table 1.2: English and Social Studies Teachers with Certification in Field, Grades 7-12, 2000 % % Certified in Std. Certified in Std. State English Error Social Studies Error Alabama 95 2.7 98 1.0 Alaska 85 2.7 84 3.0 Arizona 86 3.7 87 4.4 Arkansas 99 1.4 96 2.3 California 85 2.8 88 4.5 Colorado 90 3.0 93 2.4 Connecticut 87 3.6 93 2.8 Delaware 82 13.9 . District of Columbia 100 0.0 57 6.5 Florida 89 3.4 84 5.9 Georgia 96 2.5 95 2.4 Hawaii 87 4.1 84 4.9 Idaho 97 0.7 97 1.5 Illinois 93 3.3 97 1.4 Indiana 95 3.0 97 1.3 Iowa 91 3.5 93 3.3 Kansas 89 4.1 93 2.6 Kentucky 85 3.8 93 3.0 Louisiana 84 7.5 86 5.3 Maine 92 1.8 93 1.8 Maryland 84 4.6 87 5.5 Massachusetts 95 1.4 98 0.8 Michigan 85 4.0 87 5.0 Minnesota 98 1.3 98 1.3 Mississippi 78 4.3 91 2.2 Missouri 87 5.7 92 4.0 Montana 97 1.0 95 1.7 Nebraska 96 2.6 97 2.2 Nevada 90 3.2 93 2.8 New Hampshire 94 1.9 89 6.2 New Jersey 97 0.9 97 1.1 New Mexico 98 1.4 86 7.8 New York 84 3.9 90 3.5 North Carolina 86 3.1 85 7.6 North Dakota 97 0.9 100 0.0 Ohio 87 4.0 93 2.9 Oklahoma 94 3.5 96 3.5 Oregon 95 1.5 94 3.2 Pennsylvania 91 5.8 96 2.0 Rhode Island 97 1.0 82 2.7 South Carolina 91 1.8 97 1.2 South Dakota 99 0.3 98 1.1 Tennessee 97 1.1 98 1.0 Texas 94 2.2 84 3.9 Utah 98 1.6 98 1.5 Vermont 100 0.0 100 0.0 Virginia 94 3.2 90 3.7 Washington 98 1.2 97 1.9 West Virginia 97 1.2 96 2.7 Wisconsin 92 3.5 95 3.0 Wyoming 97 1.7 87 3.9 United States 91 0.7 92 0.8 % Certified = Regular, standard, or probationary certificate in assigned field (not certified = provisional, emergency, or temporary certificate in assigned field). Teachers = Public school teachers with main or second assignment in subject in grades 7-12 departmentalized instruction. Source: NCES, Schools and Staffing Survey, 1999-2000. Council of Chief State School Officers, Washington, DC, 2003. English Social Studies

PAGE 7

Blank et al.: Meeting NCLB goals for highly qualified teachers 7 Major in field. In Table 2, CCSSO presents state by state data on the percentage of grade 7 12 teachers with a major in their assigned field and the percentage that have both a major and regular certification in their assigned field. The summary statistics combining the two measures provide two of the key criteria for secondary teachers meeting the NCLB highly qualified standard. Reviewing Tables 1 and 2, there is a clear link between the states rate of certified teachers and the rate of teachers with a major in their a ssigned field. States that have high percentages of certified teachers in their assigned field also have high rates of teachers with a major in their field. There are no states with high rates of teachers with a major in their field, but lower rates of tea chers with regular certification. Mathematics. In Table 2.1, the states are rank ordered based on percent of teachers with main assignment in math that completed a major in the field. Only one state (Minnesota) has 90 percent of math teachers that are cer tified and hold a major in mathematics or math education. Only four additional states (New Jersey, Nebraska, Rhode Island, North Dakota) have over 80 percent of math teachers with a major in their field and have full certification. Nationally, 63 percent o f grade 7 12 math teachers have a major and full certification. In most states, only a small percentage of teachers with a major do not have full certification. The percentages of teachers that meet both criteria are typically 0 to 5 percent lower than the percentage of teachers with a major. However, in a few states the percentages are substantial, such as in New York, DC, Alabama, Maine, North Carolina, California, Louisiana. In these states, i t is possible that new teachers with a major are hired before they have completed state certification requirements. When all teachers of math are considered (main or secondary assignment) and we analyze whether they have a major or minor in math, we fin d a pattern across states of a high proportion of less qualified teachers. (Note about using the SASS data to analyze NCLB requirements: the SASS data on teachers major or minor in the assigned field may be useful because states can submit their own crite ria for evaluating whether teachers are highly qualified in their state, and a state might define holding a college degree minor in the assigned field as an important state level criterion.) Only 14 states have more than 75 percent of all teachers of math in 7 12 that have a college major or minor in math and certification in math. Science Two thirds of science secondary teachers (main assignment) have a major in a science field and are certified in science, as shown in Table 2.2. In science, 8 percent of teachers nationally with a major in a science field do not have full state certification, and in a few states the differences are larger (e.g., Illinois, Maryland, New Hampshire, New York, Connecticut, Mass., Oregon, Michigan). In 2000, no state had ov er 90 percent of teachers that met both criteria of highly qualified, and seven states had less than 60 percent meeting both criteria.

PAGE 8

Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 12 No. 70 8 Table 2.1: Mathematics Teachers with Major and Regular Certification in Field, Grades 7-12, 2000 Math Main Assignment Math Main or Secondary Assignment State Major in Math Major in Math + Regular Certification Major or Minor in Math Major or Minor in Math + Regular Certification Minnesota 90 90 88 87 New Jersey 90 88 85 83 Nebraska 89 85 85 82 Rhode Island 82 82 87 87 North Dakota 83 81 86 84 West Virginia 79 79 73 73 Arkansas 79 78 90 89 South Dakota 76 76 75 75 Alabama 83 76 86 80 Wisconsin 75 75 86 84 Pennsylvania 81 75 85 82 Wyoming 79 75 86 82 District of Columbia 87 72 77 62 Ohio 77 72 86 79 South Carolina 79 71 80 72 Indiana 72 70 81 78 Delaware 74 70 87 n/a Iowa 73 69 72 68 Massachusetts 73 68 73 68 Oklahoma 70 68 79 79 New York 79 67 79 67 Georgia 69 67 61 58 Colorado 68 67 65 65 Montana 68 67 76 75 Florida 67 65 66 65 Illinois 65 65 72 73 Maryland 68 64 71 68 New Hampshire 69 63 77 69 Michigan 68 63 74 71 United States 67 63 71 68 Utah 63 63 64 65 Connecticut 62 60 60 60 Oregon 60 58 59 57 Kansas 58 58 73 72 Maine 64 58 69 58 North Carolina 64 58 58 55 Mississippi 60 57 59 55 Kentucky 58 56 62 57 Washington 55 54 69 64 Virginia 59 53 70 65 Alaska 57 52 56 50 Texas 57 52 68 63 Vermont 55 51 54 51 Hawaii 76 51 76 54 New Mexico 52 51 64 65 Idaho 49 50 61 62 California 57 50 56 47 Louisiana 58 49 66 57 Arizona 49 47 57 53 Missouri 52 47 77 71 Tennessee 51 47 56 54 Nevada 38 38 48 45 Teachers = Public school teachers with main or second assignment in subject in grades 7-12 departmentalized instruction. Major = Undergraduate or graduate degree major in math or math education. Source: NCES, Schools and Staffing Survey, 1999-2000. Council of Chief State School Officers, Washington, DC, 2003.

PAGE 9

Blank et al.: Meeting NCLB goals for highly qualified teachers 9 Table 2.2: Science Teachers with Major and Regular Certification in Field, Grades 7-12, 2000 Science Main Assignment Science Main or Secondary Assignment State Major in Science Major in Science + Regular Certification Major or Minor in Science Major or Minor in Science + Regular Certification Iowa 89 89 89 87 Minnesota 93 88 93 88 New Jersey 93 88 92 86 Hawaii 87 87 84 78 Illinois 93 84 84 76 Rhode Island 81 81 81 74 North Dakota 85 80 86 80 Wyoming 78 78 85 85 Vermont 77 77 83 83 Wisconsin 82 77 88 78 Washington 79 77 74 73 Utah 83 77 89 81 Pennsylvania 79 77 78 75 Maryland 84 76 78 70 Idaho 75 75 87 87 New Hampshire 90 75 78 64 Indiana 77 75 85 82 Nevada 78 75 85 79 Alaska 77 73 87 79 Nebraska 80 73 83 75 South Dakota 72 71 74 73 Alabama 78 71 81 72 New York 86 70 89 70 Connecticut 77 69 85 82 Montana 74 69 76 72 Kansas 73 69 78 71 Delaware 68 68 84 78 Massachusetts 79 68 77 64 United States 75 67 77 70 Oklahoma 67 66 73 71 Georgia 70 66 68 63 Oregon 74 66 67 58 Florida 69 65 66 62 Arizona 66 65 68 64 Michigan 72 65 77 69 South Carolina 75 64 74 63 West Virginia 69 63 73 67 North Carolina 75 63 50 42 Virginia 74 63 82 70 Missouri 70 63 78 72 California 77 62 81 63 Mississippi 66 61 66 62 Colorado 72 61 81 70 Maine 63 60 67 62 Ohio 69 59 75 63 Kentucky 65 56 79 66 Arkansas 57 53 74 70 Texas 57 51 69 63 New Mexico 55 51 72 61 Tennessee 53 48 57 53 Louisiana 45 44 49 46 District of Columbia n/a n/a n/a n/a Teachers = Public school teachers with main or second assignment in subject in grades 7-12 departmentalized instruction. Major = Undergraduate or graduate degree major in science or science education. Source: NCES, Schools and Staffing Survey, 1999-2000. Council of Chief State School Officers, Washington, DC, 2003.

PAGE 10

Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 12 No. 70 10 Other grade levels and subjects. For purposes of comparison, we conducted a separate analysis of the SASS data for only high school teachers (9 12) not shown in a table. The analysis showed that over 75 percent of both math and science teachers (main assignment) met both the major in field and certification criteria of highly qualified. These figures show that less than 60 percent of g rade 7 8 teachers have major and certification in their assigned field in math or science (that is, to produce the 7 12 national averages, 63 percent math, 67 percent science). Additional state by state data for secondary teachers in four academic subjec ts, including percentages of teachers with a major in field and percentages of all teachers with a major or minor, are shown on the CCSSO website: http://www.ccsso.org/projects/State_E ducation_Indicators. Change from 1994 to 2000 in Teachers with Major in Field, Grade 7 12 Teachers Since SASS was given to a representative sample of teachers in each state in 1994 and 2000, the rates of preparation of teachers ca n be compared to determine whether a pattern of change exists between those years. (Most recent SASS is 2000; it was also conducted in 1988 and 1991.) Using the data from the two years, it is possible to determine whether lower or higher proportion of scho ols and classrooms had well prepared teachers in 2000 as compared to six years earlier, with a major in field being used as a primary measure of qualifications. Decline in proportion of math and science teachers with major in field. The data in Table 3. 1 for mathematics show that in 1994, only 12 states had over 80 percent of teachers with main assignment in math that had a major in math or math education. Figure 1 provides a bar graph display of change by state.) By 2000, only 7 states had over 80 perce nt with a major in field. A majority of states (29) experienced significant declines in the level of preparation of their math teaching force over six years, as measured by degree major in teaching field (math). In 2000, Nevada, Missouri, Arizona, Louisian a, California, Idaho, New Mexico, Texas, and others are below 60 percent of secondary math teachers with a major in math. Only 14 states increased the percent of math teachers with a major in math, including New Jersey, Arkansas, Hawaii, Michigan, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Utah. One factor in comparing percentage differences over time from the SASS sample survey results is the sampling error i.e., projecting to the whole state population from a small random sample of from 30 to 100 teachers per st ate per subject. We computed the statistical significance of the difference in percentages between 1994 and 2000 at the 95 percent level of confidence, and the states with significant results are indicated with an asterisk in Table 3. The data in Table 3. 2 and Figure 2 for science show that in 1994, a total of 17 states had over 80 percent of teachers with main assignment in a science field that had a major in a science field or science education. By 2000, only 13 states had 80 percent or more science

PAGE 11

Blank et al.: Meeting NCLB goals for highly qualified teachers 11 teac hers with degree major in science. As with math, a number of states experienced significant declines in the level of preparation of their science teaching force over six years, including Connecticut, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nevada, and Oregon. As of 2 000, Texas, Tennessee, New Mexico, and Louisiana had below 60 percent of science teachers with a science major. From 1994 to 2000, nine states did show significant increase in the percent of 7 12 science teachers with a science major. Proportion of Englis h and Social Studies show similar shortages In Table 3.2 the differences in percent of teachers with a major for English and Social Studies for 1994 and 2000 indicate that the supply of well prepared English teachers showed a similar decline as mathemati cs. In 2000, only 70 percent of English teachers with primary assignment in English had a major in English, which was a decline from 78 percent in 1994. The rate of Social Studies teachers with a major stayed close to 80 percent in the six year period. Note that social studies is similar to Science the statistic for percent with major includes teachers with primary assignment that may be in history, government, geography, economics or other specific subject areas/fields. Summary of Finding on Trends The prospect of states meeting the standard of highly qualified teachers (set by NCLB) using the measures outlined in the law (full state certification and major in field) appears very difficult to accomplish, based on recent data trends. Results of the present analysis of trends from 1994 to 2000 show that a majority of states have not been able to keep up with the demand for teachers at the secondary level. The demand for teachers has increased, and while many states appear to be maintaining a consisten t level of certified teachers even while the teaching force has grown at the secondary level (see 10 year trends presented in Blank & Langesen, 2001), the SASS data presented here show that many states have fewer teachers with a major in their assigned fie ld than they did in 1994.

PAGE 12

Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 12 No. 70 12 Table 3: Math and Science Teachers with Major in Field, Grades 7-12, 1994 and 2000 State 1994 2000 1994 2000 New Jersey 69* 90 82* 93 Minnesota 94* 90 97* 93 Nebraska 83* 89 79 80 District of Columbia 82 87 n/a n/a North Dakota 87* 83 85 85 Alabama 89* 83 73* 78 Rhode Island 81 82 94* 81 Pennsylvania 98* 81 85* 79 New York 84* 79 85* 86 Wyoming 78 79 80 78 West Virginia 80 79 76* 69 Arkansas 70* 79 66* 57 South Carolina 72* 79 74 75 Ohio 64* 77 75* 69 Hawaii 69* 76 74* 87 South Dakota 67* 76 72 72 Wisconsin 76 75 68* 82 Delaware n/a 74 82* 68 Massachusetts 76* 73 89* 79 Iowa 74 73 86* 89 Indiana 81* 72 78 77 Oklahoma 74* 70 62* 67 Georgia 82* 69 68 70 New Hampshire 76* 69 91 90 Michigan 61* 68 73 72 Colorado 65* 68 78* 72 Montana 77* 68 76* 74 Maryland 73* 68 86 84 Florida 76* 67 52* 69 United States 72* 67 74* 75 Illinois 82* 65 77* 93 North Carolina 79* 64 73* 75 Maine 68* 64 67* 63 Utah 55* 63 66* 83 Connecticut 84* 62 90* 77 Oregon 61 60 93* 74 Mississippi 72* 60 73* 66 Virginia 69* 59 67* 74 Kansas 63* 58 78* 73 Kentucky 79* 58 55* 65 Louisiana 63* 58 57* 45 California 50* 57 62* 77 Alaska 50* 57 79 77 Texas 65* 57 70* 57 Washington 49* 55 83* 79 Vermont 75* 55 81 77 New Mexico 69* 52 71* 55 Missouri 89* 52 70 70 Tennessee 59* 51 52 53 Idaho 46* 49 77* 75 Arizona 61* 49 73* 66 Nevada 74* 38 88* 78 Notes: Teachers=Public school teachers with main assignment in subject in grades 7-12 departmentalized instruction. Major=Undergraduate or graduate degree major in math or math education (science or science education). Difference from 1994 to 2000 is significant at 95% Confidence Level (x<-1.96 or x>1.96); n/a=Insufficient Data Source: NCES, Schools and Staffing Survey 1999-2000. Council of Chief State School Officers, Washington, DC, 2003. Math -Main Assignment Science -Main Assignment Percent with Major Percent with Major

PAGE 13

Blank et al.: Meeting NCLB goals for highly qualified teachers 13 Figure 1: Math Teachers with Major in Field, 1994 to 2000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Puerto Rico* Nevada Arizona Idaho Tennessee Missouri New Mexico Vermont Washington Texas Alaska California Louisiana Kentucky Kansas Virginia Mississippi Oregon Connecticut Utah Maine North Carolina Illinois UNITED Florida Maryland Montana Colorado Michigan New Georgia Oklahoma Indiana Iowa Massachusetts Delaware* Wisconsin South Dakota Hawaii Ohio South Carolina Arkansas West Virginia Wyoming New York Pennsylvania Rhode Island Alabama North Dakota District of Nebraska Minnesota New Jersey States Percent with Major in Field 2000 1994 Notes : See following Tables for significance tests. Teachers=Public school teachers with main assignment in mathematics in grades 7-12 departmentalized instruction. Major=Undergraduate or graduate degree in mathematics or mathematics education. *Insufficient data.

PAGE 14

Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 12 No. 70 14 Figure 2: Science Teachers with Major in Field, 1994 to 2000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 District of Columbia* Puerto Rico* Louisiana Tennessee New Mexico Texas Arkansas Maine Kentucky Arizona Mississippi Oklahoma Delaware West Virginia Ohio Florida Missouri Georgia South Dakota Michigan Colorado Kansas Montana Virginia Oregon UNITED STATES North Carolina South Carolina Idaho Connecticut Alaska California Vermont Indiana Nevada Wyoming Alabama Washington Massachusetts Pennsylvania Nebraska Rhode Island Wisconsin Utah Maryland North Dakota New York Hawaii Iowa New Hampshire New Jersey Illinois Minnesota States Percent with Major in Field 2000 1994 Notes : See following Tables for significance tests. Teachers=Public school teachers with main assignment in science in grades 7-12 departmentalized instruction. Major=Undergraduate or graduate degree major in science or science education. *Insufficient data.

PAGE 15

Blank et al.: Meeting NCLB goals for highly qualified teachers 15 Factors Contributing to the Shortage of Highly Qualified Teachers in Science and Math Three measures of chang e in the state context of public education contribute to the problem of teacher supply and demand and might be hypothesized as major contributors to the pattern of declining percentages of teachers meeting the highly qualified standard in the 1990s, observ ed in the data in Table 3. These measures are increasing school enrollment increasing numbers of teachers in science and math decreasing class size Several major studies of teacher supply/demand have analyzed the effects of these changes in education on providing a qualified teacher force (NCTAF, 1996; National Commission, 2000). There are many other factors that can affect the supply of qualified tea chers in a state, including pay level for teaching, policies for licensures/certification, funding support for education, and status of teaching profession (Gilford & Tenenbaum/NRC, 1990; NCTAF, 1996; National Commission, 2000). In this paper, the analysis focuses on change from 1994 to 2000 on the three variables of demographic changes and class size using sample data from SASS and state data from CCSSOs recent State Science Math Indicators project (Blank & Langesen, 2001). This method tests the relatio nship in two ways, by statistical correlation analysis and by examining change in three demographic measures for the states with the greatest decrease in the proportion of highly qualified teachers from 1994 to 2000 in both math and science (as shown in Ta ble 3.1). Listed below are the 11 states with 5 percent or greater decline in highly qualified teachers and those states with below 80 percent of teachers with major in field. For each of the 11 states, change is reported for increase/decrease in student enrollment change in number of math and science teachers increase/decrease in class size (accompanied by average Math class size in 2000)

PAGE 16

Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 12 No. 70 16 States with Decrease in Highly Qualified Math and Science Teachers (7 12) (1994 to 2000) By State Education Demographics State 7 12 Total Enrollment % Change Math, Sci. Teachers % Change Avg. Class Size Change Avg. Class Size 7 12 Math Arizona + 23 NA 0.7 27 Connecticut + 18 + 16 0.4 20 Kansas + 8 NA 0.5 20 Louisiana 0.1 8 None 22 Massachusetts + 15 + 15 1.0 22 Mississippi 4 + 3 2.7 20 Missouri + 8 + 13 1.5 23 Nevada + 40 + 5 None 27 New Mexico + 6 NA + 0.9 24 Texas + 15 + 60 2.0 20 Vermont + 13 + 36 + 0.8 21 National Avg. + 10 + 9 0.5 23 Note: S tates listed had more than 5 percent decline in highly qualified teachers and were below 80 percent highly qualified in 2000. National average was 5 percent decline in math teachers with major in field. Sources: States: Table 3; Enrollment, M/S Teachers: S tate education data, CCSSO, 2001, Class size: SASS, 1994, 2000. The cross tabulation analysis of states with declining percent of teachers with a major in their field shows that across the 11 states, the following patterns were found: 6 of 11 states ha d above average increases in student enrollment 6 of 11 states had increases in the number of M/S teachers 7 of 11 had decreases in class size for 7 12 math/science classes In several states such as Texas, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Arizona, the average class size in math and science declined even though student enrollment in these grades sharply increased. In these states, state and local policies to decrease class size even during a period of student growth placed increased pressure on schools to hire math and science teachers, and the result was a declining level of overall preparation of the teaching force.

PAGE 17

Blank et al.: Meeting NCLB goals for highly qualified teachers 17 Student Enrollment Growth. Table 4 shows the change in numbers of students in grades 7 12 over six years from 1994 to 2000. The enrollment of secondary students increased in a majority of states, but enrollment declined in 10 states. One hypothesis is that states with increasing enrollment would have greater d emand for teachers and lower rates of qualified math and science teachers. In scanning the rates presented in Tables 3 and 4, it appears that the two variables may be related states with decreasing rates of highly qualified teachers are also enrollment gro wth states. A correlation analysis using the Pearson correlation statistic showed the two variables are related (r = .21), but the relationship is not statistically significant at the .05 level (for statistical data analysis, see Beaudoin, 2003). Thus, it is not possible to say conclusively that change in preparation of teachers is linked to increasing enrollment at the state level. Number of Teachers. Table 5 lists the change in the total numbers of teachers by state in math and science. These data on 9 12 teachers are compiled from state education information systems through the CCSSO Science Math indicators project. These data address the question of trends in teacher hiring and assignments in math and science. Most states showed significant increase i n the numbers of teachers assigned to math and science from 1994 to 2000, and this trend would place pressure on schools to find qualified teachers. The increased demand for teachers, due to increased enrollment in math and science courses, places pressur e on maintaining the level of subject preparation of the whole teaching force. Of 28 states with complete data, only 4 declined in numbers of math teachers while 24 states had increases. In science, 8 states declined in number of science teachers and 20 in creased. Among states with decline in highly qualified teachers, most had a sharp increase in numbers of secondary math and science teachers. During this period, the national statistics showed significant increase in the percent of students taking math and science courses in high school (Blank & Langesen, 2001). The correlation analysis showed a relationship between increase in numbers of math teachers and a decline in highly qualified teachers in math (r = .33), but the results were not significant due to the limited number of states with complete data. In science, the analysis showed inconclusive results.

PAGE 18

Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 12 No. 70 18 Table 4: Change in Student Enrollment, Grades 7-12, 1994 to 2000 Enrollment % Increase/Decrease State 2000 '94 to '00 Nevada 135,145 +39.4% Arizona 360,387 +23.4% Florida 1,024,013 +23.0% New Hampshire 93,910 +20.1% Colorado 310,437 +18.9% Connecticut 234,010 +17.9% California 2,546,583 +17.2% Maryland 364,050 +17.1% Alaska 60,048 +16.9% Washington 463,439 +16.1% Massachusetts 412,502 +14.8% Texas 1,703,042 +14.5% Georgia 594,554 +14.0% Vermont 48,130 +12.8% Minnesota 406,100 +12.5% North Carolina 537,219 +12.5% Virginia 487,721 +11.6% Illinois 861,796 +10.8% Delaware 50,698 +10.4% Rhode Island 66,437 +10.3% United States 20,459,675 +10.1% Wisconsin 416,295 +10.0% Oregon 250,492 +9.9% New Jersey 494,060 +9.9% Pennsylvania 824,771 +8.4% Kansas 216,093 +8.1% Missouri 402,011 +7.2% Oklahoma 273,123 +6.5% Michigan 701,335 +6.4% Nebraska 135,485 +6.3% New Mexico 146,373 +5.7% Idaho 113,925 +5.7% New York 1,190,135 +5.6% Hawaii 79,473 +5.1% Tennessee 386,460 +4.9% Montana 75,547 +4.6% Iowa 229,779 +4.4% North Dakota 55,609 +2.9% South Carolina 287,564 +2.6% Maine 94,356 +2.5% Ohio 822,438 +2.2% Arkansas 203,563 +2.2% Utah 216,113 +1.6% Louisiana 319,989 -0.1% Indiana 436,565 -0.5% Kentucky 284,329 -1.0% South Dakota 62,356 -1.0% Wyoming 45,540 -1.0% Alabama 317,215 -1.1% Mississippi 205,536 -3.8% Puerto Rico 255,419 -5.2% West Virginia 132,917 -9.9% District of Columbia 24,588 -12.8% Source: NCES, Common Core of Data, 1994, 2000. Council of Chief State School Officers, Washington, DC, 2003.

PAGE 19

Blank et al.: Meeting NCLB goals for highly qualified teachers 19 Table 5: Teachers in Mathematics and Science, Grades 9-12, 1994 to 2000 All Teachers Increase/Decrease All Teachers Increase/Decrease State 2000 '94 to '00 2000 '94 to '00 Texas 24,103 +12,888 10,992 -2 California 10,562 +1,261 7,465 +704 Puerto Rico 2,926 +1,214 1,245 +608 Arkansas 1,311 +624 724 -543 New York 8,406 +583 12,313 +981 Massachusetts 2,980 +461 2,749 +308 Wisconsin 2,412 +402 2,277 +278 New Jersey 4,566 +386 3,002 +210 Connecticut 1,831 +302 1,845 +211 Alabama 1,955 +285 1,773 +186 New Hampshire 759 +283 486 +169 Minnesota 2,054 +244 1,865 +102 Missouri 2,341 +232 2,603 +384 Oklahoma 2,019 +227 1,967 +144 Indiana 2,542 +207 2,612 +331 Colorado 1,460 +141 1,366 +209 Tennessee 2,033 +124 1,446 -70 Vermont 379 +105 441 +151 Idaho 856 +92 712 +38 Mississippi 1,187 +54 1,372 +10 North Dakota 509 +39 582 -4 Rhode Island 422 +6 334 -13 South Dakota 481 -3 618 +41 Nebraska 1,237 -4 1,428 -22 Kentucky 1,601 -5 1,500 +83 Wyoming 265 -10 261 -108 Nevada 562 -14 538 +59 West Virginia 1,129 -76 643 -170 Oregon 1,067 -100 317 -65 Iowa 1,389 -106 1,630 -128 Louisiana 1,339 -133 879 -60 North Carolina 3,976 -287 3,244 +605 Utah 692 -629 760 -304 Ohio 4,180 -576 3,420 -760 Florida 5,201 3,764 Georgia 3,061 1,295 Kansas 1,531 1,552 Maine 667 858 Michigan 2,384 1,071 Alaska Arizona Delaware Dist. of Columbia DoDEA Hawaii Illinois Maryland Montana New Mexico Pennsylvania South Carolina Virgin Islands Virginia Washington United States 133,945 +17,415 106,889 +1671 All Teachers: Assigned to subject one or more periods. No data reported by state. Science =Sum of Biol.,Chem.,Physics, Earth Sci. Texas: 2/3 of total Math are second assign. Arkansas: 1994 math = main assign.only; Delaware: main assign.only; Vermont: data includes imputation.NJ, PA: grades 7-12 Source: State Departments of Education, Data on Public Schools, 1999-00. Council of Chief State School Officers, Washington, DC, 2003. MATHEMATICS SCIENCE

PAGE 20

Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 12 No. 70 20 Class Size. A final factor possibly explaining the shortages of qualified teachers is change in class size. Policies set ting lower maximum class size, either made at state or district levels, can place significant new demands for teachers. One hypothesis is that decreasing class size produces more classes, thus increasing the need for teachers and possibly lower rates of hi ghly qualified teachers. Table 6 shows the differences in average class size for math and science classes in grades 7 12 in 2000, and the change in class size from 1994 to 2000. Several states, notably, California and Florida, and others passed state policies in the 1990s limiting class size, and the data by state demonstrate the effect of policy initiatives to decrease class size. A correlation analysis of the relationship between class size and preparation of teachers showed a small correlation (r = .06), but at the state level the relationship is not statistically significant. Thus, we cannot say definitely whether decreasing class size is related to change in the proportion of teachers that are highly qualified. Conclusions The analysis of SASS data by state and trends from 1994 to 2000 indicates that change s in demographics of education in the 1990s ha ve made the issue of ensuring qualified teache s in each classroom even more pressing for states and school districts. The data show that in all four academic subjects, the rate of highly qualified teachers (using certification and major in field as primary measures) did not improve in the majority of states during the 1990s; and, in 2000, only about two thirds of secondary teachers in science and math would meet the current NCLB criteria of highly qualified. The analysis of demographic changes in enrollments, teachers, and class size during the 1990s i ndicated that growth in education, increases in teacher hiring, and class size policies may have been key factors in reducing the chances of improving the qualifications of the teaching force. With the challenge under current NCLB law of providing highly qualified teachers in each classroom, the analysis indicates that most states will need to take significant policy actions to meet the requirements. States do have flexibility under NCLB to propose alternate definitions of highly qualified teachers that w ould provide greater latitude to include teachers as qualified that do not meet the specific criteria analyzed here, such as major in field. As states begin to report their data required under NCLB, CCSSO will use state specific definitions and accompanyin g rates of highly qualified teachers to compare trends along with the trends provided from sample data from SASS. Acknowledgment The paper was produced with support of a grant from the National Science Foundation (REC 0118355). Data are from Schools and S taffing Survey, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education; and from information systems of state departments of education. The authors positions or conclusions presented in the article do not necessarily reflect those of the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Education, or the Council of Chief State School Officers.

PAGE 21

Blank et al.: Meeting NCLB goals for highly qualified teachers 21 Table 6: Average Class Size in Math and Science, Grades 7-12, Change from 1994 to 2000 Avg. Class Change Avg. Class Change State 2000 '94 to '00 2000 '94 to '00 Iowa 20.7 +2.5 21.2 -0.9 Maine 21.7 +2.3 18.3 -1.8 Wyoming 21.4 +2.0 20.5 +2.4 Washington 26.7 +1.8 25.2 -0.1 New Hampshire 22.5 +1.8 23.8 +0.9 New Jersey 21.3 +1.5 19.5 -0.1 Virginia 21.2 +1.0 22.5 +0.4 New Mexico 24.0 +0.9 25.3 +1.3 New York 22.8 +0.9 22.1 -1.9 Rhode Island 22.6 +0.9 20.2 -0.4 Oregon 23.3 +0.8 26.9 +2.0 Vermont 21.0 +0.8 NA Wisconsin 23.7 +0.7 23.0 -0.4 Georgia 24.1 +0.6 22.1 -2.0 Kentucky 22.5 +0.6 23.1 -0.6 Maryland 25.5 +0.5 25.2 +0.5 Indiana 22.7 +0.3 22.6 -0.5 Alabama 22.2 +0.3 22.7 -0.9 Nevada 26.6 +0.1 27.3 +0.3 Louisiana 21.2 +0.1 24.0 -0.3 Colorado 23.8 +0.1 23.8 +0.1 Florida 25.0 +0.05 28.7 +0.7 Montana 18.0 -0.2 19.0 0.0 South Carolina 21.8 -0.2 24.0 +0.8 Nebraska 18.8 -0.3 24.3 +5.3 Connecticut 19.0 -0.4 21.5 +2.4 Kansas 19.0 -0.5 21.4 -0.4 Minnesota 24.1 -0.5 26.5 +0.7 United States 22.4 -0.5 23.7 -0.1 Arkansas 17.8 -0.6 21.7 +1.8 Delaware 22.4 -0.7 24.4 -3.9 Oklahoma 18.2 -0.7 20.6 +1.6 South Dakota 17.5 -0.7 19.3 -2.1 Arizona 25.9 -0.7 24.0 -3.2 California 27.1 -0.8 30.1 +1.1 North Carolina 21.7 -1.0 21.9 -1.3 Massachusetts 20.5 -1.0 22.9 +0.8 Ohio 20.9 -1.1 23.7 +1.2 Alaska 19.3 -1.1 26.6 +6.0 District of Columbia 19.0 -1.4 23.4 NA Illinois 22.2 -1.5 21.4 -2.5 Tennessee 23.1 -1.5 24.6 -2.2 Missouri 21.3 -1.5 21.1 -2.2 West Virginia 19.2 -1.7 21.8 -1.2 Texas 19.4 -2.0 21.6 -0.2 Idaho 21.1 -2.1 22.7 -1.3 Pennsylvania 22.5 -2.1 22.7 -0.3 North Dakota 17.9 -2.2 17.3 -3.2 Utah 26.0 -2.4 29.1 +0.1 Hawaii 19.3 -2.5 24.1 -0.1 Michigan 22.6 -2.6 24.3 -0.8 Mississippi 19.4 -2.7 21.5 -1.1 Source: NCES, Schools and Staffing Survey 1993-94, 1999-00. Council of Chief State School Officers, Washington, DC, 2003. Science Mathematics

PAGE 22

Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 12 No. 70 22 References Blank, R.K. and Langesen, D. (2001). State Indicators of Science and Mathematics Education. Washington, DC: CCSSO. Council of Chief State School Officers. (2002). A Guide to Effective Accountability Reporting Washington, DC: Author. Beaudoin, J.P., Ph.D. (2003). A preliminary investigation into educational factors associated with selected teacher qualifications Data analysis for CCSSO (pp.1 10). Ferguson, R.F. (1998). Can Schools Narrow the Black White Test Score Gap? In C. Jencks and M. Phillips (Eds.). The Black White Test Score Gap (pp.318 374). Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution. Gilford, D.M. and Tenenbaum, E. (Eds.). (1990). Pre college science and mathematics teachers: Monitoring supply, demand, and quality Committe e on National Statistics, National Research Council. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Goldhaber, D.D. and Brewer, D.J. (2000). Does teacher certification matter? High school certification status and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and p olicy Analysis 22(2): 129 145. Gruber, K.J., Wiley, S.D., Broughman, S.P., Strizwek, G., & Burian Fitzgerald, M. (2002). Schools and staffing Survey, 1999 2000: Overview of the data for public, private, public charter, and bureau of Indian affairs eleme ntary and secondary schools (NCES 2002 313 ). National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Ingersoll, R. (1996). Out of field teaching and educational equality (NCES 96 040). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Ingersoll, R. (1999). The problem of under qualified teachers in American secondary schools. Educational Researcher 28 (2): 26 37. I ngersoll, R. (2003, September ) Out of field teaching and the limits of teacher policy University of Washington: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy. Mayer, D.P., Mullens, J.E., and Moore, M.T. (2000). Monitoring school quality: An indicators re port (NCES 2001 030). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. McMillen Seastrom, M., Gruber, K., Henke, R., McGrath, D.J., & B.A., Cohen, (2002). Q ualifications of the public school teacher workforce: prevalence of out of field teaching 1987 88 to 1999 2000 (pp. 12 19). (NCES 2003 604) Education Statistics Quarterly (Vol. 4, Issue 3). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

PAGE 23

Blank et al.: Meeting NCLB goals for highly qualified teachers 23 National Center for Education Statistics. (2002). Schools and staffing survey, 1999 2000. Overview of the data (Ed.). (Tabs.). U.S. Department of Education/OERI (May). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. National Commission on Teaching & Americas Future. (1996). What matters most: Teaching for Americas future. Report of the National Commission on Teaching & Americas Future. Summary Report. New York: Author. U.S. Department of Education. (2003). Meeting the highly qualified teachers challenge: The Secretarys second annual report on teacher quality Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. About the Authors Rolf Blank ( RolfB@ccsso.org) is Director of Education Indicators at the Council of Chief State School Officers, Washington, DC, where he is assisted in state policy and program analyses by Doreen Langesen, Elizabeth Laird, and Carla Toye. Victor Bandeira de Mello is a senior statistician with the American Institutes for Research, Palo Alto, CA.

PAGE 24

Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 12 No. 70 24 Education Policy Analysis Archives http:// epaa.asu.edu Editor: Gene V Glass, Arizona State University Production Assistant: Chris Murrell, Arizona State University General questions about appropriateness of topics or particular articles may be addressed to the Editor, Gene V Glass, glass@asu.edu or reach him at College of Education, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287 2411. 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 of Technology 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, Berkeley Michele Moses Arizona State University Gary Orfield Harvard University Anthony G. Rud Jr. Purdue University Jay Paredes Scribner University of Missouri Michael Scriven Western Michigan University Lorrie A. Shepard University of Colorado, Boulder Robert E. Stake University of Illinois UC Kevin Welner University of Colorado, Boulder Terrence G. Wiley Arizona State University John Wi llinsky University of British Columbia

PAGE 25

Blank et al.: Meeting NCLB goals for highly qualified teachers 25 Archivos Analticos de Polticas Educativas Associate Editors Gustavo E. Fischman & Pablo Gentili Arizona State University & Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro Founding Associate Editor for Spanish Language (1998 2003) Roberto Rodrguez Gmez Editorial Board Hugo Aboites Universidad Autnoma Metropolitana Xochimilco Adrin Acosta Universidad de Guadalajara Mxico Claudio Almonacid Avila Universidad Metropolitana de Ciencias de la Educacin, Chile Dalila Andrade de Oliveira Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brasil Alejandra Birgin Ministerio de Educacin, Arge ntina Teresa Bracho Centro de Investigacin y Docencia Econmica CIDE Alejandro Canales Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico Ursula Casanova Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona Sigfredo Chiroque Instituto de Pedagoga Popular, Per Erwin Epstein Loyola U niversity, Chicago, Illinois Mariano Fernndez Enguita Universidad de Salamanca. Espaa Gaudncio Frigotto Universidade Estadual do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil Rollin Kent Universidad Autnoma de Puebl a. Puebla, Mxico Walter Kohan Universidade Estadual do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil Roberto Leher Universidade Estadual do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil Daniel C. Levy University at Albany, SUNY, Albany, New York Nilma Limo Gomes Universidade Federal de Minas Gera is, Belo Horizonte Pia Lindquist Wong California State University, Sacramento, California Mara Loreto Egaa Programa Interdisciplinario de Investigacin en Educacin Mariano Narodowski Universidad Torcuato Di Tella, Argentina Iolanda de Oliveira Universidade Federal Fluminense, Brasil Grover Pango Foro Latinoamericano de Polticas Educativas, Per Vanilda Paiva Universidade Estadual do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil Miguel Pereira Catedratico Universidad de Granada, Espaa Angel Ignacio Prez Gmez Universidad de Mlaga Mnica Pini Universidad Nacional de San Martin, Argentina Romualdo Portella do Oliveira Universidade de So Paulo Diana Rhoten Social Science Research Council, New York, New York Jos Gimeno Sacristn Universidad de Valencia, Espa a Daniel Schugurensky Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Canada Susan Street Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropologia Social Occidente, Guadalajara, Mxico Nelly P. Stromquist University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California Daniel Suarez Laboratorio de Politicas Publicas Universidad de Buenos Aires, Argentina Antonio Teodoro Universidade Lusfona Lisboa, Carlos A. Torres UCLA Jurjo Torres Santom Universidad de la Corua, Espaa