[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
HIGHLY QUALIFIED TEACHERS AND RAISING STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT
=======================================================================
FIELD HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON 21st CENTURY COMPETITIVENESS
of the
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
AND THE WORKFORCE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
May 27, 2004 in Phoenix, Arizona
__________
Serial No. 108-61
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
93-983 WASHINGTON : 2004
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE
JOHN A. BOEHNER, Ohio, Chairman
Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin, Vice George Miller, California
Chairman Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
Cass Ballenger, North Carolina Major R. Owens, New York
Peter Hoekstra, Michigan Donald M. Payne, New Jersey
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey
California Lynn C. Woolsey, California
Michael N. Castle, Delaware Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
Sam Johnson, Texas Carolyn McCarthy, New York
James C. Greenwood, Pennsylvania John F. Tierney, Massachusetts
Charlie Norwood, Georgia Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Fred Upton, Michigan Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio
Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan David Wu, Oregon
Jim DeMint, South Carolina Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Johnny Isakson, Georgia Susan A. Davis, California
Judy Biggert, Illinois Betty McCollum, Minnesota
Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania Danny K. Davis, Illinois
Patrick J. Tiberi, Ohio Ed Case, Hawaii
Ric Keller, Florida Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Tom Osborne, Nebraska Denise L. Majette, Georgia
Joe Wilson, South Carolina Chris Van Hollen, Maryland
Tom Cole, Oklahoma Tim Ryan, Ohio
Jon C. Porter, Nevada Timothy H. Bishop, New York
John Kline, Minnesota
John R. Carter, Texas
Marilyn N. Musgrave, Colorado
Marsha Blackburn, Tennessee
Phil Gingrey, Georgia
Max Burns, Georgia
Paula Nowakowski, Staff Director
John Lawrence, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON 21st CENTURY COMPETITIVENESS
HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' McKEON, California, Chairman
Johnny Isakson, Georgia, Vice Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
Chairman John F. Tierney, Massachusetts
John A. Boehner, Ohio Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin David Wu, Oregon
Michael N. Castle, Delaware Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Sam Johnson, Texas Betty McCollum, Minnesota
Fred Upton, Michigan Carolyn McCarthy, New York
Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan Chris Van Hollen, Maryland
Patrick J. Tiberi, Ohio Tim Ryan, Ohio
Ric Keller, Florida Major R. Owens, New York
Tom Osborne, Nebraska Donald M. Payne, New Jersey
Tom Cole, Oklahoma Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey
Jon C. Porter, Nevada Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
John R. Carter, Texas George Miller, California, ex
Phil Gingrey, Georgia officio
Max Burns, Georgia
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on May 27, 2004..................................... 1
Statement of Members:
McKeon, Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'', Chairman, Subcommittee on
21st Century Competitiveness, Committee on Education and
the Workforce.............................................. 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 4
Porter, Hon. Jon C., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Nevada............................................ 5
Prepared statement of.................................... 8
Statement of Witnesses:
Butterfield, Dr. Karen, Deputy Associate Superintendent,
Innovative and Exemplary Programs, Arizona Department of
Education.................................................. 14
Prepared statement of.................................... 18
Additional statement submitted for the record............ 53
Noone, Dr. Laura Palmer, President, University of Phoenix.... 23
Prepared statement of.................................... 25
Simon, Raymond, Assistant Secretary, Office of Elementary and
Secondary Education, U.S. Department of Education.......... 9
Prepared statement of.................................... 11
Solmon, Dr. Lewis C., Executive Vice President, Director,
Teacher Advancement Programs, Milken Family Foundation..... 31
Prepared statement of.................................... 35
HIGHLY QUALIFIED TEACHERS AND RAISING STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT
----------
Thursday, May 27, 2004
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness
Committee on Education and the Workforce
Phoenix, Arizona
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11 a.m., at the
University of Phoenix, 4615 East Elwood Street, Phoenix,
Arizona, Hon. Howard P. McKeon [Chairman of the Subcommittee]
Presiding.
Members Present: Representatives McKeon and Porter.
Staff Present: Mr. Rich Stombres, Professional Staff
Member.
Chairman McKeon. The quorum being present, the Subcommittee
on 21st Century Competitiveness of the Committee on Education
and the Workforce will come to order.
We're meeting today to hear testimony on highly qualified
teachers and raising student achievement.
I'd like to thank the University of Phoenix for hosting
this hearing today. I'm eager to hear from our witnesses.
But before we begin, I ask for unanimous consent for the
hearing record to remain open 14 days to allow members'
statements and other extraneous material referenced during the
hearing to be submitted in the official hearing record.
No objections, so ordered.
STATEMENT OF HON. HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' McKEON, CHAIRMAN,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON 21st CENTURY COMPETITIVENESS, COMMITTEE ON
EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE
Good morning. I'd like to welcome each of you to this
beautiful sunny area, the field hearing on the Subcommittee as
we continue to focus on teacher quality.
This will be the fourth hearing since the opening of the
107th Congress that we have met to learn about teacher
preparation, credentials, and ways to ensure our students are
learning from capable and competent teachers.
The purpose of today's hearing is to discuss the importance
of highly qualified teachers in improving academic achievement
for all students regardless of race, income, geography,
English-fluency, or disability.
The success of education reform efforts is increasingly
seen as directly dependent on the quality of classroom
instruction, and ensuring the quality of America's 3.2 million
teachers is an essential part of providing an excellent
education to all of our children.
A growing number of studies provides conclusive evidence
that teacher quality is the primary school-related factor
affecting student achievement.
Students who are taught by effective and competent teachers
excel quickly, while those who are assigned to the least
effective teachers lag behind and often never catch up.
Especially troubling is the evidence that disadvantaged
students whose futures depend most on the positive school
experience are often assigned the least qualified teachers.
For example, a report from the Education Trust, a nonprofit
organization whose mission it is to make schools and colleges
work for all of the young people they serve, found that in
every subject area, students in high-poverty schools were more
likely than other students to be taught by teachers without
even a minor in the subjects they teach.
The bipartisan No Child Left Behind law asks each state, in
exchange for billions of dollars in Federal teacher quality
aid, to develop and implement a plan to place a highly
qualified teacher in every public classroom by the close of the
2005-2006 school year.
States have been given vast flexibility in defining what
constitutes a highly qualified teacher.
At a minimum, teachers must have full state certification,
a Bachelor's degree, and demonstrate competency in core
achievement subjects they teach.
Individual states, not the Federal Government, design and
implement measures to assess subject matter competency, which
may include rigorous state academic tests, a Bachelor's degree
in a core academic subject, or the high, objective, uniform
state standard of evaluation, or HOUSSE procedure for veteran
teachers.
Since No Child Left Behind was enacted more than 2 years
ago, Congress and President Bush have continued to provide
record teacher quality aid to states and local school districts
at levels far higher than provided under the previous
administration.
Federal teacher quality aid has been increased by more than
35 percent under President Bush, who requested nearly three
billion dollars in annual teacher quality funding for states
and teachers in his 2005 budget request to Congress, compared
with just 787 million dollars provided under President
Clinton's final budget.
In addition, President Bush and Congress have taken
numerous steps since the enactment of the No Child Left Behind
Act to help teachers, local educational agencies and states
meet the law's highly qualified teacher provisions.
To provide incentives for good teachers to remain in the
teaching profession, President Bush and congressional
Republicans in 2002 enacted legislation allowing teachers to
take a $250 tax deduction when they pay money out of their own
pockets for classroom expenses, such as crayons and books,
paper, pencils. We're currently working to expand the so-called
Crayola credit to $400 or more.
During the 108th Congress, the House passed legislation to
more than triple the amount of Federal student loan forgiveness
available to highly qualified reading specialists and math,
science, and special education teachers who commit to teaching
in high-need schools for 5 years.
The Teacher Recruitment and Retention Act would increase
maximum Federal loan forgiveness for such teachers from $5,000
to $17,500.
In 2003, the House also passed legislation to strengthen
teacher training programs at America's colleges.
The Ready to Teach Act would reauthorize and strengthen
teacher training programs under the Higher Education Act to
ensure tomorrow's highly qualified teachers are prepared to
meet the needs of the nation's students.
It's important to note that Members of the Committee
reintroduced these bills last week as part of a competitiveness
package aimed at helping teachers receive quality training they
need to improve student achievement.
Recognizing that outdated Federal rules are pushing some
good teachers out of the classroom, the House also passed
legislation to be revamp the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act and reduce paperwork burdens for Special
Education teachers who are striving to meet the No Child Left
Behind's high standards.
This bill includes a proposal to reduce paperwork for
Special Ed teachers by allowing parents of children with
special needs to select a 3-year individualized education
program, or IEP, for their children instead of an annual one.
Earlier this year the Department of Education provided
states with new guidance on the highly qualified teacher
requirements, giving additional flexibility to teachers in
rural school districts, streamlining procedures for veteran
teachers to demonstrate subject matter competency, and
clarifying state authority over requirements for science
teachers.
Also, the Department of Education has implemented a new
outreach initiative to recognize teachers' outstanding
achievements.
The four-part initiative includes teacher roundtables,
teacher-to-teacher workshops, a research-to-practice summit,
and updates on timely topics affecting teachers.
Today we're in Arizona to learn about state efforts to
maintain and improve teacher quality.
Last November the U.S. Department of Education's Teacher
Assistance Corps visited Arizona to assist the state Department
of Education in implementing No Child Left Behind's highly
qualified teacher requirements.
The U.S. Department of Education found several positive
aspects in Arizona's efforts with regard to teacher quality and
noted that Arizona is planning to use their HOUSSE standards to
drive content-specific professional development in making
teachers highly qualified and asks school districts to require
that professional development be directly linked to student
achievement.
I'd like to thank everyone for attending here today, and
I'd especially like to thank our distinguished panel of
witnesses for their participation. I look forward to your
testimony.
And I'd now like to recognize my colleague on the Education
Workforce Committee, Mr. Porter, your neighbor to north--I'm
your neighbor to the west--and ask Mr. Porter for any opening
statement that he wishes to make at this time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McKeon follows:]
Statement of Hon. Howard ``Buck'' McKeon, Chairman, Subcommittee on
21st Century Competitiveness, Committee on Education and the Workforce
Good morning. I'd like to welcome each of you to our field hearing
this morning as the Subcommittee continues its focus on teacher
quality. This will be the fourth hearing since the opening of the 107th
Congress that we have met to learn about teacher preparation,
credentials, and ways to ensure our students are learning from capable
and competent teachers.
The purpose of today's hearing is to discuss the importance of
highly qualified teachers in improving academic achievement for all
students--regardless of race, income, geography, English-fluency, or
disability.
The success of education reform efforts is increasingly seen as
directly dependent on the quality of classroom instruction, and
ensuring the quality of America's 3.2 million teachers is an essential
part of providing an excellent education to all our children. A growing
number of studies provide conclusive evidence that teacher quality is
the primary school-related factor affecting student achievement.
Students who are taught by effective and competent teachers excel
quickly, while those who are assigned to the least effective teachers
lag behind and often never catch up.
Especially troubling is the evidence that disadvantaged students,
whose futures depend most on a positive school experience, are often
assigned the least qualified teachers. For example, a report from the
Education Trust--a nonprofit organization whose mission is to make
schools and colleges work for all of the young people they serve--found
that in every subject area, students in high-poverty schools were more
likely than other students to be taught by teachers without even a
minor in the subjects they teach.
The bipartisan No Child Left Behind law asks each state--in
exchange for billions of dollars in federal teacher quality aid--to
develop and implement a plan to place a highly qualified teacher in
every public classroom by the close of the 2005-2006 school year.
States have been given vast flexibility in defining what constitutes a
highly qualified teacher. At a minimum, teachers must have full state
certification, a Bachelor's degree, and demonstrate competency in core
academic subjects they teach. Individual states--not the federal
government--design and implement measures to assess subject matter
competency, which may include rigorous state academic tests; a
Bachelor's degree in a core academic subject; or the high, objective,
uniform state standard of evaluation--or HOUSSE procedure--for veteran
teachers.
Since No Child Left Behind was enacted more than two years ago,
Congress and President Bush have continued to provide record teacher
quality aid to states and local school districts, at levels far higher
than provided under the previous Administration. Federal teacher
quality aid has been increased by more than 35 percent under President
Bush, who requested nearly three billion dollars in annual teacher
quality funding for states and teachers in his 2005 budget request to
Congress--compared with just $787 million provided under President
Clinton's final budget.
In addition, President Bush and Congress have taken numerous steps
since the enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act to help teachers,
local educational agencies, and states meet the law's highly qualified
teacher provisions.
To provide incentives for good teachers to remain in the teaching
profession, President Bush and congressional Republicans in 2002
enacted legislation allowing teachers to take a $250 tax deduction when
they pay money out of their own pockets for classroom expenses, such as
crayons and books. We are currently working to expand this so-called
``Crayola Credit'' to $400 or more.
During the 108th Congress, the House passed legislation to more
than triple the amount of federal student loan forgiveness available to
highly qualified reading specialists and math, science, and special
education teachers who commit to teaching in high-need schools for five
years. The Teacher Recruitment and Retention Act would increase maximum
federal loan forgiveness for such teachers from $5,000 to $17,500.
In 2003, the House also passed legislation to strengthen teacher-
training programs at America's colleges. The Ready to Teach Act would
reauthorize and strengthen teacher-training programs under the Higher
Education Act to ensure tomorrow's highly qualified teachers are
prepared to meet the needs of the nation's students.
It is important to note that members of the Committee re-introduced
these bills last week as part of a competitiveness package aimed at
helping teachers receive quality training they need to improve student
achievement.
Recognizing that outdated federal rules are pushing some good
teachers out of the classroom, the House also passed legislation to
revamp the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and reduce
paperwork burdens for special education teachers, who are striving to
meet No Child Left Behind's high standards. This bill includes a
proposal to reduce paperwork for special education teachers by allowing
parents of children with special needs to select a three-year
Individualized Education Program--or IEP--for their children instead of
an annual one.
Earlier this year, the Department of Education provided states with
new guidance on the highly qualified teacher requirements giving
additional flexibility to teachers in rural school districts;
streamlining procedures for veteran teachers to demonstrate subject
matter competency; and clarifying state authority over requirements for
science teachers. Also, the Department of Education has implemented a
new outreach initiative to recognize teachers' outstanding
achievements. The four-part initiative includes teacher roundtables,
teacher-to-teacher workshops, a research-to-practice summit, and
updates on timely topics affecting teachers.
Today we are in Arizona to learn about state efforts to maintain
and improve teacher quality. Last November, the U.S. Department of
Education's Teacher Assistance Corps visited Arizona to assist the
State Department of Education in implementing No Child Left Behind's
highly qualified teacher requirements. The U.S. Department of Education
found several positive aspects in Arizona's efforts with regard to
teacher quality and noted that Arizona is planning to use their HOUSSE
standards to drive content specific professional development in making
teachers highly qualified and asks school districts to require that
professional development be directly linked to student achievement.
We have a distinguished panel of witnesses for today's hearing. I
would like to thank each of you for your appearance before the
Subcommittee and I look forward to your testimony.
______
STATEMENT OF HON. JON C. PORTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA
Mr. Porter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My name is John Porter, and I'm a Member of Congress from
southern Nevada, the Las Vegas area. As they say, what happens
in Las Vegas stays in Las Vegas.
But my background is such that I'm fortunate to be married
to an educator for over 18 years who has since retired. And she
was an elementary school librarian in a very transient,
transitional part of southern Nevada.
So I have the insights of a professional in my wife, but
also I have spent a lot of time in the schools trying to learn
just as much as I can to try to make a difference, and having
been a state legislator before.
But I guess I state that for the record so you'll know that
both of us, the Chairman and myself, we have a real passion for
education.
And we both realize that without your support, without the
professionals here today giving us the proper insights to make
the right decisions, we're not going to be able to make a
difference. So today's really critical as is your testimony.
But I guess on a more formal side, as we continue to
commemorate the 50th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court's
landmark Brown versus Board of Education decision, it's
important to reflect on how far we have come in ensuring
educational access for every child.
But we must also remind ourselves, the task will not be
finished until every child not only has a seat in the
classroom, and I can appreciate being a member, as both of us
are, from the southwest and the challenges of having a seat is
as much as having the teacher. But until every child has a seat
but also is guaranteed a quality education, our job's not done.
50 years later after the 50th anniversary has begun, an
alarming achievement gap still exists in our country.
Nationally, African American 4th graders are 28 percentage
points behind their white counterparts in reading, and Hispanic
4th graders are 29 percent points behind.
President Bush's No Child Left Behind Act has given us the
blueprint we need as a nation to complete the mission. Starting
with the Brown decision, Brown versus Board of Education and No
Child Left Behind are partners in history.
The No Child Left Behind Act is the bipartisan landmark
education reform law designed to change the culture of
America's schools by closing the achievement gap, offering more
flexibility, giving parents more options, and teaching students
based on what works.
In exchange for literally billions of dollars in Federal
aid, states now must describe how they will close the
achievement gap and make sure all students, including those who
are disadvantaged, achieve academic proficiency.
It's interesting, as I listen to debate across the country
and even at home in Nevada, when we talk about No Child Left
Behind, it literally has become the whipping post for
education.
If local government has chosen not to increase financial
support, it's the No Child Left Behind's fault. If there's a
cut in transportation, it's No Child Left Behind's fault.
Anything that's gone wrong with education, and we certainly
we have a lot of professionals trying to prevent that, No Child
Left Behind is blamed.
And I'll be honest with you. I think that it truly has been
a milestone and it will be history in the making. Although not
perfect, it's come a long ways and will continue to improve.
As we try to create this highly educated workforce that's
critical to America's future and competitiveness, not only
nationally but internationally, the quality of education in
America's schools is directly related to the quality of
teachers entrusted with the vital task of educating the
nation's students.
Today's students are tomorrow's workforce, and for that
reason, education is directly linked to America's future
competitiveness in the changing economy.
Every child deserves to learn from a highly qualified
teacher. And it's a privilege for me to be here today.
And as I mentioned earlier, as a Member of Congress from
the southwest, we do have similar challenges to Arizona.
We need 2,500 new teachers a year in Nevada, 2000 alone in
southern Nevada. We need to build two and a half plus new
schools a month to stay ahead of our growth. We're growing 6-,
7,000 people a month into the Nevada community, and we have
very serious challenges from seats, building enough schools, to
having enough teachers.
By having said that, an issue that I'm also working on, I'd
like to just enter for the record, Mr. Chairman. I don't know
if you're aware of this, but 29 states don't do background
checks on teachers.
And I have introduced legislation to make sure that every
state does background checks.
And as we're out recruiting every day to find new teachers,
we're finding that a lot of states don't have the information
that's necessary to make sure that our students are safe and
that we're hiring the right teachers.
So separate and apart from educating and making sure that
we raise the standards of the professionalism of the teachers,
we need to get the message out to these other states that they
also need to do some background checks.
It's not happening.
We found in Clark County School District, which is the
sixth largest in the country, that we were recruiting teachers
and their background checks were coming up clear.
And we're finding out later it was clear because it wasn't
reported, the problems that they were having.
Legal problems, from pedophilia to other sexual crimes to
other major crimes, were not being reported into the system.
I would hope we wouldn't have to pass legislation to
mandate the background checks, although that's where the bill
is right now.
But I know, as a Member of Congress and a prior member of
the State Legislature, I was shocked to realize that there is
not background checks being done in 29 of the 50 states.
So as the Secretary's here today, I'd like to send that
message. We have to educate our own professionals. So when we
would check a background through the FBI, which we require on
every new teacher, literally, their records were coming up
clear.
And there's something wrong with that when we're entrusted
not only with hiring not only the best and brightest and highly
trained professionals.
We have to make sure that as parents entrust their children
with us that these teachers also haven't had other problems. So
I add that for the record and share that with my friends and
colleagues here in Arizona.
Anyway, with that, I'm excited to be here.
And I'll tell you, I have heard education compared to the
medical profession in that, if you were to look at an emergency
room hospital in the late 1800's and look at the emergency room
today, you'd see a remarkable difference.
Technology, training, skills, everything has changed from
the safety of the patient to the safety of the doctors and
nurses.
But if you looked at the classroom, it's basically the same
way it's been for over 100 years. And there certainly is a time
and a place for that.
But I think we need to continue fostering meetings like
this so we can learn how to improve education across the
country and make sure that our classroom doesn't look like it
did 100 years ago because the world doesn't look like it did
100 years ago.
And that's another reason why where we're here today.
So thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate it.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Porter follows:]
Statement of Hon. Jon Porter, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Nevada
As we continue to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the U.S.
Supreme Court's landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision, it's
important to reflect on how far we've come in ensuring educational
access for every child. But we must also remind ourselves the task will
not be finished until every child not only has a seat in the classroom,
but is guaranteed a quality education as well.
Fifty years later, an alarming achievement gap still exists in our
country. Nationally, African American fourth graders are 28 percentage
points behind their white counterparts in reading, and Hispanic fourth
graders are 29 percentage points behind.
President Bush's No Child Left Behind Act has given us the
blueprint we need as a nation to complete the mission started with the
Brown decision. Brown v. Board of Education and No Child Left Behind
are partners in history.
The No Child Left Behind Act is the bipartisan landmark education
reform law designed to change the culture of America's schools by
closing the achievement gap, offering more flexibility, giving parents
more options and teaching students based on what works. In exchange for
billions of dollars in federal aid, states now must describe how they
will close the achievement gap and make sure all students, including
those who are disadvantaged, achieve academic proficiency.
A highly-educated workforce is critical to America's future
competitiveness. And the quality of education in America's schools is
directly related to the quality of the teachers entrusted with the
vital task of educating the nation's students. Today's students are
tomorrow's workforce, and for that reason education is directly linked
to America's future competitiveness in a changing economy.
Every child deserves to learn from a highly qualified teacher and
it is a privilege for me to be here today to learn about the steps
Arizona is taking to ensure their children receive a world-class
education.
I look forward to your testimony.
______
Chairman McKeon. Thank you. I'm especially happy to be here
in Arizona because I have four grandchildren in public schools
here. They live in Mesa. And we have 26 grandchildren. So
school education is very, very important in our family.
Let me introduce our witnesses.
We will begin first by hearing from Mr. Raymond Simon.
Mr. Simon currently serves as the Assistant Secretary in
the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education at the U.S.
Department of Education in Washington.
Mr. Simon has served in numerous capacities since beginning
his career as a mathematics teacher at North Little Rock High
School. Mr. Simon has served as Superintendent for Conway
Public Schools in Conway and also as Director of the Arkansas
Department of Education.
So he knows what it's like in the classroom; he knows what
it's like in the superintendent's office; and now he sees what
it's like in Washington, D.C..
And he's still smiling. That's great.
Dr. Karen Butterfield currently serves as the Deputy
Associate Superintendent in the Innovative and Exemplary
Programs for the Arizona Department of Education in Phoenix,
Arizona. Previously Dr. Butterfield served as Program Manager
for the National Charter Schools Institute.
I was here years ago. We did a hearing here on charter
schools. You're setting a great pace for the rest of the
country. But that was in Mount Pleasant, Michigan.
In 2003, Dr. Butterfield was recognized by the Arizona
North Central Association for her work, receiving the Circle of
Excellence Award.
Then we will hear from Dr. Laura Palmer Noone.
Dr. Noone currently serves as President of the University
of Phoenix, which is where we are, and has served in this
capacity since September of 2000.
Previously Dr. Noone served as Provost and Senior Vice
President for Academic Affairs and as Director of Academic
Affairs at the University of Phoenix.
Before joining the University of Phoenix system, Dr. Noone
served as Judge Pro Tem at the city of Chandler and also as an
attorney at law in general civil practice emphasizing business
representation in civil litigation.
And finally, Dr. Lewis C. Solmon.
Dr. Solmon currently serves as the Executive Vice President
and Director of Teacher Advancement Programs for the Milken
Family Foundation in Santa Monica, California.
Before founding the Milken Institute in 1991, Dr. Solmon
served as Dean of UCLA's Graduate School of Education.
Dr. Solmon has also advised several Governors and state
superintendents in the area of teacher quality--wonderful job--
funding school technology and school finance.
Did the Governors always listen to you?
Dr. Solmon. Most of them actually did.
Chairman McKeon. That's great. Before the panel begins, I'd
like to ask each of our witnesses today to please limit your
statements to 5 minutes.
We can be flexible on that. We don't have, like in
Washington where we have that seat that falls out from under
you, we don't have that here.
But your full record, your full comments will be included
in the record.
We'll hear now from Mr. Simon.
STATEMENT OF RAYMOND SIMON, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, OFFICE OF
ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION
Mr. Simon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One reason I'm smiling
is that you gave, between you and Mr. Porter, you gave about 90
percent of my prepared remarks. And we agreed.
Chairman McKeon. I have heard that somebody that hears
something six times and learns it is a genius, so maybe we need
to hear it several times.
Mr. Simon. Well, I think I'm in the presence of genius. So
I'll try to only pick out the parts that will elaborate on what
you and Mr. Porter have already said.
I think this component, the highly qualified teacher
component of No Child Left Behind will prove to be the most
challenging of all the aspects of the law to implement.
In addition, too, we're at a time when, as you've
mentioned, there is a growing need for new teachers to join the
profession.
We're seeing teachers of my generation retiring in record
numbers at a time when we're demanding more, rightfully so, in
terms of qualifications of teachers in our classrooms.
The research that you referenced also says that teacher
success is enhanced by a combination of teaching experience and
a strong content knowledge, something we must continue to
insist on in helping our teachers not only with how to teach
but in the content area that they are teaching.
Last fall, as we began to receive from the states their
reports on the numbers and percentages of highly qualified
teachers, we found rather startling information.
As is often the case with something new, the data had a few
holes. Some states had made a good-faith effort and had
submitted reasonably accurate information.
Some were still working on their definitions of highly
qualified teachers and their data reflected that uncertainty.
Some states simply did not submit any information because
of limitations in their data collection system.
Nevertheless, on the whole, the 2003 state data on highly
qualified teachers suggests how far we have to go to comply
with No Child Left Behind.
Some states appear to be in good shape with 90 percent or
more of their teachers already highly qualified.
Others face a much bigger challenge, reporting less than
half of their teachers meeting the same requirements.
Some states reporting high percentages of highly qualified
teachers may not have been using a definition that meets
statutory requirements.
Last September, in partial response to that and at the
urging of Secretary Rod Paige, the Department formed its
Teacher Assistance Corps which, on it, included teachers,
principals, superintendents, higher education staff, State
officials and national education experts that visited all 50
states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and conducted
what we call conversation without consequences.
In Arkansas we refer to that as deer camp conversation.
Whatever was said there stayed there.
After 300 hours of site visits, we found much confusion,
inconsistency about what the law requires and what states need
to do to comply.
Veteran teachers incorrectly had been convinced that they
had to go back to school to get multiple degrees in order to be
highly qualified or to take tests to prove their
qualifications.
Highly honored professionals suddenly found themselves, as
a result of either misinformation or lack of action on the part
of states to develop proper guidelines, to find themselves not
highly qualified.
As a result of our conversation without consequences, many
states began to rethink how their teachers are assigned and
what their definitions of highly qualified would be.
Since that time, we found that more states are getting
serious about aligning certification standards with content
standards for children.
More states are raising academic standards for teachers,
realizing how important a well-prepared teacher is. And many
are lowering barriers to alternate certification programs that
encourage talented, qualified individuals in other careers to
become teachers.
Beginning this summer, the department will begin formal
monitoring of states and go back now in a formal way and
continue with the discussions we had last fall, and also to
provide technical assistance to schools and states to make sure
they are on the right track to meet the requirements.
Most importantly, we're going to look at how states are
collecting data and how they are spending their Title II funds.
I'll close my remarks on a personal note.
You mentioned you had 26 grandchildren. I have one that's 2
years old. His name's Alex.
And when Alex begins kindergarten in 3 years, as a
granddad, I don't want it to be the luck of the draw as to
whether or not Alex gets a good teacher.
And I sure don't want it to be the luck of the draw that
Alex gets three poor teachers 3 years in a row, because if he
does, the chances of Alex graduating from high school are
pretty slim.
He deserves better than that. So do his buddies.
No Child Left Behind, in my mind, and I have spent--I'll
finish 38 years in public education. I have never known a time
when the opportunities were as great on a national level to
help as many children as we have now.
Now is not the time to provide excuses. It's not the time
to abandon No Child Left Behind. It's a time to stay the
course.
This summer, as you indicated, we're going to spotlight
teachers all over this country that are doing what others say
can't be done. We're going to give those teachers and
principals an opportunity to say, here's how I'm doing it; you
can do it.
That's all teachers want. We have heard from many, many
teachers over the last few weeks and months.
And they say, you know, we want to do this. Some of us
don't believe we can because we don't know how, but we want to
do what's best for these children and we want the mission of No
Child to be successful. So any help the Department of Education
can give us, that's what we're looking for.
That's a pretty powerful statement.
We have to honor good teaching. There are millions of great
teachers in this country. No Child Left Behind has an
opportunity to take that individual greatness of those teachers
and channel it in one direction and make the whole greatness
bigger than the sum of the parts.
I'm very proud to be a part of that.
That concludes my remarks. And I'd be happy to answer
questions at the appropriate time.
Chairman McKeon. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Simon follows:]
Statement of Raymond Simon, Assistant Secretary, Office of Elementary
and Secondary Education, U.S. Department of Education
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for this opportunity to testify today on the importance
of teaching. Improving the quality of instruction and, more
specifically, putting a highly qualified teacher in every classroom,
may well be the key to the success of the No Child Left Behind Act
(NCLB). That makes teaching a core concern for this Administration, as
I know it is for the Chairman and members of this Committee.
The reason is simple. Research shows what most of us know from
personal experience: a talented teacher has a tremendous impact on
student achievement. In particular, we know that a combination of
teaching experience and strong content knowledge are linked to gains in
student achievement. Although we know it is important for teachers to
have a solid grasp of the content they teach, out-of-field teaching
remains a significant problem. Historically, qualified math and science
teachers are more difficult to hire than English or social studies
teachers, but out-of-field teaching is just as prevalent in English and
social studies as it is in math and science classes. To illustrate
this, one-fifth of 7th-12th graders in the United States will have an
English teacher who does not have even a minor in the subject.
We also know that inexperienced or unqualified teachers tend to be
concentrated in the high-poverty schools that face the greatest
challenges in helping all students reach high State standards. And
finally, we know that teaching is a tough job, because nearly one-
quarter of all new teachers leave the profession during their first
three years of service.
WHAT THE LAW REQUIRES
The requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act concerning highly
qualified teachers were designed to address each of these issues in
teaching. NCLB requires a highly qualified teacher in every classroom
for core academic subjects, so that all kids have the opportunity to
achieve at grade level. States must report on the percentage of classes
not taught by highly qualified teachers, both overall and disaggregated
by high-poverty and low-poverty schools, so that we know whether or not
the students with the greatest needs are getting teachers who can meet
those needs. And we believe that highly qualified teachers are likely
to remain in the profession longer than those who are unprepared for
the challenges of teaching.
No Child Left Behind requires that every public elementary and
secondary school teacher of a core academic subject hold a minimum of a
bachelor's degree, obtain full State certification or licensure, and
demonstrate subject matter competency in each of the academic subjects
taught; however, States are provided the flexibility to develop
procedures that conform to these three criteria.
Additionally, all new teachers hired to teach core academic
subjects in Title I programs must meet these requirements now, and all
other teachers of core subjects must be highly qualified by the end of
the 2005-2006 school year.
Arizona is striving to meet these requirements. Your State
Department of Education recently gave districts and schools guidance on
the qualifications teachers need to have. They also have developed a
HOUSSE, which is short for ``high objective uniform State standard of
evaluation,'' a procedure NCLB authorizes which allows veteran teachers
to demonstrate that they know their subject matter without having to
take a test or go back to school.
WHERE STATES CURRENTLY STAND
Last fall States submitted data for the first time on the numbers
and percentages of their teachers who are highly qualified. As is often
the case with something that is new, the data provided had a few holes.
Some States made a good faith effort and submitted reasonably accurate
information. Some States were still working on their definitions of
highly qualified teachers, and their data reflected that uncertainty.
And some States simply did not submit any data on highly qualified
teachers, in part because of limitations in their current data-
collection systems.
Nevertheless, on the whole the 2003 State data on highly qualified
teachers suggest how far we have to go to comply with No Child Left
Behind. Some States appear to be in good shape, with 90 percent or more
of their teachers already highly qualified. Other States face a much
bigger challenge, reporting less than half of their teachers meeting
the highly qualified standard. Moreover, some of the States reporting
high percentages of highly qualified teachers may not have been using a
definition that meets statutory requirements.
I think it is important to recognize that last fall's data served
as a ``wake-up'' call for everyone involved, both at the State and
local levels and here in Washington as well. There is a lot of work to
be done over the next two years.
THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION'S TEACHER ASSISTANCE CORPS
Secretary Rod Paige recognized the challenge every State would face
in meeting these requirements. To assist States in their efforts, last
summer he formed the Teacher Assistance Corps (TAC) to support State's
hard work in meet the highly qualified teacher requirements.
The Teacher Assistance Corps includes 45 teachers, former teachers,
principals, superintendents, leaders from higher education, State
officials, and national experts from around the country. Following
training and assignment to teams that included U.S. Department staff,
the Corps began visiting States in September 2003. During these
``conversations without consequences,'' team members explained the
highly qualified teacher requirements and answered policy questions.
Just as important, the visits provided an opportunity to listen and
learn with TAC teams hearing about innovative State and local
professional development initiatives as well as unique local conditions
affecting the recruitment and training of highly qualified teachers.
Teacher Assistance Corps teams have visited all 50 States, the
District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. They met with the Arizona
Department of Education last November, answering questions and learning
about how your State is working toward meeting the requirements. The
Corps is available to provide additional assistance to Arizona through
follow-up visits, conference calls, and regional and national meetings,
if your State so desires.
NEW FLEXIBILITY FOR STATES AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS
A common set of concerns emerged from the Teacher Assistance Corps
visits. For example, many rural districts must employ teachers who are
assigned to teach multiple subjects, and thus face the challenge of
meeting the highly qualified teacher requirements for each subject.
Many middle school teachers have elementary or secondary certification,
but lack specific middle school qualifications. And States continue to
face shortages teachers of special education and in key subject areas
like science.
To help States and school districts meet these and other challenges
in complying with the highly qualified teacher requirements of No Child
Left Behind, on March 15 the Secretary issued new guidance that both
clarified existing flexibility and provided additional flexibility to
meet these requirements.
One key change affects 100 districts in Arizona that are defined as
small and rural under Title VI of No Child Left Behind. These districts
will be allowed to provisionally employ middle or secondary school
teachers to teach multiple subjects even if they do not meet all the
criteria for a highly qualified teacher in each of the subjects they
teach. Districts are eligible for this flexibility as long as they are
providing intensive supervision and professional development that will
enable these teachers to become highly qualified in the additional
subjects over a three-year period.
The new flexibility also changed current Department guidance
regarding qualifications for science teachers. Arizona now has the
option of having science teachers demonstrate subject matter competence
either in specific fields of science or in general science, depending
on State certification or licensure requirements.
The Department also clarified that since States have the authority
to define grade spans, they may determine the highly qualified teacher
requirements that teachers must meet at the elementary, middle, and
high school levels. Other areas covered by the new guidance include the
use of a High, Objective, Uniform State Standard of Evaluation (HOUSSE)
for veteran teachers, requirements for special education teachers, and
improved data collection and monitoring procedures.
MONITORING
This summer, the Department will follow up on the technical
assistance provided through the Teacher Assistance Corps by monitoring
State processes used to determine the highly qualified status of
teachers. We also will look at how States are collecting data on
teachers, how they are spending their Title II funds and provide
technical assistance if needed. The 2005-2006 deadline is fast
approaching, and the U.S. Department of Education is committed to
monitoring every State prior to the deadline, to ensure States are
meeting the highly qualified teacher requirements in the law.
TWO PRINCIPLES FOR MEETING HIGHLY QUALIFIED TEACHER REQUIREMENTS
In addition to the Teacher Assistance Corps and more flexible
guidance, the Department is promoting two key principles to help States
and school districts meet the highly qualified teacher requirements.
First, we must raise academic standards for teachers. This is an
explicit requirement of the law, which reflects research findings on
the critical importance of subject matter knowledge for effective
teaching. One way to raise standards is to improve traditional teacher
preparation programs so that they serve as a more reliable source of
highly qualified and well-prepared new teachers.
For example, the Arizona Department of Education is currently
working with colleges and universities in the state to have uniform
standards and increase the amount of time spent in the classroom by
student teachers.
Second, we must lower the barriers that keep many talented people
from entering the teaching profession. The law is silent on
certification requirements, opening the door to new thinking at the
State level about certification systems. In particular, Arizona can
streamline the process and create alternative routes that will
encourage talented, qualified individuals now in other careers or jobs
to become teachers. Your State Board is currently considering adding a
new route to certification that would allow individuals with a
bachelor's degree in a subject to bypass the education coursework, and
participate in a three year induction/mentoring program.
Another example of innovative flexibility is the Adjunct Teacher
Corps initiative included in the President's 2005 budget request. This
$40 million proposal would help create arrangements for utilizing well-
qualified individuals from business, technology, industry, and other
areas as teachers in secondary schools on an adjunct basis.
THE PRESIDENTS 2005 BUDGET REQUEST
The President's 2005 budget request, like his earlier budgets,
would provide significant support for State and local efforts to ensure
that all teachers are highly qualified by the end of the 2005-2006
school year.
The key Federal programs that provide flexible resources for
teacher training are NCLB's Title II Improving Teacher Quality State
Grants and Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies program, along
with the Higher Education Act's Title II Teacher Quality Enhancement
grants. Combined with smaller categorical programs that support
professional development, along with benefits for individual teachers
under Loan Forgiveness and tax provisions, the request would provide a
total of more than $5 billion to help States and school districts
improve the quality of their teaching forces.
CONCLUSION
As I said at the outset of my testimony, meeting the highly
qualified teacher requirements of No Child Left Behind will be central
to the success of the new law. I believe the law has already
accomplished a great deal simply by focusing so much attention on the
importance of putting a highly qualified teacher in every classroom. As
is the case with implementing the rest of No Child Left Behind, the
Department is working in partnership with Arizona both through guidance
and technical assistance and through significant financial support--to
move from requirement to reality in ensuring that all teachers are
highly qualified.
I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
______
Chairman McKeon. Dr. Butterfield.
STATEMENT OF DR. KAREN BUTTERFIELD, DEPUTY ASSOCIATE
SUPERINTENDENT, INNOVATIVE & EXEMPLARY PROGRAMS, ARIZONA
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Dr. Butterfield. Good morning, Chairman McKeon,
Representative Porter.
It is a true pleasure and honor to be sitting next to the
Assistant Secretary and with our other distinguished testifiers
this morning on what Arizona is doing to ensure we have highly
qualified teachers in our classrooms and the direction that we
have headed in implementing the Title II, No Child Left Behind
requirements.
I would like to open up my remarks with a quote from
Superintendent Tom Horne in a recent Board of Regents meeting
regarding teacher quality.
"We are determined that 100 percent of the students will
become proficient in reading and mathematics and will reach
their potential in all academic areas in our state.
"The most important factor to reaching these goals is
highly qualified teachers.''
Throughout this testimony I will interweave the important
elements of conditions needed in order to truly have and
support highly qualified teacher efforts.
I'm an art educator at heart. I began my career as an art
teacher. So I'd like to use the metaphor of creating a weaving.
The warp is the actual base of threads that become the
foundation of the actual weaving itself.
We cannot implement or foster highly qualified teachers
without certain things in place. And so I'll be addressing that
warp, those elements, throughout my testimony.
I'll be including five major initiatives of the State of
Arizona and particularly the Arizona Department of Education
has embarked on in improving teacher quality.
These five include Arizona's highly qualified teacher
requirements which I will not go into detail in this testimony.
You have the rubric, the House rubric in your packet as well as
the checklist that ensures we have highly qualified teachers in
our classrooms.
Secondly, recommendations from the Arizona Department of
Education Certification Task Force.
Three, possible implementation of a statewide teacher
induction and mentoring program.
Four, Arizona's commitment to teacher professional growth
and development. And I'd like to highlight the successes of our
Arizona Professional Development Learning Academy and our
Reading First Initiative.
And last, our commitment to develop data elements, just
what Chairman McKeon, you have stated in your opening remarks,
the need to tie teacher quality to student achievement.
In beginning with Arizona's highly qualified teacher
requirements, I want you to know that I am representing the
hard work of Deputy Associate Superintendent of Title II, Kathy
Wiebke, regarding her work with developing that checklist and
the House rubric with a task force of teachers and educators
from across the state.
This rubric has been a true help to our teachers and having
them check off, am I highly qualified or not?
If I'm not, what do I have to do to reach those
qualifications?
Secondly, it's become a great tool for our rural teachers
who are struggling in this state to become highly qualified.
And I want you to know, they are truly grateful for the
extended grant that has been allocated to them to become highly
qualified over the next couple of years.
And Ms. Wiebke's letter that is addressing these
requirements is in your packet under Attachment C.
She highlights that teachers with an in-depth knowledge of
content are better able to make critical instructional
decisions that high quality teaching and learning demand.
And the Arizona Department of Education continues to work
very closely with our three state's regent universities and
colleges of education in the spirit of the aforementioned text.
As research conducted by Wilson, Floden and Ferrini-Mundy
conclude, that in addition to subject matter knowledge and
communication skills, enthusiasm, flexibility, perseverance and
rapport with students create the overall formula for teacher
effectiveness in addition to the vital combination of state
licensure process, teachers' professional knowledge and
experience.
Secondly, in terms of recommendations from the Arizona
Department of Education Certification Task Force, I'd like to
highlight two of approximately five that the task force is
submitting currently to the State Board of Education.
In order to provide enhanced opportunities for our
teachers, we are looking at or the task force is looking at,
instead of requiring the 180 hours of the disparate and often
unconnected activity of providing professional development, we,
the task force, is looking at a more job-embedded staff
development plan for our state's teachers.
It would still require the 180 hours, but that plan would
focus on six critical elements: Professional areas for growth,
professional growth goals, an action plan step, a time line,
the resources these teachers would need to fulfill their job-
embedded professional development plans, and the anticipated
impact as well as the results of the plan.
And in order to remove barriers of highly qualified
teachers who move here from out of state to teach--I don't know
if they are going to Nevada, Representative Porter, but we have
got an issue here where we need to retain our highly qualified
teachers in Arizona.
Arizona is working very, very hard to improve teacher
quality, and our teachers are very dedicated to their roles in
their classrooms and to their profession.
And the State Department of Education is strongly committed
to servicing them.
We have two major challenges I would like to highlight for
the record.
One. We have a migration of teachers leaving this state to
seek higher pay. That has got to change. That's a condition in
the warp that we need to strengthen the color of the weaving.
Two, the reality of revolving doors unfortunately exists
here, particularly in our rural schools and unfortunately in
many of our under-performing schools.
By revolving door, I mean the administrators and teachers
are just not staying long enough to provide consistency in the
classroom, consistency in providing quality.
I would like to, third, highlight the development, in order
to address these last two challenges, with a discussion we are
seriously having with implementing a statewide teacher
induction and mentor program.
The induction would be the process. The mentoring would be
the action. And we all know that research states how important
the role of the mentor is in enhancing teacher quality.
It is our desire to create a system that will support our
state's teachers in both our urban, suburban as well as remote
rural areas of the state.
Children can thrive and make significant gains if this
warp, part of the warp is in place.
One condition needed for successful implementation of
research-based practices in the classroom is providing high
quality staff development.
And I'd like to share with you quickly two areas that
Arizona has embarked on that are demonstrating results and
focusing on our commitment to teacher professional growth and
development.
One is the Arizona Professional Development Leadership
Academy which now is recognized as one of the best staff
development programs in the state. The PDLA now consists of 24
teams representing over 300 educators and is growing at a fast
rate.
And I have also included in your packets information on the
PDLA as well as our upcoming June PDLA Summit.
With Federal funds, we are able to help increase our
capacity at the state level to help schools develop their
capacity for effective professional staff development. And the
PDLA focuses on three major components.
One, implementing the National Staff Development Council
Standards of staff development; two, demonstrating and teaching
them about models of professional development; and third,
showcasing how they can evaluate. It is so important to
evaluate: Is it working or not?
And that, again, is in Attachment D for you.
Our Reading First Initiative is a highly successful program
that is training teachers to teach reading with effective
research-based strategies.
And again, part of the foundation of the warp is, we are
providing the infrastructure for this to be successful in the
schools that need it the most.
This consists of identifying highly qualified teachers of
reading who are on loan from ADE to school districts.
These highly qualified reading specialists are housed at
each of our 15 county superintendent offices providing outreach
and technical assistance to our very large, diverse state.
This is helping us close the achievement gap between
research and practice and provide professional development that
is consistent in quality while, most importantly, helping make
these rich opportunities locally accessible.
I would also like to add that recently we partnered with
the U.S. Department of Education and hosted our first High
School Reform Summit. I was the team leader for that summit.
And to the table came some of our most outstanding teachers and
principals.
And I want this on the record, that they begged, please do
not let us go backwards. We are working hard at implementing No
Child Left Behind. We have seen a difference in how our
teachers are teaching, raising the bars of expectation with our
curriculum, and we're seeing results.
So we want to see those high standards of accountability
continue.
But second, tied to reading first, they are craving and are
in great need of scientifically based secondary literacy
strategies. And so our convening summit which we're going to
hold this July will be focusing on that arena.
And in order to keep all children ahead versus behind, we
must keep the continuum of improved student successes going.
So strong capacity-building staff development is greatly
needed, and we ask Congress for its assistance in continuing
those funds to our states.
And last, I would like to share with you that we are
looking into value assessment, value tracked tied to teacher
quality and student achievement.
Implementing a value-added system, as the research shows in
Tennessee and other states, by establishing individual teacher
identifiers tied to student achievement, works and helps us see
which teachers are doing what and what they are doing is
working.
It also helps us to identify what types of professional
staff development are the most effective as well as which
training and professional learning opportunities help our
teachers grow.
Teachers have the biggest impact on student achievement. We
all know that.
Most of us, I'm assuming, are parents, grandparents. We all
know which teachers we wanted our children to have. I've got a
daughter still in high school. I know which teachers I want her
to have and why.
Teacher quality is critical. And overall, the teachers,
especially the teachers in Arizona, support these measures of
No Child Left Behind and recognize the growth students make
through their teaching. They want this accountability.
In closing, teachers are our fundamental resource in
education, but we're not treating them that way.
We're putting so much focus on the student and student
achievement. It's really, what is happening with the quality of
teachers in our classroom.
We need to be taking a look at high quality teacher
preparation, high quality teacher recruitment, high quality
teacher retention by supporting them with high quality
resources and staff development embedded in rich, evidenced-
based practice. That's the warp.
Then we must celebrate our teachers' successes by honoring
their achievements and disseminating their exemplary practices.
That is an element that is missing in our school system.
I would like to close with a quote from Michael Fullan. And
I believe this is the path that the Arizona Department of
Education and art educators are on, the path in this state in
meeting highly qualified teacher requirements.
"Sustained success is never just one special event, meeting
or activity. Rather, it is a journey, a journey of recursive
decisions and actions.''
Thank you very much.
Chairman McKeon. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Butterfield follows:]
Statement of Karen Butterfield, Ed.D., Deputy Associate Superintendent,
Arizona Department of Education
Good morning, Chairman Boehner and Education and The Workforce
committee members. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the need
for NCLB highly qualified teacher requirements, and provide you with a
``picture'' as to how Arizona is ensuring teachers have adequate
subject matter knowledge for the subjects they teach.
As a former teacher for 22 years, a charter founder and
administrator for 5 years, and currently in a leadership role with the
Arizona Department of Education overseeing innovative and exemplary
programs, I can first testify on the imperativeness of the need to have
highly qualified teachers in our classrooms. Throughout my professional
career, as well as continuing to serve in the critical role as parent,
the same theme keeps reoccurring: Teacher expertise is a determining
factor in enhancing improved student achievement and overall school
success. Arizona's Superintendent of Public Instruction, Tom Horne, is
a strong advocate regarding the need for quality teaching and learning
in our classrooms through his new initiatives, which foster: ``Better
Teachers, Better Curriculum, Better Schools''. In his presentation at a
Board of Regents meeting, he is on record as stating,
``We are determined that 100% of the students will become
proficient in reading and mathematics and will reach their
potential in all of the academic areas. The most important
factor to reach these goals is highly qualified teachers''.
(August 14, 2003).
Throughout this testimony, the important element of ``conditions
needed'' is interwoven, as implementing many of these goals involve the
complexities and challenges of fostering systemic change in our
schools.
I would like to highlight the accomplishments of our state in the
highly qualified teacher arena, focusing on five major initiatives that
are ensuring we have highly qualified teachers in our state's public
schools.
1) Arizona's Highly Qualified Teacher Requirements, reflective
of NCLB
2) Two Recommendations from the Arizona Department of
Education's Certification Task Force
3) Possible Implementation of a State-wide Teacher Induction
and Mentoring Program
4) Arizona's Commitment to Teacher Professional Growth and
Development:
a. Arizona Professional Development Learning Academy (AZ
PDLA)
b. Reading First Initiative
5) Arizona's Commitment to Develop Data Elements: tied to
tracking teacher quality and student achievement
1) Arizona's Highly Qualified Teacher Requirements, reflective of NCLB:
Through the leadership of ADE's Deputy Associate Superintendent of
Highly Qualified Teachers, Kathy Wiebke, Arizona teachers have been
provided the checklist for Arizona Highly Qualified Teachers
(Attachment A), as mandated by P.L.107-110/NCLB). This document
outlines the requirements as of follows:
1) Hold a bachelor's degree
AND
2) Hold a valid state certificate (charters are exempt from
this requirement)
3) Currently teach, and have passed a rigorous content State
academic subject matter test (AEPA Professional Knowledge Test
and the Subject Knowledge Test in the content area currently
teaching, OR hold an advanced degree in one's content area, OR
hold National Board Certification in the area in which one is
currently teaching, or for Middle/High School levels only: 24
hours in content area).
If a teacher checks 1,2, and 3, h/she is considered highly
qualified. If items under ``3'' were not marked, then the HOUSSE rubric
must be completed to verify that existing qualifications meet the NCLB
requirements (Reference Attachment B).
This rubric was developed through a task force comprised of
stakeholders from across the state, based upon Superintendent Horne's
request: that this task force work with schools and districts to meet
the federal guidelines, while simultaneously, making the process as
inclusive as possible. The rubric has been instrumental in not only
promoting teacher self-reflection, but also serving as a tool for our
rural teachers, who are also grateful for having extended time to
demonstrate competence in additional subjects they teach, through the
new flexible policy recently established by the U.S. Department of
Education. As referenced in Ms. Wiebke's 5/17/04 letter to LEAs
(Attachment C):
``We want teachers who teach Arizona's children to have the
necessary depth of knowledge to help children develop deep and
meaningful understandings. Children are inspired to learn by
teachers who are passionate about the content and who engage
their students in active inquiry and exploration. Teachers with
an in-depth knowledge of content are better able to make the
critical instructional decisions that high quality teaching and
learning demand''.
The Arizona Department of Education continues to work closely with
our state's regent universities and colleges of education in the spirit
of the aforementioned text. Research conducted by Wilson, Floden and
Ferrini-Mundy conclude, for example, that in addition to subject matter
knowledge and communication skills--enthusiasm, flexibility,
perseverance and rapport with students--create the overall formula for
teacher effectiveness in addition to the vital combination of state
licensure process, teachers' professional knowledge and experience.
2) Two Recommendations of the Arizona Department of Education's
Certification Task Force:
The Arizona Department of Education's Certification Task Force,
comprised of 71 members from across the state, has also been addressing
a variety of issues tied to teacher quality and certification. It needs
to be emphasized in today's testimony that these are strictly drafted
recommendations, and have yet to be approved by our state board of
education. Two issues currently being reviewed include certificate
renewal and reciprocity .
Enhanced opportunities for teachers and administrators to engage in
reflection on their own professional development is one possible
recommendation of this task force under certification renewal. Instead
of requiring the current 180 hours of disparate and unconnected
activity, one's professional development plan would be more ``job-
embedded'', with the professional development plan possibly designated
by the educator's LEA or ADE. This suggested plan, which would still
include the 180 required hours, would focus on:
Professional areas for growth
Professional Growth goals
Action plan steps
Timeline
Resources
Anticipated impact/results plan review
In order to help remove barriers of highly qualified teachers who
move here from out-of-state to teach, it is critical to address issues
of reciprocity under the large certification process umbrella.
Reciprocity recommendations for certified out-of-state teacher
applicants would vary, depending on candidates who have less than 3
years of teaching experience and those who have 3 or more years
regarding whether or not the subject knowledge test would be waived. A
bachelor's degree from an accredited institution, valid fingerprint
clearance card and current out-of-state teaching certificate at the
equivalent level would remain required, including passing the AZ/US
Constitution tests.
Arizona is working very hard to improve teacher quality; our
teachers are dedicated to their roles in our classrooms and to their
profession, and the Arizona Department of Education is strongly
committed to serving them. We are making great strides in Arizona
regarding strengthening teacher quality, but, we still have much work
to do in addressing challenges unique to our state. Two such challenges
are as follows:
1) The migration of teachers leaving this state to seek higher
pay: According to the AFT, Arizona ranks 33rd for average teacher
salaries ($38,510). This is one condition that must change if we are to
recruit, reward and retain our most qualified and successful teachers.
2) The reality of ``revolving doors'', reflective of both
administrators and teachers, in our most rural--and, in most cases,
also in our underperforming schools. We are taking steps to address
this specific challenge on several fronts. One example is researching
the possibility of developing a teacher induction and mentor program.
3) Development of a State-wide Teacher Induction and Mentor Program:
In order to provide a support system for teachers as they begin
their careers, a statewide mentoring and induction program is currently
under consideration, recommended by the Certification Task Force, as we
work to build capacity for a program of support for our new teachers.
It is critical to first, recruit, and then retain, outstanding
teachers. A recent Morrison report projects that Arizona can expect
close to 7,130 new K-12 teachers to be trained to enter classrooms each
year through 2005, and 6930 from 2006-2010. Therefore, we have much
work to do!
Currently, a team of stakeholders is working together to establish
induction standards that will provide the foundation for all induction
programs. It is our desire to create a system that will support
teachers in our urban schools, as well as those teaching in very
remote, rural areas of the state.
Children cannot succeed and make gains without consistent, strong,
visionary instructional leadership. Children CAN thrive and make
significant gains with highly qualified teachers who are expertise in
their content area, and who are effectively trained on how to implement
best practices. These teachers also need the support and resources of
strong school, district and governance leadership. We cannot ignore the
conditions that need to be in place in order to provide them with the
culture and climate conducive for both teacher and student success.
One condition needed for successful implementation of research best
practices in the classroom is providing high quality staff development/
training that is systematic, and systemic--fostering school change.
This leads me to share with you, two examples that are fostering strong
staff development implementation and strategies that are producing
RESULTS. These are based upon the Arizona Department of Education's
commitment to servicing our constituents with ongoing professional
development, including training in effective teaching strategies that
work.
4) Our Commitment to Teacher Professional Growth and Development:
In order to lay the foundation for implementation of quality staff
development, the Arizona Department of Education established the
Arizona Professional Development Leadership Academy (PDLA) in 1999. It
is a true grassroots effort on behalf of district and charter schools,
which are supported through the state's county superintendents'
offices.
The PDLA provides support to both teachers and administrators in
learning new professional strategic practices to ensure student success
that is systematic and systemic. Funded through ADE's Academic
Achievement Divsion, the AZ PDLA is recognized as one of the best staff
development programs in the nation. 24 teams, representing over 300
educators, have become active participants in the AZ PDLA, and these
numbers continue to increase each year.
One of the major goals of the Academy is to help our schools
develop capacity for effective professional development by assisting
teachers, principals, central office staff and superintendents in
understanding three major components of effective professional
development:
1) The NSDC (National Staff Development Council) Standards of
Staff Development: the foundation of what is currently known
about what constitutes effective professional development to
increase student learning. These consist of context standards
(learning communities, leadership, resources), process
standards (data-driven, evaluation, research based, design,
learning, collaboration) and content standards (equity, quality
teaching, family involvement).
2) The Models of Professional Development: professional
development is more than offering a workshop; the seven models
of professional development provide a variety of ways to
increase educator knowledge, aspirations, skills, behaviors and
attitudes;
3) Evaluation of Professional Development: how to plan and
gather evidence to determine whether professional development
has attained its intended goal of increased student learning.
This academic year, the PDLA has provided extensive, rigorous
training in the professional development standards, data analysis,
models of professional development, accountability systems, effective
evaluation, creating professional development, and more. Next month,
PDLA teams from around the state will convene in Phoenix for a PDLA
Summit, which will focus on understanding and implementing professional
development and school improvement change: conditions necessary to be
in place in order to strengthen highly qualified teaching in our state.
(Attachment D)
Another example of providing service to teachers with staff
development is the implementation of the Reading First Initiative, a
highly successful program that trains existing teachers to teach
reading through effective teaching strategies. Professional development
is based upon scientific research and its implications for
instructional practice.
Reading First training in Arizona has been designed in two tiers in
order to promote school change: 1) through district and school
leadership as a ``train the trainers'' model; and 2) through teachers
of reading, utilizing ``teachers teaching teachers'' model, with a
focus on instructional practice. These tiered levels initiative reflect
a statewide, systematic and systemic infrastructure for quality staff
development, by: identifying highly qualified teachers of reading, who
are ``on loan'' from ADE to school districts. These highly qualified
reading teachers are housed at each of the 15 county superintendents'
offices, providing outreach and technical assistance throughout are
large, diverse state. The infrastructure's design lays the foundation
in assisting us in reaching three critical goals: 1) to close the gap
between research and practice, 2) to provide professional development
that is consistent in quality, while, 3) making these rich
opportunities locally accessible.
Our initial first round of reading test results are very, very
hopeful, as they reflect significant improvements at the kindergarten
level, in some of the schools with the poorest achievement records.
Last August, only 9 % of students entering full-day kindergarten were
up to par with their peers nationally in pre-reading skills. After
taking part in scientifically based reading programs this year, more
than half of these same kindergartners have reached grade level and are
ready for first grade.
In addition, as we further delve into public engagement following
our first successful High School Reform Summit, co-hosted with the U.S.
Department of Education (April, 2004), we will recommend strengthening
technical assistance and support for literacy teaching and learning in
our middle/secondary schools: a need that was expressed strongly from
our outstanding principal and teacher leaders during the Summit.
Therefore, it will be critical that the K-3 Reading First initiative
expand, with the assistance of increased federal funding, to help us
provide critical training and staff development in reading in the
higher grade levels.
In order to keep all children ahead--vs. behind--we must keep the
continuum of improved student successes going--which is founded on
providing high quality staff development, embedded in scientifically
researched practices that work in our classrooms. This is a HUGE
investment in advancing highly qualified teachers, and a much-needed
one in advancing student achievement and successes for ALL students.
5) Arizona's Commitment to Develop Data Elements: tied to tracking
teacher quality and student achievement:
Within the process of updating Arizona's certification system, we
are investigating implementing a value-added system, by establishing
individual teacher identifiers, tied to student achievement.
According to Kati Haycock, Education Trust Director, ``Teacher
effectiveness data systems are an essential and powerful tool in the
effort to raise achievement and close the achievement gap'' (The Real
Value of Teachers: Using New Information about Teacher Effectiveness to
Close the Achievement Gap'' report by Kevin Carey). Such systems help
us find out which teachers are the most effective, by matching them
with the most needy students. Such data also provides critical
information as to what types of professional development are the most
effective, as well as which trainings and professional learning
opportunities help them grow. States that are currently implementing a
value-added component, tied to student achievement results, clearly
demonstrate what we already know: that teachers have the biggest impact
on student achievement.
This is another condition needed if we are indeed going to promote
and enhance truly highly qualified teachers in our classrooms. We have
yet to close the achievement gap in this state with our minority
student population and with those students living in poverty. It is
imperative that we take a hard look at the research that has been done
in Tennessee, where students that were assigned with the most effective
teachers for three consecutive years, performed 50 percentile points
higher on a 100-point scale--than comparable students assigned to the
least effective teachers for three consecutive years.
Overall, many teachers support measures that recognize the growth
students make through their teaching. They strongly desire
accountability in this important arena. Yet, systematically shifting
higher performing teachers to working with students who need them the
most, is no easy task in our current, complex system, both state-wide
and nationally. The bottom-line is, it's difficult to accurately
measure and control the value of teachers. However, these challenges
should not halt us from attempting to try implementing a value-added
system. I can only imagine the quality of teachers we may ``pool''
because of such an effort.
Closing:
Teachers are the fundamental resource of education.
We need to treat our teachers as the answer to embracing excellence
in teaching and in learning: because they ARE our resource. Therefore,
maybe the focus needs to shift from that of only the STUDENT, to the
important, critical role to that of the TEACHER. Once this shift
occurs, then I predict that the conditions will fall into place
regarding ``the whole highly qualified picture'', which consists of:
highly qualified teacher preparation, highly qualified teacher
recruitment, and highly qualified teacher retention, by supporting them
with high quality resources and staff development, embedded in rich,
evidenced-based practice.
Then, we must celebrate our teachers' successes by honoring their
achievements and disseminating their exemplary practices. Student
achievement will then soar with these conditions in place, as long as
they are fostered by strong instructional/school/district and state-
wide leadership.
______
[Attachments to Dr. Butterfield's statement have been
retained in the Committee's official files.]
Chairman McKeon. Dr. Noone.
STATEMENT OF DR. LAURA PALMER NOONE, PRESIDENT, UNIVERSITY OF
PHOENIX
Dr. Noone. Chairman McKeon, Congressman Porter, I would
like to add my welcome to you to the Valley of the Sun and
especially welcome you to the University of Phoenix.
It's a great honor to have the Committee here as it
performs its noteworthy work on teacher quality.
As an institution of higher education, the University of
Phoenix currently enrolls over 14,500 teachers or soon-to-be
teachers in education-related degree programs.
These individuals are either seeking the credential to
become licensed teaching professionals or are returning to
college to complete masters and doctoral degrees.
This makes the University of Phoenix one of the largest
programs of teacher preparation and professional development in
the United States.
No one can argue with the concept that having the highest
quality teachers in the classroom in America is a good thing.
Research findings show that the teacher and his or her
professional qualifications has the greatest affect on the
student's academic success.
This comes as no surprise. Determining what exactly
constitutes a high quality teacher is a bit more difficult.
No Child Left Behind defines highly qualified teachers
largely in terms of formal academic content preparation.
Certainly teachers must have a solid working knowledge of
the content they will teach, but pedagogical knowledge or the
skills, expertise, and experiences necessary to teach a class
well cannot be minimized.
To say that a teacher's quality should be measured by one
area of expertise alone, such as their knowledge of or degrees
within a specific content area can trivialize the importance of
producing an overall professional educator.
How one teaches a course in terms of understanding the
various methods students use to learn, using accepted content
standards on which to base instruction, and applying
appropriate assessment methods to verify that standards have
been met are all vital requirements of a high quality teacher.
The intent of No Child Left Behind is to ensure that every
child has a highly qualified teacher.
It provides guidelines as to what constitutes a highly
qualified teacher and, at the same time, mandates that states
develop alternative certification programs.
Typically alternative certification programs require no
prerequisite course work in education for admission. The
candidate's professional knowledge is gained by placing him or
her in the classroom as the responsible teacher of record.
The charge to create alternative routes to certification
affects both approval of teacher education programs and the
individuals who pursue those programs while establishing a less
regulatory-laden, burdened route to those who don't.
This is very troublesome for the University of Phoenix and
other teacher preparation institutions. We work very hard to
meet state requirements, but these efforts can easily be
sidestepped by these alternative routes.
These alternative certification routes often ignore content
and pedagogical preparation in favor of on-the-job training.
While we laud the goal of preparing more teachers for the
classroom, the situation creates two systems of certification,
one highly regulated and one with little regulatory and
assessment requirements.
To address teacher quality at the University of Phoenix, we
are designing programs that lead to state certification.
Currently we offer the Master of Arts in Education program
with initial licensure for Elementary Teacher Education,
Secondary Teacher Education, Special Education, and
Administration Supervision.
These programs are approved to be offered in Arizona,
California, Colorado, Hawaii, Michigan, New Mexico, Nevada,
Oregon, Utah, Wyoming and the commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
In addition to the local campus programs, the University of
Phoenix offers education programs through our online delivery
modality.
The online delivery allows students located outside the
state of Arizona in all settings to access and complete the
necessary course work to become a certified teacher.
The Master of Arts in Education/Teacher Education program
is an Arizona-approved teacher preparation program which, upon
successful completion of the program, qualifies a student to
sit for an Arizona teaching certificate and obtain an
Institutional Recommendation from the University of Phoenix.
Although this program provides a viable option to address
the nationwide teacher shortage, the University has encountered
many roadblocks in offering the program to students nationwide.
Some states require all schools who would propose to have a
student teacher within their state to have state-specific
program approval.
Therefore, although the University may have no contact with
the state other than the presence of a prospective student
teacher resident, we cannot secure a student teaching placement
until we obtain the state's approval.
The University continues to seek those approvals in
additional states to offer the teacher preparation programs,
but honestly, the timeframe for obtaining these approvals is
often extremely protracted.
Therefore, if a student enrolls from one of these states,
the University must obtain a partnership with the state
institution in that state that already has the requisite state
approval.
Many states have adopted the requirement that students must
attend an NCATE-accredited institution in order to become
licensed in the state and will not allow non-NCATE institutions
to partner with NCATE schools.
As a result of those states, the University of Phoenix has
no option to form partnerships whatsoever.
Still, other states have unique teacher certification
programs. This means that an Arizona teaching certificate is
not at all comparable.
Consequently, students who obtain that Arizona certificate
are not able to become certified in these states without an
abundance of additional course work or, in some situations, a
repeat of their student teaching experience within the state of
certification.
In conclusion, the problems relating to producing the
additional number of high quality teachers required are not
insurmountable.
It is possible to mount a national effort that can make a
significant difference in educating excellent teachers, and
institutions like the University of Phoenix are well positioned
for the task.
But the creation of standards for teacher preparation is
currently a state-by-state endeavor, and the process of
navigating the intricacies and nuances of every state's
processes is daunting, expensive, and time consuming.
Very often the requirements are arcane, and the process is
designed to discourage innovative approaches.
Assessment of individual teacher performance is itself a
complex issue. We would urge you to consider a more holistic
approach, such as what the State of Arizona has endorsed, to
determine teaching qualifications.
A teacher should be judged on the whole of their
performance, including pedagogical approach, classroom
management, and content.
Merely adding up credit hours on their transcript does not
guarantee a highly qualified teacher nor does the absence of a
specific course on a transcript condemn a teacher to mediocrity
or substandard performance.
Similarly, alternative certification programs must be held
to the same set of standards of accountability to produce high
qualified teachers both in terms of content and in terms of
pedagogy.
Thank you for allowing me to present this testimony on
behalf of the University of Phoenix.
And I would also like to thank the staff of the
University's College of Education for assisting me in the
preparation of these remarks.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Noone follows:]
Statement of Laura Palmer Noone, Ph.D., J.D., President, University of
Phoenix
At the outset, I would like to welcome you all to the Valley of the
Sun and especially welcome you to the University of Phoenix. It is a
great honor to have the subcommittee here as it performs its noteworthy
work on teacher quality.
As an institution of higher education, the University of Phoenix
currently enrolls over 14,500 teachers or soon-to-be teachers in
education-related degree programs. These individuals are either seeking
the credential to become licensed teaching professionals or are
returning to college to complete master's or doctoral degrees, many in
response to the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) requirements of highly
qualified teachers. Others are seeking pay grade advances, while others
are hoping to move to administration or to a specialty area such as
bilingual education or reading. All told, this makes the University of
Phoenix one of the largest programs of teacher preparation and
professional development in the United States. It is from this
perspective that I offer my thoughts on the condition of teacher
preparation today. I have been asked to address my remarks to three
areas--the importance of teacher quality; the need for NCLB highly
qualified teacher requirements; and the efforts of the University of
Phoenix to help schools ensure teachers have at least acceptable, if
not superior, subject matter knowledge for the subjects they teach.
The Need for High-Quality Teachers
Much like baseball and apple pie, no one can argue with the concept
that having the highest quality teachers in the classroom in America is
a good thing. Although we in the education field have long proclaimed
the importance of having qualified and caring teachers within K-12
school settings, studies linking teacher quality to proved student
performance are limited. Researchers such as William Sanders, Richard
Ingersoll, and Linda-Darling Hammond have been able to put some form of
quantitative measurement to the degree of importance that qualified
teachers play in students' academic success. Their findings show that
the teacher, and his or her professional qualifications, has the
greatest effect on a student's academic success. This comes as no
surprise.
While no one argues with this concept, determining exactly what
constitutes a high-quality teacher is a bit more difficult to identify
and define. Certainly teachers must have a solid working knowledge of
the content they will teach. For the University of Phoenix this concept
is paramount. Indeed, we insist that our faculty members be
practitioners within their respective fields of expertise and licensed
to teach in the public school systems. Pedagogical knowledge or the
skills, expertise, and experiences necessary to teach a class well
cannot be minimized. To say that a teacher's quality should be measured
by one area of expertise alone, such as their knowledge of or degrees
within a specific content area, can trivialize the importance of
producing an overall professional educator. How one teaches a course in
terms of understanding the various methods students use to learn, using
accepted content standards on which to base instruction, and applying
appropriate assessment methods to verify that standards have been met,
are all vital requirements of a high-quality teacher. The University of
Phoenix, as well as many other teacher preparation programs throughout
the country, believes in producing a well-rounded teacher: one who
knows his or her content area, understands and practices the methods of
learning and instruction, and handles the daily rigors of a K-12
environment well.
The Need for NCLB Highly Qualified Teachers
The Secondary and Elementary Education ACT or No Child Left Behind
(NCLB) is an ambitious piece of legislation. Through forces not
necessarily within their control, many states find themselves in the
position of having a shortage of qualified, licensed teachers willing
to instruct. This often results in non-certified teachers in the
classroom, by means of emergency or temporary certification.
The intent of NCLB is to eliminate this problem and thereby ensure
that every child has a highly qualified teacher. NCLB addresses
qualification by placing a heavy emphasis on adequate content knowledge
in order to ensure that persons entering the teaching profession have
documented expertise in the area in which they wish to teach. The
guidelines as put forth in NCLB for states to certify individuals as
``highly qualified'' are as follows:
Having a bachelor's degree
Having certification or licensure as defined by the state
Being able to demonstrate competency (as defined by the
state) in each core academic subject he or she teaches.
Various changes have been made to these guidelines in response to
states concerns over being unable to meet the aforementioned
requirements for individuals teaching in rural areas, teaching across
multiple science areas, and teaching multiple core academic areas.
NCLB Teacher Quality Grants also mandate that states must follow
certain variables in order to receive the federal grant monies.
Variables in this mix include:
Reconstruction of certification to verify content and
pedagogical knowledge
Institution of adequate support services and assessment
of beginning teachers
Creation of alternate routes to certification
Recruitment and retention of teachers
Reformation of tenure systems
Establishment of sufficient professional development
services
Implementation/enhancement of a reciprocity system for
teacher credentials across states
These variables appear to make assumptions about the quality of
state certification systems and the quantity of individuals interested
in teaching. Yet, there is substantial debate about whether these
assumptions are adequately supported though either state certification
or research-related data.
Many states have developed or are initiating programs that provide
alternative routes to teacher certification, particularly for mid-
career professionals. The goal of such programs is to draw a diverse
pool of individuals with backgrounds in particular fields into the
teaching profession. Requirements for an alternative teaching license
vary by state. Generally, applicants must hold a bachelor's degree in
the subject to be taught, achieve a passing score on state-required
examinations, complete some type of teacher preparation program (these
are usually provided by school districts), and possibly fulfill a
supervised teaching internship. After satisfactory completion of these
requirements, the applicant will be issued a teaching credential.
There can be great differences from state-to-state as to what
additional training and coursework is required and how much support is
offered to the new teacher once he or she is in the classroom.
Typically, alternative programs require no prerequisite course work in
education for admission. College graduates from all accredited
universities, including international ones, are admitted. The
candidate's subject matter knowledge can be demonstrated by examination
as well as by the major. The candidate's professional knowledge is
gained by placing him or her in the classroom as the responsible
teacher of record. The primary faculty members who instruct the teacher
candidates are classroom teachers serving as on-site mentors.
Admission to an alternative certification program is usually
predicated upon the teaching candidates going through the hiring
process of a school district and then being placed as a beginning
teacher of record, with no previous education coursework or experience.
The evaluation of candidates is based on their demonstrated
competencies with the students they teach and by their students'
achievement, which of course varies greatly between school districts
and states.
The charge to create alternative routes to certification is an
indicator of the desire from NCLB authors to continue mandating
rigorous regulatory procedures. These mandates affect both approval of
teacher education programs and the individuals who pursue these
programs, while establishing less regulatory-laden routes (and more
circumspect in quality) for those who don't. This is very troublesome
for the University of Phoenix and other teacher-preparation
institutions. We work very hard to meet state requirements but these
efforts can be easily sidestepped by state alternative routes. As
evidenced above, these alternative certification routes often ignore
content and pedagogical preparation in favor of ``on the job
training.'' While we laud the goal of preparing more teachers for the
classroom, the situation creates two systems of certification; one
highly regulated and one with little regulatory and assessment
requirements.
NCLB has done many positive things for improving teacher quality.
It puts states'' ``feet to the fire'' to provide the necessary proof
and documentation of how teachers are tracked within their profession
by schools/districts and makes state agencies responsible for verifying
the quality of teachers. NCLB requirements do make teacher education
programs more responsible for the content areas of their graduates and
their ability to meet state certification/licensure examinations (also
through Title II of the Higher Education Act).
However, there are some issues with implementation of NCLB. The
statute requires states and school districts to comply with the
provisions of the new law while ignoring the importance of the two key
requirements related to teachers. States feel they have been pressured
to implement NCLB provisions related to school choice, supplemental
services, and academic testing immediately. The choice and supplemental
service provisions uproot students and take money out of school
district funds, which many feel could be used to train and retain more
qualified teachers.
It is not enough to test students and label them and their schools
as failing. We must help teachers work effectively as the professionals
they are and encourage retention and growth as well as an increase in
effectiveness. The federal government has not fulfilled its promise to
the states to create the plans and definitions necessary to recruit,
retain, and support quality teachers (Leaving Teachers Behind, 2003).
By working with districts, the teachers unions, other community
organizations, as well as state and local governments, the NCLB can
assist in ensuring that the plans necessary to fulfill the promises of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 2001 may be
realized. This includes working together to define what a highly
qualified teacher is in each state, to determine what kinds of
information should be presented on the school report cards, and to
create the programs and plans necessary to create equity in the
teaching force (Leaving Teachers Behind, 2003).
Addressing Teacher Quality at the University of Phoenix
Colleges of education are faced with difficult choices in the
debate over teacher quality. The following section addresses some of
the decisions made by the University of Phoenix in addressing teacher
quality.
Seek national accreditation for teacher education programs
At the University of Phoenix the College of Education is seeking
national accreditation from the Teacher Education Accreditation Council
(TEAC). Our application for the teacher education and administration
programs will be submitted by September 1, 2004. The decision to seek
programmatic accreditation is tied directly to benefits to our
students. Many states are beginning to tie their state licensure
standards to graduation from a programmatically-accredited course of
study.
Align programs to national and state standards
All of the master's programs offered in the College of Education
are aligned to the unit standards set forth by the National Council for
Accreditation for Teacher Education (NCATE). The program curricula are
aligned to applicable state standards and the program standards
designed by the Specialty Areas Studies Board approved by NCATE. In
this way, the University intends to prepare students to sit for state
licensure exams and provide the competencies sought by each state in
credentialing teachers.
Design programs to lead to state certification
The College of Education currently offers the following Master of
Arts in Education initial licensure programs: Elementary Teacher
Education, Secondary Teacher Education, Special Education, and
Administration and Supervision. These programs are approved to be
offered in Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Michigan, New Mexico,
Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Wyoming and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. In
addition, the College of Education is in the planning stages of
offering two additional initial licensure programs: the Bachelor of
Science in Elementary Education and the Master of Arts in Education in
Early Childhood Education.
Develop additional courses in mathematics, English, and history content
areas
To satisfy the highly qualified teacher mandate of the No Child
Left Behind legislation, the University is developing 24 upper-division
credit hours in each of the content areas of mathematics, English, and
history. By offering these courses we will assist educators who are,
for whatever reason, teaching out of their content areas to be in
compliance and to remain in their current classroom.
Verify content-area proficiency
Teacher Education candidates must pass their state's professional
knowledge exam prior to being issued an institutional recommendation
for certification/licensure by the University. Performance on these
exams is reported in the annual Higher Education Act (HEA) Title II
report, produced each spring by each state. On average, our aggregate
student scores on the professional knowledge exam meet or exceed a 98%
pass rate.
Ensure high quality, authentic assessments
The College of Education has several mechanisms in place to assess
candidate quality and progress. The progression requirements of each
program determine whether the candidate is ready to move forward in the
program and begin the student teaching or internship experience.
Progression requirements include:
Passing score on the University's Basic Skills
Proficiency Assessment in Reading, Grammar, and Mathematics
Achieving passing scores on the formal interview
Submitting a two-page typewritten statement detailing
reasons for wanting to become a teacher, including any past experiences
in teaching
Verifying fingerprint clearance
Submitting two professional letters of recommendation
completed in the past year
Providing verification of immunization or TB test results
(Not all schools/districts require this.)
Verifying content knowledge mastery prior to enrolling in
student teaching courses
Throughout the program, each candidate is required to develop his
or her own Electronic Portfolio with specific artifacts included as
evidence of knowledge and skills. These artifacts are evaluated against
established rubrics and are aligned to our program standards.
Candidates must maintain minimum competencies on the portfolio and
receive a passing graded score on the overall product at the end of the
program.
During student teaching, candidates complete a teacher work-sample
project in which they must create a multiple-week, standards-based
unit; create and implement pre- and post- assessments; make
accommodations for diverse learners; and reflect on the unit once it is
completed. As an added component of this assignment, candidates must
track the progress of two students and detail the students' progress
during the unit. The teacher work sample is a graded assignment, the
results of which affect whether the student passes or fails student
teaching.
During the administrative internship, candidates compile the vast
amounts of material they accumulate and performance evaluations into an
Internship Notebook. Along with the materials and evaluations,
candidates must provide reflections on the various stages of the
internship experience. The notebook is a graded assignment with
significant impact on passing or failing the internship experience.
Continue and improve extensive field experiences, student teaching, and
internships
Throughout the Special Education, Elementary, and Secondary Teacher
Education programs, candidates are required to complete a minimum of
100 hours of verified field experience, covering a variety of
developmental levels. The focus of each observation is related to
specific course content. Documentation is maintained in the candidate's
professional portfolio.
Student teaching is an integral component of the Special Education,
Elementary, and Secondary Teacher Education programs. It provides
candidates with a field-based experience at the appropriate grade and
content level. Student teachers work with a cooperating teacher from a
school site as well as a University of Phoenix faculty advisor. The
student teaching experience is designed to enhance practical experience
in a controlled environment and to emphasize the achievement of state
standards leading to certification. This experience presents
individuals with growth opportunities that best prepare them to assume
the duties of a certified classroom teacher.
Each candidate in the Master of Arts in Education, Administration
and Supervision program is required to complete a practicum experience
in an appropriate P-12 school. Candidates are under the direct
supervision of a University faculty supervisor and a licensed school
administrator who will acts as the site supervisor. The practicum is
divided into three sections (EDA 590 A/B/C) each of which coincides
with the coursework completed in the master's program.
Survey graduates and their employers
Alumni of the College of Education are surveyed to analyze the
strengths and weaknesses of the programs in order to continually
monitor and update the curriculum. Alumni are asked to evaluate texts,
assignments, faculty knowledge, faculty preparedness, faculty
facilitation, applicability of course content, curriculum, and academic
rigor. The alumni survey provides valuable data about a graduate's
experience with the Education programs.
Employers of alumni from the College of Education are asked to rate
our graduates on the quality of teacher preparation, instructional
design and planning skills, management of instruction and students, use
of assessment measures, communication, collaboration, willingness to
participate in professional development, demonstration of content and
professional knowledge, and integration of technology. The University
terms employers of our students ``shadow consumers'' of our programs
and places high value on this feedback.
University of Phoenix Teacher Preparation Program State Challenges
In addition to the local campus programs, the University of Phoenix
offers Master of Arts in Education programs through the online delivery
modality. These degree programs are Arizona-approved programs. As
indicated in the NCLB, approximately one third of all school districts
in the United States are classified as rural. The online delivery
allows students located outside the state of Arizona in all settings
access to complete the necessary coursework to become a certified
teacher. In particular, the Master of Arts in Education/Teacher
Education (MAED/TED) program is an Arizona-approved teacher preparation
program, which upon successful completion of the program, qualifies a
student to sit for an Arizona teaching certificate and/or obtain an
Institutional Recommendation from the University of Phoenix. Although
this program provides a viable option to address the nationwide teacher
shortage, the University has encountered many roadblocks to offering
the program to students nationwide.
We believe the University of Phoenix is in a position to assist
America by providing more highly qualified teachers. Many times these
efforts are stymied by roadblocks and challenges. The following
outlines the main categories of challenges the University of Phoenix
has encountered regarding student teacher placement and certification
through our online program of study.
In some states, the higher education board expects all schools that
have a ``physical presence'' established within the state, evidenced by
student teaching in that state, have state-specific program approval.
Therefore, although the University has no contact with the state other
than the presence of a student teacher/resident, we cannot secure a
student teaching placement unless we obtain the said state approval.
The University continues to seek approvals in additional states to
offer the teacher preparation programs, but the timeframe for obtaining
these approvals is often extremely protracted. Therefore, if a student
enrolls from one of these states, the University must obtain a
partnership with a state institution that has the requisite home state
approval. While we have established partnerships with other
institutions, most were partnerships developed with a ``one time
placement'' in mind. The majority of these partnerships will not
facilitate future student teachers.
As mentioned earlier, many states have adopted a requirement that
students must attend NCATE-accredited institutions in order to become
licensed. Institutions that are NCATE accredited will not partner with
institutions that are not. As a result, in NCATE states, University of
Phoenix is unable to form any partnerships.
A few states have unique teacher certification programs. This means
that an Arizona teaching certificate is not at all comparable.
Consequently, students who obtain an Arizona certificate are unable to
become certified in these states without an abundance of additional
coursework or other items, such as teaching experience in the state of
certification.
Departments of education, higher education boards, and institutions
of higher education are in a constant state of flux trying to ensure
that the quality of teachers and educational personnel is at a premium.
As a result, policies and procedures change frequently, as do the
relationships between different educational agencies. The No Child Left
Behind legislation may encourage yet more changes in many agencies with
which the University of Phoenix deals on a regular basis. As a result
of these changes, one of the most challenging aspects for any multi-
state institution will be to maintain awareness and affiliation with
the range of state licensing agencies.
It is not often that one gets the opportunity to advise a
distinguished body like this on how to solve national issues. I do not
believe that the problems related to producing the additional number of
high quality teachers we require are insurmountable. Under the present
system, however, we will be hard-pressed to solve them. There is a
saying in the literature of continuing quality improvement that goes,
``every process is perfectly designed to produce the results it is
producing.'' And MIT's Peter Senge has maintained that for the most
part ``structure determines behavior.'' We believe that it is possible
to mount a national effort that could make a significant difference in
educating excellent teachers and that institutions like the University
of Phoenix are perfectly suited to the task. The creation of standards
for teacher preparation is currently a state-by-state endeavor and the
process of navigating the intricacies and nuances of every state's
process is daunting, expensive and time consuming. Very often the
requirements are arcane and the process is designed to discourage
innovative approaches. So long as the status quo largely remains, our
efforts to produce significant numbers of teachers who are prepared to
really make a difference will produce uneven and disappointing results.
Conclusion
Like any issue of national magnitude, creating a nation of highly
qualified teachers will not be an easy task, especially when there is
little-to-no consensus on the definition of the problem. There are many
issues, including states' rights to oversee the process of licensure,
funding availability, as well as the performance of colleges of teacher
education and the performance of individual teachers in the classroom.
Assessment of individual teacher performance is itself a complex issue.
Some states have taken an approach of merely counting content area
academic credits to determine highly qualified teachers, but other
states have chosen to take a more holistic approach to determining
professional qualifications. We would urge you to consider the latter
approach as the better way to determine teaching qualifications.
A teacher should be judged on the whole of their performance,
including pedagogical approach, classroom management, and content.
Merely adding semester hours does not guarantee a highly qualified
teacher. Nor does the absence of a specific course on a transcript
condemn a teacher to mediocrity or substandard performance.
Thank you for allowing me to present this testimony on behalf of
the University of Phoenix. I would also like to thank the staff of the
University's College of Education for their assistance in the
preparation of these remarks.
Reference
Leaving teachers behind: How a key requirement of the No Child Left
Behind Act (Putting a Highly Qualified Teacher in Every Class) has been
abandoned. (2003). Association of Community Organizations for Reform
Now. Washington, D.C.
______
Chairman McKeon. Dr. Solmon.
STATEMENT OF DR. LEWIS C. SOLMON, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT,
EDUCATION, DIRECTOR, TEACHER ADVANCEMENT PROGRAM, MILKEN FAMILY
FOUNDATION
Dr. Solmon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Porter.
It's an honor to be here today and to support Congress's and
the Administration's good work in No Child Left Behind.
And before I get into my remarks, I would just want to urge
you to keep fighting and keep pushing it ahead because some of
the comments that we're hearing are frustrating on our side as
well. So I encourage you to go on.
I was asked to talk about the Teacher Advancement Program
which is a program that the foundation has set up.
And I would like to start by just giving you a little
background rationale, quickly describe you the program and its
outcomes.
I won't go into the importance of quality teachers. That's
already been talked about.
Let me just say that one of the implications of not having
people in the field is that in low SAS schools, 61 percent of
science teachers, as an example, are not qualified in science.
Some of them have not had a course since junior high school and
are teaching science.
That's a very horrible thing to have. We have tremendous
turnover among the teaching corps. A third leave in 3 years.
And it's the best ones who leave.
We have a maldistribution of high quality teachers such
that the best teachers are not in the schools that need them
the most.
And the result is that 50 years after the Brown versus the
Board of Education decision, which has been mentioned, 69
percent of all 4th graders are not proficient in reading. 60
percent of African American 4th graders cannot read. That means
they're below basic.
Well, we have looked, at the Milken Family Foundation for
the last 20 years, we have looked at a variety of reforms,
early childhood education, standards and assessment, and
particularly technology.
And our conclusion was that, no matter what reform you
implement, without a quality teacher, nothing matters.
Would you rather have a class of 20--well, would you rather
have a class of 40 with a stimulating, exciting, well-prepared,
knowledgeable teacher? Or would you rather have a class of 20
with a dullard?
We looked at technology, and we concluded after about 5
years of work that you can put all the hardware and all the
software and all the wiring in a classroom, but if a teacher
does not have the motivation and ability to get the skills that
they need to change what they are doing, no matter how much
technology you have, nothing will work.
And, indeed, every school in the country's wired and test
scores are not going up.
We became convinced, actually about 6 years ago, before No
Child Left Behind, that a bold new strategy was required for
the education profession that counters the drawbacks of low
compensation, lack of career advancement, unsupported
accountability demands, and ineffective professional
development that has plagued the teaching profession.
And we believe the Teacher Advancement Program is that bold
new strategy. It's comprised of five principles, the most
discussed of which is performance pay. A dirty word in some
circles. Hopefully not here.
However, unlike other new-pay plans, TAP supports its plan
with a strong performance assessment system, a new type of
professional development that deals with real issues teachers
face in their classrooms and helps them prepare to be assessed
and provides multiple career paths so that teachers can advance
as in other professions.
Every teacher who leaves is a cost because you've got the
cost of recruiting a new one and inducting them, but if we keep
attracting people into the same old profession, they are bound
to leave.
So let me just take a couple of minutes on the five
principles of TAP. First of all is multiple career paths.
What other profession do you enter in day one with a title,
teacher, and a set of tasks, and 30 years later you retire with
the same title and the same set of tasks?
That's not very attractive to certain kinds of people.
So what we do is we have a whole stage or set of stages.
You start out as an inductee. Then you become a career teacher,
then a mentor teacher, and a master teacher.
Each of those steps has increasing levels of professional
qualifications, responsibilities, authority, assessment rigor,
and compensation.
Now, one might say, isn't that the same as those old failed
career ladder programs of 10 to 20 years ago?
What happened 20 years ago is you took the best teachers
and you made them a master teacher. You gave them a title,
probably a plaque, and maybe a little bit of money, $200 to
$500, and gave them a lot more work.
Is there any wonder it failed?
It's disrespectful to take good people and not reward them
for extra effort. So that's multiple career paths.
The second thing is performance-based accountability.
Today teachers get evaluated once a year, if that, by a
principal who goes in, does a checklist, everybody passes, no
problems.
Our professional accountability system has performance
standards with research based evaluation of performance based
on what works, what makes kids learn.
Are they doing the things in their classroom that make kids
learn?
There are five performance levels.
Nobody gets a five. We believe all teachers can do better.
And our evaluation includes not only teacher performance but
student performance. A little more on that in a minute.
People are afraid: We don't want to evaluate teachers
because the principal could be biased or show favoritism or
whatever.
We have trained, certified evaluators that the Milken
Family Foundation trains and certificates.
Teachers are evaluated six or more times a year by multiple
evaluators, mentor and master teachers, as well as the
principal and, as I said, six or more times by multiple
evaluators.
And when they are evaluated, these are not punitive. We
look at what teachers are doing and say, you might need a
little help here. And then we provide the help.
And performance is tied to accountability.
Then we change the schedule of the school to be able to
provide during the day on an ongoing basis for at least 90
minutes a week what we call ongoing applied professional
development.
Teachers meet in groups of five-nine teachers led by a
master mentor teacher looking at the student data, student
portfolios and the evaluations that they received in their
classrooms.
And the question is asked, what do you need to do to become
a better teacher?
Now, I was the Dean of the Education School of UCLA, and I
don't mean to speak for the University of Phoenix or Gene
Garcia who I think is in the room from Arizona State.
But I know that, really, at UCLA, in the time that I was
Dean, much of our professional development was based on what
interested the faculty.
If our faculty were doing research on something or if there
was a new hot topic, they would offer it, and if the time was
convenient, the teachers came and took the classes.
That had nothing to do necessarily with the fact that a
particular teacher could not teach long division very well.
Our kind of professional development says, your kids are
not scoring well in long division or in converting fractions,
so let the master teacher go in and actually teach a lesson in
your class, to demonstrate, to model the lesson, to show them
how to do it, then watch you do it and to see if you're doing
it well.
That is professional development, not taking courses in the
latest fad that interests a University faculty.
Now, then there's performance pay.
Salary is determined by the responsibilities and
effectiveness of performance. Higher pay is granted for
excellent teacher performance as judged by experts. There are
different functions and abilities as they move up the ranks,
and student achievement in a value-added way.
Now, some people say--we talked about the nepotism already,
but we don't want--it's not fair to look at student achievement
because some people get smarter students than others. That's
what value added solves.
We look at improvement. So if you've got a student at the
20th percentile and you can bring her up to the 50th, that may
actually get you more of a compensation bonus than you would
get for having students at the 80th and moving them to the 82nd
percentile. So value added takes away the advantage of having
smarter students.
But again, performance pay alone is not enough. It has to
be supported by a strong transparent and fair teacher
evaluation system, professional development to deal with
deficiencies, et cetera.
So I said 50 percent of the bonus is on skills and
knowledge. 50 percent is on the student achievement. Half of
that, roughly, schoolwide and half of that for what the
individual teacher's students learn.
What other profession doesn't look at what you're producing
when they determine your compensation?
Now, it's an expensive program. It costs about $400 a
student. Money has been found in districts, the State
Department of Education budgets, new state appropriations.
There have been ballot initiatives in several states. Private
foundations have helped, Federal funds from No Child Left
Behind.
Our program is written in as an allowable use of Title II
funds. Many states are using their Title II funds both at the
state 5 percent holdback and the amount going to the districts
to support this program.
And we were fortunate enough to get a fund for improvement
of education, a grant from the Department of Education last
year.
Just to conclude with some results.
We're now in eight states, moving to Ohio and Minnesota
next year, and possibly Texas. We started out in 2002-2003 with
31 schools.
We now have over 70 and will have over 80 next year.
Now, what everybody wants is results.
I wrote something in Education Week a couple of months ago
that said that policymakers want results too soon. You know,
they pass a law in January and want to know if it's had any
effect on student achievement in June.
That's OK. It's reasonable. But in any case, we have some
early results. And I'll tell you two kinds of things.
Our main goal is to improve student achievement. Our first
goal is to improve student achievement.
We were able to compare 25 TAP schools in different years,
less than 25 schools, but looking at them year-to-year, growth
in student achievement compared to controlled schools, similar
schools not doing TAP.
Our schools beat the controlled schools 70 percent of the
time. Now, my boss, Lowell Milken says, ``Why only 70 percent?"
Well, the answer is, the closer you adhere to our model,
the more likely you are to actually beat the controlled
schools.
But the RAND Corporation did a study of comprehensive
school reform schools which have been in business for 10, 15
years longer. We had been in business two to 3 years when we
beat the controlled schools 70 percent of the time.
The RAND study found that comprehensive school-reform
schools beat their controlled schools 47 percent of the time in
math and 50 percent of the time in reading which is like
flipping a coin. And they were in business for a lot longer
time.
The other wonderful story, and I'm pleased say that Linda
Califano, who's the principal of one of the schools that I'm
going to talk about now, Rose Lane School in the Madison School
District in Phoenix--We do four out of seven schools in the
Madison School District, our TAP schools. Some of them said, we
have high achieving students, we don't really need to do it.
They didn't ask about value added. They just said they had
high achieving students. But the ones with the lowest SAS, the
lowest achieving schools decided to do TAP.
And of those, we looked at the two lowest SAS schools, and
over the last 2 years they hired 61 teachers. Over the last 3
years they hired 61 teachers.
21 percent of those hires at low SAS schools came from
either the higher SAS schools in the Madison School District or
high SAS schools in surrounding districts.
Now, as you know, the flow of teachers is--generally low
SAS schools are generally the farm team for the rich suburbs or
the rich schools. Kids can't get a job. They go into low SAS
schools. As soon as an opening comes, they move into high SAS
schools.
TAPS seems to have--yet it's early, it's a small sample at
this point, but what we have seen here and anecdotes that we
have heard from our schools in our 10 other states tell us that
when you have a professional system, a systemic reform that
provides career advancement, rewards for getting student
achievement, collegiality by working together to get better,
all of those things attract teachers even to low SAS schools.
So we're very excited. We're seeing good attitudes. We're
seeing teachers feeling much stronger feelings of collegiality,
higher teacher satisfaction. So we're very pleased.
We believe that in order to attract, retain, motivate, and
develop high quality teachers, we need to change the
environment of the schools; we need to have career advancement;
we need to have performance pay; we need to have a good
evaluation system; we have to change the way professional
development is conducted.
I hope more schools in Arizona will use the model of the
Madison School District. They are certainly doing it all over
the country.
In South Carolina they have decided to use the Teacher
Advancement Program as one of their programs for technological
assistance for schools that need improvement.
In Florida they have legislated something called Better
Education for Students and Teachers, the BEST program which
funds districts, whole districts to take on TAP or TAP-like
programs.
So it's going on around the country. And we're very excited
and we are looking forward to working with the No Child Left
Behind legislation in the future.
Chairman McKeon. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Solmon follows:]
Statement of Dr. Lewis C. Solmon, Executive Vice President, Education
and Director, Teacher Advancement Program, Milken Family Foundation,
Santa Monica, California
Executive Summary
Lewis C. Solmon will be representing the Milken Family Foundation.
The Milken Family Foundation is a nonprofit public benefit
organization, qualified under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue
Code to undertake educational and other charitable activities. While
the Milken Family Foundation does not advocate any specific
legislation, the Foundation does engage in nonpartisan analysis, study
and research on education policy issues and presents its views on
legislative proposals when requested to do so by appropriate
governmental officials.
Testimony by Lewis C. Solmon will provide the committee with an
overview of the Milken Family Foundation's Teacher Advancement Program
(TAP). TAP is a comprehensive, whole school reform that provides
teachers with career path and advancement opportunities; compensates
expert teachers for their skills and responsibilities; restructures
school schedules to accommodate teacher-led professional development;
introduces competitive hiring practices; and pays teachers based on how
well they instruct and how much their students learn. These components
make the teaching profession more appealing, the job conditions more
manageable, and the pay for high quality teachers more generous.
Currently, TAP is being implemented in eight states: Arizona, Arkansas,
Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, and South Carolina, including
the entire districts of Eagle County, Co.; and Sumter County, Fla.; and
in schools in the Archdiocese of Indianapolis. TAP expects to start in
Ohio, Minnesota, and possibly Texas next fall. Over 75 campuses are now
involved--impacting more than 34,000 students and 2,100 teachers--and
that number is expected to grow even more by the beginning of the 2004-
05 school year. These schools are supported by a variety of funding
sources, including private foundation grants, legislative
appropriations, increases in property tax levies targeted for TAP-like
programs, sales tax increases, general revenues from state budgets,
district funds and federal dollars available through No Child Left
Behind.
Need for Improving Teacher Quality
Quality teachers are central to assuring an excellent educational
experience for every young person in America. That is why No Child Left
Behind (NCLB) has made teacher quality a pivotal element of its school
improvement program. In polls, the public consistently ranks
strengthening teacher quality among the most important issues facing
education (Rose & Gallup, 2002). Moreover, this view is supported by a
large body of academic research demonstrating that the single most
important school factor related to increased student achievement is
having a high quality teacher in the classroom (Haycock, 1998; Marzano,
2003; Rivkin, Hanushek & Kain, 2000; Sanders & Horn, 1998).
Yet, despite the evidence that quality teachers are of utmost
importance, until No Child Left Behind, ensuring a quality teacher for
every student has not been a priority in the myriad attempts to improve
public schools. In fact, of the over 360 unique school reform ideas
proposed in the Phi Delta Kappan between 1987 and 1997, less than one
percent focused directly on improving teacher quality (Carpenter,
2000). And, of the few reforms that have addressed the issue, none to
date has proved equal to the challenge. None has had the scope, force
and focus to attract high-caliber talent to the American teaching
profession, then to motivate, develop, and retain it.
Unfortunately, the current academic quality of students pursuing
careers in teaching is not very high. Students who express an interest
in teaching tend to score at the bottom of college and graduate school
entrance examinations such as the SAT and GRE (Educational Testing
Service, 1999). And for those currently teaching, quality varies
tremendously. Good teacher produce six times the learning gains when
compared to ineffective teachers (Haycock, 1998).
It is ironic that this testimony is being written on the half
century anniversary of the landmark Brown v. Board of Education
decision outlawing deliberately segregated schools. Yet today, more
than 60 percent of black fourth-graders can't read. The achievement
gaps between students with different ethnicities, languages, and
residences persist. I have attached some charts to demonstrate the low
levels of achievement in the U.S. today and some illustrative gaps \1\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ To help readers understand the charts at the end of this
testimony, several points are offered; (a) the proficient level on the
NAEP is the minimum desired goal, and those scoring below basic simply
cannot read, (b) to give some perspective to NAEP scale scores, the
data suggest that an increase of ten points on the NAEP scale is
roughly equivalent to an increase of one grade level, (c) to be
considered ``college ready,'' a student must graduate from high school,
must take certain courses in high school that colleges require for the
acquisition of necessary skills, and must be able to demonstrate basic
literacy skills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite Brown's ending state-sanctioned segregation, many urban
districts today are overwhelmingly comprised of minorities, leading to
the charge that American public schools have been ``re-segregated.''
This ignores the demography of many large cities where small shares of
school-age children are white. It also implies that Black and Latino-
dominated schools are unable to provide high quality education. That
implication is contradicted by the many minority-majority schools that
do achieve significant student learning gains.
The emphasis on segregation detracts from the fundamental fact that
too many minority children are being denied a quality education--that
there is not yet equality of educational opportunity. Research shows
that schools can get substantial achievement gains even for students
from the most deprived social, family and economic circumstances. And
the most important school-related factor affecting student achievement
is the quality of the teacher.
But we do not have enough high quality teachers, and there is a
serious mal-distribution of the best. The best teachers usually want to
teach where their job will be easiest, safest and most rewarding, that
is, in schools with higher SES families. The most qualified teachers in
the inner city are most likely to move when there is an opening in the
suburbs. They rarely get any recognition, financial or otherwise, for
staying with the more challenging situation. New teachers fill the
vacancies in the in the poorest schools, spend their first few years
trying to figure out what to do, and by the time they become effective
teachers they move on, only to be replaced by other neophytes.
Meanwhile, the most advantaged children are assured a constant flow of
the best teachers.
So we must develop models that will attract more of our best and
brightest into teaching, then help them develop as effective teachers,
and keep them in the profession. More importantly in the spirit of
Brown, we must keep many of our best teachers in schools where they can
help our most needy students. Significant extra compensation for those
teaching in the poorest schools will help. Equitable distribution of
resources (e.g. textbooks, equipment) will help as well. It is crucial
that we no longer think of teachers whose students end up with the
highest test scores as the best teachers, because many high achievers
get much out of school support, so they start from a higher position.
Alternatively, we must recognize and reward those teachers that get the
greatest learning gains from their students, regardless of where they
start or end up. If the most effective teachers are incentivized
(rewarded) for helping students learn rather than for what students may
already know, many of the best teachers will seek to teach those who
have the most to learn.
When the quality of teachers available to minority students is as
high or higher than the quality of teachers available to whites, all
children will have equal opportunities to learn, which was the real
purpose of the Brown decision. And that is the goal of the Teacher
Advancement Program (TAP) as well.
TAP counters many of the traditional drawbacks that plague the
teaching profession: low compensation, lack of career advancement,
unsupported accountability demands, little collegiality, and
ineffective professional development that plague the teaching
profession. TAP provides an integrated solution to these challenges--
changing the structure of the teaching profession within schools, while
maintaining the essence of the profession.
In designing TAP in 1998, the Milken Family Foundation (MFF) staff
surveyed the research, consulted extensively with academics and
outstanding elementary and secondary school teachers and principals,
and applied experiences from success in the private sector. From these
sources, we created a five-principle approach. Today, we recognize the
close alignment of TAP to No Child Left Behind, specifically Title II
that deals with teacher quality.
The Five Principles of TAP
1. Multiple Career Paths
In a traditional school, a single career path exists for all
teachers. Teachers with one year of experience or 20 years generally
hold the same position, are engaged in the same activities, and have
similar authority and responsibilities. There is no potential for
quality teachers to grow in their careers; so many simply leave
(Elmore, 2000). TAP provides new opportunities for teachers who perform
at high levels and have the desire and qualifications to move along a
career continuum of as many as six ranks. TAP schools reconfigure their
staff by creating master and mentor teachers who are selected through a
rigorous performance-based selection process. As a result, these expert
teachers now have influence over a much larger contingent of students
because it is their responsibility to improve all the teachers under
their care. Teachers take on increased responsibilities with
commensurate compensation as they progress in the TAP career path.
``Career ladder'' programs have been tried in the past, most to no
avail. Basically, they identified the best teachers, gave them more
responsibility and some honor, but little if any extra compensation for
their extra work. In this respect, TAP provides significant additional
compensation to master and mentor teachers for their qualifications,
responsibilities and performance. It makes these extras worthwhile.
2. Performance-based Accountability
In most schools, teacher evaluations are performed by an
administrator once a year, and consist of classroom observation scored
against criteria with minimal emphasis on content knowledge, effective
instructional strategies, and what students are learning. Teacher
evaluation practices at the school level typically do not incorporate
teaching and learning elements that have been identified through
research as having a positive impact on student achievement. With this
weak teacher accountability system, the vast majority of teachers
(99.999%) are rated satisfactory or above (Loup, Garland, Ellett &
Rugutt, 1996).
In TAP schools, each teacher is observed 6 times by multiple,
trained and certified evaluators (e.g., the principal, master teachers
and mentor teachers). Rather than a pass/fail system, TAP grades
teacher performance on a five-point scale--ranging from unsatisfactory
to exemplary on the 21 TAP Effective Teacher Performance Standards that
are based on a large body of research from education and cognitive
psychology. Since few teachers are rated as fives, our belief is that
every teacher can improve, even the best ones.
While classroom observation is an essential component to measure
teacher quality, so is student achievement. Part of each TAP teacher's
evaluation includes the value-added classroom achievement gains the
teacher produces, as well as the school achievement gains from one year
to the next.
3. Market-Driven Compensation
In a traditional school, teachers are paid on a salary schedule
where pay increases as years of experience and education credits
accrue. All teachers with the same experience and credits, no matter
what, where, or how well they teach, are paid the same. Teachers who
excel, as demonstrated by their classroom practices and their students'
achievement, receive the same salary as teachers with the same years of
experience and credits who demonstrate little talent and produce little
in the way of student achievement gains. This, despite research
indicating that neither a teacher's years of experience, nor an
advanced degree can predict increased student achievement (Greenwald,
Hedges & Lane, 1996; Hanushek, 1989).
Research has also shown that performance award programs are
successful when they are integrated with strong school leadership,
professional development, reliable analyses of student performance, and
strong feedback (Odden & Kelley, 1996; Odden, 2000).
The market-driven compensation principle in TAP provides school
principals with the flexibility to compensate teachers differently
based on their position (e.g., career, mentor or master), their
performance, and the performance of their students. Furthermore,
principals are encouraged to offer competitive salaries to attract
teachers to hard-to-staff subjects like math and science, and hard-to-
staff schools. Most TAP demonstration schools have permitted teachers
to continue receiving increases in their salary according to their
district's salary schedule, while paying master and mentor teachers a
salary augmentation. Each school establishes a performance award pool
to pay for bonuses based on an individual teacher's yearly performance.
Many former and current performance pay plans have not succeeded
because performance bonuses are too small considering the extra work
required. Further, the principal alone often determines ``performance''
in these plans, leading to charges of favoritism and bias. In TAP,
performance is determined by multiple evaluators and multiple classroom
observations, some announced and some unannounced. Part of the bonus is
based on school-wide achievement gains and achievement gains of the
students of individual teachers (value-added).
4. Ongoing Applied Professional Growth
In a traditional school, the principal often contracts professional
development services that are half-day workshops led by outside
consultants, or provides release time for teachers to attend classes or
conferences held off-site. The assumption is that after this training,
teachers will apply what they have learned in their classrooms.
However, research on teacher professional development informs us
otherwise. Studies of teacher learning tell us that learning is most
likely to occur when teachers:
Can concentrate on instruction and student outcomes in
the specific content and context they teach;
Have sustained opportunities to experiment with and
receive feedback on specific innovations;
Collaborate with professional peers, both within and
outside their school; and
Have influence over the substance and process of
professional development (Desimone, Porter, Garet, Yoon, & Birman,
2002; King & Newmann, 2000; Newmann, Bryk, & Nagoaka, 2001).
These optimal teacher-learning conditions can occur in schools that
use the varied expertise of their own teaching staff. The TAP career
path establishes a structure where master and mentor teachers provide
ongoing professional development, conduct classroom demonstration
lessons, give regular feedback on specific teaching and learning
innovations, and design professional development opportunities to meet
their fellow teachers' content and grade-level needs. By providing time
for weekly, site-based and teacher-led professional growth activities
during the school day, TAP schools focus on issues that are current and
relevant to classroom practice.
5. Expanding the Supply of High Quality Teachers
TAP schools expand their teacher recruitment and outreach efforts
by advertising for positions outside their school, district or even
their state. We encourage schools to seek mentor and master teachers
from beyond their own current staffs. This ensures that the very best
people available provide leadership and professional development to the
staff.
Impact of TAP
Over the next ten years, America will need roughly two million new
teachers, and as many as possible should be of very high quality. While
some may see the ensuing teacher quantity and quality shortages as a
crisis, we see it as an opportunity to significantly reform the
structure of K-12 education to focus on its most valuable assets--
quality teachers. The implementation of TAP allows schools and
districts to meet some the challenges they face. TAP is a whole school
reform intended to recruit, motivate, develop and retain high quality
teachers in order to increase student achievement. Here are some of the
highlights of the current year.
We now have three years of results from TAP schools in Arizona and
two years from TAP schools in South Carolina. We compared 25 year-to
year changes in student achievement in TAP schools to control schools.
In 17 of these cases, or 68% of the time, the TAP schools outperformed
their controls. The RAND study of Comprehensive School Reform (CSR)
schools concluded that 50% of the CSR schools outperformed their
controls in math and 47% outperformed their controls in reading,
although the CSR schools had been operating for a substantially longer
period of time than TAP. One important anecdotal explanation for the
success of TAP is that teaching in TAP schools is improving
significantly.
Further, collegiality and teacher satisfaction has remained strong
in the TAP schools, despite conflicting research that suggests that
teachers who are part of a performance-pay system will experience
increased competition and dissatisfaction. These attitudinal results
reflect the holistic approach of TAP that combines an accountability
system with clear rewards, and a professional development system to
support all teachers in improving their classroom instruction.
Additionally, in Arizona, we are seeing some very talented teachers
moving from high SES schools that are not doing TAP to low SES schools
that are doing TAP. Over the past three years, 61 teachers have started
working at the two lowest SES TAP schools in the Madison School
District. Of these, thirteen (21%) have come from high SES schools and
are considered to be among the very best teachers from the Madison
schools or nearby districts. These early results from our TAP schools
are very promising and coupled with the anecdotal evidence from
teachers, parents, principals and students, we are optimistic about the
student achievement gains that will be evident as the program becomes a
part of each school's culture.
One year ago, TAP was being piloted in six states (Arizona, South
Carolina, and Arkansas, which were subsequently supported in part by a
Fund for the Improvement Education (FIE) grant; the Archdiocese of
Indianapolis and Eagle County, Colorado, which are funded by other
sources; and Florida, which had two schools at the time funded by a
state appropriation for the Florida Mentor Teacher School Pilot
Program). During the past year, we have added five more pilot schools
in Florida, and five schools in Louisiana. In addition, as will be
described below, all the schools in Sumter County, Florida have begun
to implement TAP bringing Florida's total to 17 schools. Next fall
Minnesota will begin TAP in at least six schools and Ohio will join the
program. By the end of the current academic year, we will have at least
70 schools implementing TAP across the county, up from 31 in the
previous year. We are serving over 34,000 students with over 2,100
teachers.
The Florida legislature has passed the BEST (Better Education for
Students and Teachers) program, which provides $25 million this year to
support pilot programs, either TAP or TAP-like, to recruit, retain,
develop and motivate highly qualified teachers. Under BEST, Florida has
funded four districts from January to June, 2004, and one of these,
Sumter County has decided to do a pure TAP model in all their 10
schools with the assistance and support of MFF.
The state of South Carolina has decided to include TAP as one of
the options for the schools in that state that need to improve
(referred to as their ``technical assistance program''). Currently we
have several new South Carolina districts inquiring about adopting TAP,
and the numbers are expected to increase significantly.
Minnesota received a federal grant to pilot TAP in a large urban
district, and a rural district, Waseca County. The evaluation will
compare TAP to several ongoing performance pay plans.
Each year we hold a national TAP conference to enable participating
TAP states, districts, and schools to share their experiences, and so
states interested in joining the program can learn more about TAP. We
received requests from eight new states to attend the most recent TAP
conference, and this resulted in Texas and Ohio starting the process to
participate in TAP.
Currently the TAP program operates primarily in elementary and
middle schools. We have begun implementation of TAP in three high
schools, and expect more to be added next year. We are working to
develop a full high school model.
Our program is gaining substantial national visibility. TAP was
highlighted by the Teaching Commission, whose recommendations look like
a prospectus for TAP, by Connect for Kids, and by Secretary Paige
himself, who in a speech at Dartmouth College said, ``I am a big fan of
the Teacher Advancement Program--'' And recently, Undersecretary of
Education Eugene Hickok visited a TAP school in urban Louisiana. He
talked about is support for TAP because it emphasizes teachers. ``In so
many places teaching has become such a solitary enterprise, it's so
sad,'' he said. ``It should be collegial.'' TAP is collegial. We are
pleased that TAP is reported on in a very positive manner in both the
national and local press on almost a weekly basis. We would be happy to
provide copies of the articles.
While TAP yields many positive results, the cost of TAP is roughly
$400 per student per year. These funds are required to pay supplements
to master and mentor teachers, to provide performance awards, to hire
replacements for master teachers, to hire specialists to free up
regular teachers to attend professional development cluster groups, to
cover costs of additional testing where necessary, and to pay teachers
for extra training days. Too many reforms skimp on money and so become
trivial programs that do not garner attention and support from
teachers. TAP is significant in terms of compensation and
professionalism, but that costs money.
TAP schools are being supported by a variety of local sources
including legislative appropriations, increases in property tax levies
targeted for TAP-like programs, sales tax increases, general revenues
from state budgets, and district funds. We are working with all current
and prospective states to develop additional funding sources so they
can take over full funding of TAP. We believe that the long-term
survival of TAP depends upon the states and districts identifying state
and local sources of funds (including NCLB funds), as opposed to grants
from private foundations or the federal government.
We are working to encourage participating schools to utilize their
NCLB funds, especially their Title II funds to pay for TAP. Indeed, the
Non-Regulatory Guidance for Improving Teacher Quality State Grants
issued in January, 2004 says ``Title II, Part A funds can [also], as
part of an overall strategy to improve teacher quality, be used for
teacher incentives (e.g., to recruit teachers for hard-to fill
positions or retain teachers who have been effective in helping low-
achieving students to succeed) or to pay the salaries of master
teachers who provide or coordinate professional development services
for other teachers.'' In essence, this is TAP. The following chart
describes how NCLB funds are being used for TAP.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3983.001
Although the situation has improved in the past year, our
experience is that few states have been willing or able to utilize
enough of their Title II funds to fully fund TAP. Much of that money
was committed previously for class size reduction or for existing
professional development programs. As TAP becomes a more proven
program, more states are taking advantage of NCLB funds to embark on
TAP. Also, as state budget outlooks are improving, more state money
will be forthcoming. Nevertheless, the current situation is one where
states that are participating in TAP or intend to do so have some money
to support TAP, but are continually seeking new sources of private and
public support to enable the purest conformity to the model, and to
expand the number of TAP schools. The Milken Family Foundation spends
approximately $3 million annually to support TAP schools. This support
is provided through ongoing technical assistance to the schools;
collection and analysis of data on teacher attitudes and performance,
and student achievement; annual program reviews of TAP implementation;
support for directors who work closely with MFF to oversee
implementation of TAP at each school; and ongoing development of
training modules and implementation processes to improve TAP
nationwide.
Conclusion
By providing an effective strategy for reform, TAP is working to
turn teaching from a revolving-door profession into a highly rewarding
career choice. The real reward will be the outstanding education
available to each and every student in the country.
In TAP schools, high quality teachers are recognized and promoted;
they have access to focused ongoing professional development; they work
in a collaborative environment; and they are compensated differently
based on their skills, knowledge, responsibilities, how they teach, and
how much their students learn. This structure is very different from
traditional schools. We are already seeing that these structural
changes, modeled on existing best practices in business and on
research-based strategies in education and the social sciences, provide
opportunities for teachers in the same way that opportunities are
available to employees in many other industries (Schiff, 2001). This is
resulting in improved student achievement as well.
______
Chairman McKeon. You know, as I listen to each of you, I
feel excitement and I feel frustration and lots of different
emotions because I see such tremendous potential, and yet we
have also had lots of criticism.
Years ago I had a friend that was a principal in a high
school in the LA city school system, and he told me that they
had just done a study.
And they found that from the time somebody conceived an
idea in that school district until it became fully implemented
throughout the district, it took 25 years.
And the problem is, how many children go through that
system in those 25 years? And I think that's why the concept of
No Child Left Behind came.
We can't afford to leave children behind, whether it's your
grandchildren, my grandchildren, our children.
You know, every one of these children is precious and every
one of these teachers. I don't think anybody goes into teaching
that doesn't want to be successful.
And yet some of them are not successful. Some of them start
out being successful and fade away or go into something else.
I remember when we were holding hearings a few years ago on
teacher preparedness, I would ask each of the witnesses what
you've kind of all referred to is, and I asked it specifically
the way you doctor did, Dr. Solmon.
If you had the opportunity as a mother, you know that some
of the teachers are better than others and you want to make
sure--you know, my wife was PTA president so she could be close
to the school because that had an impact on which class our
children got into.
But I would ask the question, if you had a choice because,
I mean, there was a lot of emphasis on smaller class size, like
that was the end of all problems.
And every mother that I talked to, if she had the choice of
taking, as you put it, the best, most exciting teacher, even
for a large class, versus a teacher that was not excited,
whether it happened to be a brand new teacher or one that was
burned out on the subject with a small class, which would you
choose?
And they'd always pick the larger class size because, to
me, the most important person in education is the parent and
then the teacher. The parent has to get them started and then
the teacher has to create the excitement and teach.
And each of us can think back to great teachers we had in
elementary school, high school, college. Wherever we were, we
can think of good teachers and what an impact they had on our
lives.
I have a letter in my desk in Washington. I should just
carry it with me all the time, but it was from my third grade
teacher a few years ago. And I'm not sure if she's living now,
but I received a notice from someone she had moved out of the
area. I mean, I didn't live in the area.
But somebody knew that I had been in her class. And she was
turning 100 and asked if I could do something to honor her. And
we sent her a flag and a commendation.
And she sent me back this letter telling me how--I was the
oldest of five sons. I think all of us had her for the third
grade. And I remember her saying what a good job my parents had
done and how they raised good boys and she was happy that she
had been my teacher.
She says, now, I want you and President Bush to do this and
this and this. Still working, still excited at age 100, still
giving directions to a student.
And I have seen teachers. I have gone in classrooms. And
you just get a feeling, you know. You look at what they have on
the wall and you can just feel excitement.
I have seen great principals that have taken me around
their schools, and I have seen, you know, in this classroom on
the door it says ``A great teacher is teaching in this
classroom.''
And you walk in and you feel it and you can feel excitement
generating from the teacher, from the principal, and it makes
you feel really good.
And then I have been in the classrooms where teachers
probably should be doing something else. And it's hard to make
a change. I visited a class and this was a magnet school where
they brought good kids from all over the city into this area.
And I went to the student government class.
And this is a guy, the teacher, that should have been one
of the best because these were 8th graders that were, I mean,
just 8th graders going on Ph.D.s, you know.
And I walked in. I had already visited some of the
classrooms, then I walked into his classroom, greeted him at
the door. Nothing against beards and long hair, but they kind
of maybe indicate something sometimes.
And I said, how's it going?
He says, great. It's almost 3 o'clock.
And I thought, well, that's a good start. I started
visiting with the kids and I started--I could feel what he was
putting into them coming back. Why can't we get more money for
more supplies? Why don't we have this and that?
At 3 o'clock he left. I mean, we were in a nice visit. He
left. And I thought, what a shame, you know. What a golden
opportunity.
And he was an attorney. Nothing against attorneys.
But I think he probably had not been successful as an
attorney and thought, well, I'll be a teacher. And he's
probably not teaching any more, I hope, because he was
certainly not helping those young people.
And after a while I listened to all these complaints about,
we don't have this and we don't have that. And I said, have any
of you heard of Abraham Lincoln?
Yeah.
I said, you know, it seems to me that Abraham Lincoln
learned by candle light from his mother reading to him out of
the Bible and a few good books. And she instilled in him a
desire to learn. And, you know, what did we get from Abraham
Lincoln?
So that teacher could have taken that golden opportunity.
And then I have seen countless examples of great teachers.
When I was on the school board we instituted a program to--
I went to a seminar and they brought back this idea. And so I
told the superintendent, I want to have, in one of our meetings
each month, of what's good in education.
He's saying, you know, we have tried that in the past, and
we would go in and the teacher would start making a
presentation and some of the school board members took out a
paper and were reading papers.
And I said, well, let's try it. We get in and I remember
some outstanding things. We had a teacher in--this was a high
school district. And I remember at the start of our meeting we
started with what's good in education?
This teacher walked in in Cardinal's robes speaking French.
You know, we all sat back. I thought, what an impact that has
on children. I mean, do you think that wouldn't make them want
to learn French?
And we had another teacher that taught a positive attitude
course, and those sections filled up immediately. He was also
the baseball coach.
And I remember he started out, he had took a potato and he
took a straw and he stuck that straw through the potato. I
don't know how many times I have tried that, but I never could
do that. But he just motivated and excited those kids.
What is a teacher worth?
I tell teachers the story of, you know, you can count the
number of seeds in an apple but you can't count the number of
apples in a seed.
And teachers and mothers do not get immediately compensated
for their work. Many times they don't see the benefits of their
work for 20 years.
I would love to go back and talk to Mr. Vernon who was my
physics teacher in high school or Mr. Waldo who was my
chemistry teacher and thank them for what they did.
You know, they were never paid enough but they put in the
time. They excited students.
Some of you referred to compensation for teachers and how
we have performance-based compensation.
How do we do that?
That's a question you can all respond to.
Dr. Solmon. Well, the way we do it is, we do it as a bonus
because we didn't want to initially attack the salary schedule
which is, as you know, depends on years of experience and post-
baccalaureate credits for increases.
Those things do not seem to be related much at all to what
students learn. The first 5 years of experience seems to make a
difference with that. After that, not much.
So we try to add on to that a bonus based on how they
perform, how teachers perform in class, based on scientifically
studied behaviors, and how their students achieve.
But what I would want to say is that I agree that a lot of
teachers are paid too little but probably some are paid too
much. The one----
Chairman McKeon. I agree with you totally. And I come from
a background of retail business. And we had incentives for our
employees. I mean, everything was built around sales and how
you increase sales and how you increase through pay and
motivation. I understand how to do that.
What I mean is, how do you do it in today's world with
unions and their opposition? I mean, has the world changed?
When I was on the school board, nobody was going to be paid
more than somebody else. I mean, that was taboo.
Dr. Solmon. We made a presentation actually on Tuesday to
the American Federation of Teachers at their policy meeting in
New York, and they were quite receptive, not all unions. But
the American Federation of Teachers who apparently worked on
some of the No Child Left Behind legislation as well, they keep
saying as long as its fair.
And when the evaluation system is transparent, when there's
opportunities for teachers to get better, where no teachers are
hurt by performance pay, they're willing to think about it.
Chairman McKeon. How are you finding it?
Dr. Butterfield. Well, in the State of Arizona, the
districts are using Prop 301 monies in that arena in terms of
rewarding teachers, but that can be viewed as very shallow. I
mean, every teacher, for example, might be getting a stipend.
Going back to my comments and Lewis mentioned it also, I
think that's why our state is investing incorporating a value-
added system and look at truly linking teacher accomplishments
with students achievement.
Chairman McKeon. And how does the union feel about that.
Dr. Butterfield. I can't speak for the union regarding
that.
Chairman McKeon. But are you running into opposition.
Dr. Butterfield. I would guess that might be the case.
Dr. Solmon. But actually they work very closely in the
Madison School District with the program there.
I mean, as long as they are involved and the teachers like
it--you might ask the principal to talk after the testimony and
see what it is.
But my impression is that the unions, when they are
involved from the beginning, when they are consulted, when it's
not imposed top down, they are willing to consider it more than
if somebody were to come in and say, this is going to happen.
Dr. Butterfield. And I want to reiterate that I feel,
personally, and having been in the classroom, teachers want to
be accountable.
Chairman McKeon. Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Simon. I'll give you a first cousin to what you're
talking about. You said, what works in today's world.
What many schools are doing and what we did in Arkansas to
try to at least get the foot in the door to performance pay was
to reward school-wide teachers where the school had met or
exceeded the State's expectation on student achievement. That
did two things.
One, it promoted collegiality among the staff because it
wasn't the 4th graders teacher's job to make sure the students
passed the 4th grade test. It was everybody's job.
And when the school succeeded, then the money went to that
school with the expectation, if the school chose, to share that
in the form of a bonus with all of the staff. That got away
from any given teacher being singled out.
We also, when I left Arkansas, were looking at the
possibility of--this is not exactly performance pay but it was
more of an objective measure on where we needed teachers. We
needed math teachers.
The statistic I gave over 5 years, our teacher training
institutions had graduated 1,193 PE majors and one physics
major. Come to find out, the physics major left Arkansas and
went to North Carolina. So we really had none.
Shortage areas where we needed teachers, pay a teacher more
to go into that field. Pay a teacher more to get a degree in a
shortage area. Pay a teacher more that was actually teaching in
an area where that teacher had a major, things that we know are
successful.
Chairman McKeon. This is your suggestion or what they
actually did.
Mr. Simon. That was my suggestion at the time. If I'd have
stayed around we would have done it. They're making moves to do
that.
Chairman McKeon. Do the unions go along with that.
Mr. Simon. Yes, pretty much.
Chairman McKeon. OK. Because if we're not all on the same
page and if we're not all working together--like you say, it
has to be collaborative and you have to--but not just in
education, but many times unions will fight to protect their
weakest person, not the strongest.
And people that are working--a good teacher that's doing an
outstanding job next to a teacher that's just putting in the
time causes real problems.
Now, you say, if you gave the whole school and you tried to
get everybody working together, it would increase the
productivity, it improves collegiality. Also if it's not done
properly it can destroy collegiality. So that's an important
thing.
Mr. Secretary, in No Child Left Behind, we're hearing
praise, we're hearing criticism.
What do you see thus far?
And, you know, I appreciate, you pass a law in January, you
want the results in June. The regs aren't written yet. It takes
a long time to get that.
But what do you see are the real shining points that thus
far are coming from this law?
Mr. Simon. I think the shining points, No. 1, and this
results from direct conversation we have had with teachers, is
that just the attention that's being paid to student
achievement is causing student achievement to rise. It's
causing schools to pay attention to every child.
While they are arguing whether they really believe every
child can learn or whether they believe it's fair that subgroup
size is what it is in a given state, whether they believe
there's enough money being set aside to do it, what I call the
form issues, teaching is still going on.
And this has focused attention on the absolute necessity of
believing in children and teaching the standards.
So that alone is causing some improvement.
No. 2, I think there's a very positive in the fact that
we're, at the present time, considering 40-plus state
accountability system amendment requests which tells us that
states are looking at what other states are doing and looking
within their own accountability plans and deciding, hey, we can
do this a little better.
I don't see it as gaming the system as some people put it.
I think states are really paying attention to this, really want
what's best for kids.
I know that's true in schools. They want what's best. They
are struggling to find a structure to make that happen and they
are changing, and I think that's good. They are not satisfied
with the status quo.
Our orders from Secretary Page are to wring every ounce of
flexibility out of the law. I think we have done a good job of
doing that over the past few months.
Yesterday I was occasioned to be in Missouri and we heard
from some superintendents over there making the same comment.
We think we're headed in the right direction. We appreciate it.
The dialog is open and I think that's good.
Chairman McKeon. Thank you. Mr. Porter.
Mr. Porter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate all your
testimony. Let's talk about, Dr. Butterfield, some of the
Arizona challenges. When it has to do with, not necessarily
teacher recruitment, but what's the term that we use to keep
them?
Dr. Butterfield. Retaining.
Mr. Porter. Thank you. Unscientifically, from my
perspective, is that as we're living in these fast-growing
states and we're recruiting from around the world and we're
hiring a lot of new teachers fresh out of college because of
the shortage, it seems like many of them may teach in Nevada or
Arizona for a couple of years but then they end up going home.
Maybe it's Iowa or Illinois or New York--no, probably not
New York. People are not going east that far.
But are you finding that to be the same in Arizona, that, a
lot of it is they get a couple years under they their belt and
then they want to move back to their home state?
Is that a challenge?
Dr. Butterfield. I would say that's a challenge.
As I mentioned in my testimony, you know, we're not at the
top in being ranked for teacher salary. That certainly is an
impact.
But I think, in general, having been in the trenches,
teachers need to be highly valued and provided that
infrastructure to support them to help them grow to be the best
that they can no matter whether they are in year one or in
their 25th or 30th year of teaching.
I have been in my own situation in a lot of schools. I'm a
charter school founder. When I founded that charter I
implemented things with my staff that were very different from
traditional district schools.
So I think we need to foster, again, the foundation of
support for teachers to want them to stay.
I don't know why their specific reasons are for not staying
for more than one or 2 years, but I know that our transition to
teacher program, for example, is doing some neat work here in
this state in fostering the rolls of Paraprofessionals by
providing them with the tools and resources that they need to
be highly qualified.
And I was talking a contact in Yuma who was stating, you
know, we were hoping to promote retaining and keeping our
teachers with this program, but we're finding that if we're
utilizing the funds to help train our Paraprofessionals, they
are the ones that want to keep on going.
They are getting hooked on about life-long learning and
being provided the structure, infrastructure and support where
they are now moving on to get their teaching degrees, and they
are recruiting and retaining simultaneously.
So I think we need to be looking at the promising and best
practices that are out there in terms of retaining teachers and
recruiting them.
Mr. Porter. On that same line, I see a lot of teachers, to
elevate themselves financially, decide to go into
administration because then that takes it to another plateau or
different levels. That's both good and bad----
Dr. Butterfield. Correct.
Mr. Porter.--because a good teacher doesn't necessarily
make a good administrator or vice versa.
There is a lot of administrators that I would probably
suggest they not go to the classroom, but there are a lot of
talented folks from both ends. But it seems to me we're seeing
a transition to increase their income into administration; is
that correct?
Is that happening in Arizona?
Dr. Butterfield. Well, I think that's been the traditional
way that teachers have seen as the only way to move up the
ranks, so to speak.
Mr. Porter. But when I talk to teachers, and pay is always
important, especially with rising gas costs or whatever, is a
challenge. But I'll be honest with you. The teachers that I
talk to, that is not No. 1.
Dr. Butterfield. I agree with you.
Mr. Porter. Now, it is, certainly, from a union's
perspective. And that's their job. I appreciate that.
But I see teachers leaving because of either the lack of
parental involvement in the classroom or in some cases too much
because the teacher is not able to discipline the child today
for fear of lawsuits and other challenges.
I see teachers leaving because of something you've said now
three or four times, and that's just elevating the position,
feeling like they can go someplace else and feel like they're
getting a little more appreciation.
But I see a lot of teachers that are leaving early not
because of pay----
Dr. Butterfield. Correct.
Mr. Porter.--but because of these other areas, paperwork--
and I know we're trying to streamline it, Secretary, some of
the paperwork.
But I'm very concerned that not only is that happening in
the classrooms. It's happening in our school boards.
There is not a more important elected official in the
community, in my mind, than the board of trustees for a school
district.
And in many cases like Nevada, Las Vegas, it's probably the
largest business in Nevada.
But what I see happening nationwide is we have a lot of
wonderful, caring people that run for office for school boards,
but many of them probably shouldn't because, again, their
expertise may be in the classroom or they may be a wonderful
parent.
But I think we also need to elevate the school board of
trustees around the country to the position of prominence that
they deserve and give them the tools they need.
And I think that would help also all the way down to the
teachers as we elevate the importance nationwide of being in
the profession.
Now, from a Federal perspective, Secretary, I hear
constantly that we're underfunding education as a whole.
And if my understanding's correct, under the Bush
Administration, it's up about 43 percent.
And then what I hear on the other side of that, those that
are--and it's a Presidential election year so people will
complain no matter what, but I what I hear is, we have
increased funding by 43 percent, we have put all these extra
mandates on all these districts, so the 43 percent increase
means absolutely nothing.
How do you respond to that, Mr. Secretary? How best to
explain to the community how the dollars are being spent and if
it's an adequate amount?
Mr. Simon. A couple of ways. And we're seeing this as we
view studies that are being done around the country on how
schools are spending money.
And by the way, there have been at least three independent
studies on No Child Left Behind that have said it's not an
unfunded mandate, two by the GAO and one from Massachusetts and
another think tank, and I can't recall exactly the name of that
right now. Anyway, three or four studies have indicated it's
not.
What we are hearing, and it's the same concern that
teachers have told us and principals have told us, that,
incorrectly, No Child Left Behind is seen as something in
addition that has to be done in addition to what's going in the
states right now.
And if you look at it as in addition to, then I could see
where people would have the misunderstanding that it's a
mandate without money attached to it.
But, in fact, it's not meant to be in addition to. It's
meant to be in place of. It's meant to be an opportunity to
work smarter, to abandon the failed practices of the past and
do things that work for kids.
We know what a good teacher's qualities are. We know good
teaching practices. We know good accountability measures. Those
don't have to be done in addition to. They can be done in place
of. But we don't want to abandon some things that we're
comfortable in doing.
There's been unprecedented levels of funding specifically
put in place for No Child Left Behind to deal with--states have
been given money to develop tests. They have been given money
to use to attract, retain and pay highly qualified teachers.
They have been given money to provide professional
development for teachers. Yet we're hearing from teachers that
schools are doing away with professional development.
So the reaction doesn't appear to be in tune with the
spirit of No Child. I think a lot of that just has to do with:
We don't want to abandon our comfort zone.
Mr. Porter. Am I correct, is it about a 43 percent
increase.
Mr. Simon. Yes, sir. There's several percentages. It
depends on which one you look at, but yes.
Mr. Porter. Also from the Federal perspective, I hear a lot
about class size from those teachers that are in the classroom,
schools that have 40, 50 kids maybe in the classroom, and that
also is causing some frustration for a teacher trying to do the
best they can and, literally, limited time and resources and
the physical ability.
Is classroom size a problem nationwide or is it just a
southwestern phenomenon?
Mr. Simon. I think class size is a problem everywhere, but
the problem is not necessarily in the number of children you
have, although there can be extremes.
Research shows that until you--most of the research is at
the elementary level. And most of the research that I've seen
says you have to get down to a pretty substantially low number,
and that's somewhere around 12 to 15 kids, to where class size
really makes a difference.
Going from 25 kids in a class to 22, and 22 to 18, it's not
going to make a difference.
Teachers. It's not necessarily how many children you have.
Does the teacher know how to deal with the variety of students
he or she finds in a classroom?
That's professional development again.
You can't treat--all children are not the same. Many times
a child's behavior problem or a child's interest in school, how
the child feels when he or she comes to school will impact the
teacher's ability to teach the rest of the kids. There my be a
distraction.
That doesn't mean the class size is too big. It just means
the teacher needs some help in how to deal with those children.
There are a number of ways of doing that that don't take a lot
of money. It's strategies of teaching. It's common-sense
approaches that some teachers don't know how to do. That's why
professional development on how to deal with that is so
important.
As a number of people have said today, I'd rather have a
high quality teacher that knows the content that has a feel for
kids in a classroom of 40 than I would an incompetent teacher
that doesn't want to be there in a class of 20. 40 kids are
going to come out far better.
So in my mind, putting money on highly qualified teachers,
professional development, preparing the teacher both in content
and pedagogy is a far better use of funds than trying to reduce
class size unless you have plenty of money to get that class
size down.
Chairman McKeon. Dr. Solmon, you had a comment.
Dr. Solmon. Yes. When they talk about underfunding
education, I mean, my question always is, what's enough.
We have a PowerPoint slide that we often show where, over
the last 30 or 40 years you see funding going like this and
test scores going like this.
So in a very macro way, despite the tremendous increases in
funding over the last several decades, we have seen no increase
in student achievement. So, therefore, just throwing more money
at the problem is not going to solve it.
Another comment I would make, as I'm sure you know, I mean,
the Federal Government provides 8 percent of spending on
schools. So I mean, to say that schools can't function because
the Federal Government isn't providing enough, if they, you
know, provided, you know, 20 percent more or whatever, it would
still only get it to 9.6 percent. So it doesn't really matter.
The comment I wanted to make about teachers leaving,
although it's hard to imagine that people would leave Nevada or
Arizona for Iowa, as you hypothesized, is that if they moved
from Nevada or Arizona to teach in Iowa, it's my understanding
they would have to go back to school.
And so, in other words, we don't have interstate
portability of----
Mr. Porter. It's a problem coming east to west also.
Dr. Solmon. Right. So the point is that I think that a lot
of those people that are going back to Iowa are leaving the
teaching profession.
We've got, I think, almost as many people who could teach
not teaching as we do have people teaching in this country.
And the other comment I wanted to make, you say that pay is
not important to teachers. And I agree with that because that's
why they are teachers. I mean, if the pay was important, they
wouldn't be teachers.
But I do have to say that we conducted focus groups of very
bright young college graduates who had considered teaching but
decided not to do it.
And to them, not only was the level of compensation
important, but the distribution.
A lot of the kids that--I went into an interview in a
district and asked them how much I would make if I was the most
successful teacher 20 years from now because they had always
been successful in academics and extracurricular.
And the district recruiting person pulled out the salary
scale and said, this is what you'll make in 20 years. And he
said, how about if I'm good? No. This is what you'll make in 20
years. There may be a new contract, but this is what you'll
make in 20 years.
Those people decided to go into law or medicine or business
or something because they said, if I'm good, I want to be
rewarded for it.
So it's not the people in teaching who care about money.
It's the people who didn't come into teaching.
Mr. Porter. And I want to make it clear that pay is very
important. It's just that when I talked to those that are
leaving, it isn't on the top of the list. It's in the four or
five. But it is very important.
But you're right. I think you summarized it well, that a
lot of it is those that didn't go into the profession,
absolutely.
And I'll be honest with you. I don't know how a main bread
winner could survive on a teacher's salary and raise a family
and not have another job or have a spouse.
I mean, I don't know how you can do it. You can't. And that
is a challenge nationwide.
Dr. Butterfield. I would also like to add, in regards to
recruiting teachers and especially those who are the brightest
ones, whether they are in another profession or recent college
graduates, the needed area in breaking down the barriers of
teacher certification, whether it be through reciprocity, state
to state, maybe taking a look at tiered certification, new ways
to recognize outstanding teacher accomplishments and their
achievements.
Arizona's Certification Task Force is also looking into
those areas. So it's important to break down barriers.
Mr. Porter. I'd just like to conclude with one comment that
I don't think we've addressed today nor will it be answered
today.
You know, I mentioned earlier comparing it to the operating
room of 100 years ago. But if you look at what's required of a
teacher today as compared to 100 years ago, we're expecting
teachers to be doctors, lawyers, priests, rabbis, you name it,
in the classroom.
The whole system has changed so much. And we expect all
that out of teachers that are making $40,000 a year.
But also a lot of parents don't give the teachers the
support. But then at times maybe that's correct.
But the child's in a classroom 9 percent of his life or 10
percent of his life.
But we're expecting teachers, in 10 percent of that time,
to be everything to these children. Many of them don't have
parents or don't have anyone at home.
And I am convinced that we have to find a way to compensate
and to encourage, to help this structure as it's changed in the
last 100 years because it's not just about educating or
learning.
It's life skills. It's everything. And we have to find a
better way to do it together. And I believe we can do it. But
with a teacher that's expected to do all this in a few hour's
time, we have to look at the whole system.
And I appreciate No Child Left Behind. I think it's taken
major strides in helping set some standards.
But I think we need to take it to another level.
And that is, our teachers are counselors and psychologists
and they are having to be everything to everybody. And I think
we have to realize that, that the system has changed.
So thank you all very much for your testimony and for your
being here.
Chairman McKeon. Thank you, Mr. Porter.
And I want to thank all of you today, the witnesses, for
being here. And if there's something that you wanted to add
that you didn't get that you would like to have in the
testimony, we will keep the testimony open and you can get it
to us.
This is not, you do something one time and then that takes
care of it for the rest of eternity. This is a process that
will continue.
And so I think it'll take 12 years to fully implement No
Child Left Behind.
In the meantime, that kindergarten student will graduate
from high school but a lot of other children will be coming
along behind. And we need to do all we can to motivate and
excite those teachers to every day realize that they have an
opportunity to change and improve lives.
And our country depends on it.
You know, there are other countries around the world now
that are starting to do a better job of education, and we're
finding that in some areas we're falling behind. And we need to
redouble our efforts.
And I want to thank you, Mr. Secretary, for what you're
doing to do the implementation.
You know, this is a very big country. And when I told the
story about the school district that took 25 years to get
something through, you can imagine how, as you travel around
the country, I'm sure you hear people that say, ``well, that's
not what I heard,'' because there is a lot of misinformation
out there.
And if we can do whatever we can to get the correct
information out there and wherever we find ourselves in the
role where the water's trying to get down to the end of the
row, if we can get it past us and help others to get it past
them because the ultimate person is your grandchild, your
grandchild, you know, these children out there that maybe don't
have a grandparent or a parent because we don't know which one
of them will be the next Einstein or the next person that's
going to--the next Lincoln, change the world.
And we can't afford to loose what any of them can give back
to us. So thank you for your participation here today.
Mr. Porter.
Mr. Porter. Thank you. You know, I have to tell you about
this cartoon before we go. The cartoon was in a Las Vegas
newspaper probably 7 years ago, and I have kept it. And it was
an editorial cartoon.
And it showed a child standing in a circle of people. And
the child's standing there kind of looking like this. And
there's a teacher pointing the finger at an administrator
pointing the finger at a board of trustee pointing the finger
at a legislator pointing a finger at a Governor pointing a
finger at a congressman pointing a finger at a senator.
And the kid's standing in the middle like this.
We just can't allow that to happen any more because we have
allowed a lot of the blame game to happen in education. And
that visualizes for me every day--I keep it in my desk. I see
it every day--of how we can't allow that to continue. And that
happens a lot.
And the second thing I want to leave with you, please take
a look at background checks on teachers in your states, and as
you cross the country. Make sure that we, from a security
standpoint, are doing everything we can also.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McKeon. Thank you. If there is no further
business, then, this Committee stands adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 12:45 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional material provided for the record follows:]
Additional Statement of Karen Butterfield, Ed.D., Deputy Associate
Superintendent, Innovative & Exemplary Programs, Arizona Department of
Education, 1993 Arizona Teacher of the Year
Dear Chairman McKeon and Congressman Porter:
Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to testify in Phoenix on
4/27/04 on issues surrounding highly qualified teachers. I also
appreciate that additional testimony can be included.
When the question came up regarding, ``Why are teachers leaving
(Arizona)?'', which included thoughtful discussion regarding quality
pay--I and my fellow colleagues at the Arizona Department of Education
felt strongly that LEADERSHIP is critical at the school, district and
governance levels, if we are to recruit and retain our best teachers.
Therefore, it is this element of which I would like to include as
additional testimony.
I think we can all agree that highly performing schools are those
often led by visionary, passionate leaders, who support their teachers
and staff tremendously. They are highly visible within the school/
community, foster innovation and risk taking, and ensure the right
tools and resources are allocated for successful teaching and student
learning. Systematic and systemic ``thinking and doing'', along with
implementing shared leadership, are imperative elements to embrace if
schools are truly to change in order to foster highly qualified
teachers, high quality schooling.
The Arizona Department of Education has embarked on Arizona LEADS3:
Leaders in Education for the Advancement and Development of Student and
School Success. Utilizing three major state partners (City of Phoenix
as a municipality, a tribal nation and Pima County), we will be
offering leadership institutes to support and advance student
achievement through coaching, mentoring and providing resources to help
school administrators and their teams with disaggregating of data,
including data analysis. Successful Arizona school leaders will mentor
and coach those who are struggling with school performance, many of
which, are dealing with the conditions I mentioned in my testimony
(``revolving door'' of leadership with administrators/teachers/
governing board members). AZ LEADS3 will focus on recruitment,
leadership preparation, induction and continuous improvement.
In this month's Phi Delta Kappan, the article, ``Leading Small:
Eight Lessons for Leaders in Transforming Large Comprehensive High
Schools'' (Copland and Boartright), states the imperativeness of
systemic change in leadership, especially in restructuring our schools.
Leaders who nurture a different culture of shared, distributed
leadership, involve the critical stakeholders, and who are willing to
battle the status quo--provide the necessary conditions for long-term,
systemic and positive change.
Although pay and good teaching conditions are important to recruit
and retain highly qualified teachers, we cannot leave out the most
important factor in the recruiting/retaining equation--that of
sustained quality school, district and governance leadership.