Archived Information

Objective 1.4: A talented and dedicated teacher is in every

classroom in America.
Our Role. The Department of Education supports and encourages state and district efforts to improve
teaching and learning in the United States through programs aimed at improving teacher quality. These
programs include the Teacher Quality Enhancement Grants program (Title II HEA), the Eisenhower
Professional Development program, and the Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to Use Technology grants
program. In addition, the Education Department supports teacher quality through the National Board for
Professional Teaching Standards, as well as through its service program support for at-risk and special
education students, and specific instructional areas such as reading and technology. Support is also
provided for research on policies and practices that will improve teaching and data reporting on teacher
preparation programs required under Title II HEA.

The Education Department’s six core strategies in teacher quality include:

! Improving the recruitment, preparation, and retention of new teachers;

! Developing and supporting rigorous standards for teachers;
! Strengthening professional development;
! Strengthening school leadership;
! Supporting research, development and dissemination of information on teacher quality and
accountability; and
! Measuring progress and increasing public awareness.

Our Performance

How We Measure. These nine performance indicators focus on key outcomes regarding the quality of
the teaching force and the policies that affect the teaching force.

Indicator 1.4.a. The percentage of teachers who feel very well prepared to
implement new, higher standards will increase annually.
Assessment of Progress. Achievement of the goal is likely. There was significant change between
1996 and 1998. Related data released from the Longitudinal Evaluation of School Change (LESCP) in
Title I schools demonstrate that slightly increasing percentages of teachers are “very familiar” with the
content and performance standards of their state or district in mathematics and reading. As noted in the
1998 LESCP interim report, slightly less than half of teachers were very familiar with these standards.
However, by the 2000 LESCP final report, 52 percent of reading teachers and 54 percent of mathematics
teachers were very familiar with content standards, and 50 percent of reading and mathematics teachers
were very familiar with performance standards. The data for 2000, from the primary data source, are not
available.

Page 16 Goal 1, Objective 1.4

 Figure 1.4.a.1

Source: Teacher Quality Fast Response Survey (FRS).

Perecentage of Teachers Who “Feel Very Well Prepared to Frequency: Every 2 years. Next Update: 2001. Validation
Implement New, Higher Standards” procedure: Data validated by NCES’s review procedures
and NCES Statistical Standards. Limitations of data and
planned improvements: Indicator is based on teacher self-
100 % reported data. In addition, the exact question differed across
Percentage of Teachers

the two years of data collection: in 1996, teachers reported

80% how well prepared they were to implement “new, higher
standards”; in 1998, teachers reported how well prepared they
60% were to implement “state/district standards.” In 2000,
teachers reported how well prepared they were to implement
40 % “state/district standards.” This indicator is intended to be a
35 % 36 %
40%
G measure of teachers’ readiness to implement standards.
O However, in some cases, it may only measure whether a
20% A teacher is aware of the standards.
L
0%
199 6 199 8 200 0

Y ear

Indicator 1.4.b. By 2002, 75 percent of states will align initial teacher

certification standards with high content and student performance standards.
Assessment of Progress. According to data from the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support
Consortium (INTASC), in 1999, 19 states were in the process of aligning their initial teacher certification
standards with their content standards and performance standards for students. However, the Education
Department will not know fully if it is on track to achieve this goal until states’ self-reported baseline data
are submitted in October 2001 through the State Report Card on the Quality of Teacher Preparation;
thus, the data for 2000 are not available.

Source: State Report Card on the Quality of Teacher Preparation, as mandated in Sec. 207 of Title II. Frequency: Annual. Next Update:
October 2001. Validation procedure: State Report Card: Data validated by NCES and NCES Statistical Procedures; Independent review: Data
supplied by review panel; Data are corroborated by the Education Department's evaluation of state grantees’ activities and progress. Limitations
of data and planned improvements: There are several data limitations. First, currently there are no data sources that directly report whether
states are aligning initial teacher certification with student content and performance standards. A proxy data source is whether states have
adopted the standards established by the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC). INTASC includes the
alignment of teacher certification with student performance and content standards as one of its core standards. In October 2001, complete data on
this indicator will be available from the State Report Card.

Indicator 1.4.c. Throughout the Nation, the percentage of secondary school

teachers who have at least a minor in the subject they teach will increase
annually.
Assessment of Progress. Achievement of the goal is likely. The target was met for 1998. Between
1993-4 and 1998, increasing percentages of teachers in English, foreign language, math, and science have
a major or minor in their main teaching field. The percentage of English teachers with a major or minor
in English increased the most, by eight percentage points. The data for 2000 will not be available until
summer 2001.

Goal 1, Objective 1.4 Page 17

 Figure 1.4.c.1
Source: Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS); and
Percentage of Public School English and Science Teachers Teacher Quality Fast Response Survey (FRS).
of Grades 7 Through 12 Who Have a Major or Minor Frequency: SASS: Every six years; FRS: Every two
in Their Main Teaching Field years. Next Update: SASS: 2001; FRS: 2001.
Validation procedure: Data validated by NCES’s
96% 100% review procedures and NCES Statistical Standards.
100% 92%
93% 92%
90% 89%
86%
88% Limitations of data and planned improvements:
86% 87%
82% 82% Some teachers report that, although they may not have
78% 77%
Percentage of Teachers

80% a major or minor in their main teaching field, their

schools or districts require them to take additional
courses in their main teaching fields. Thus, in some
2000 GOAL

2000 GOAL

2000 GOAL

2000 GOAL

2000 GOAL
60%
cases, teachers who do not have a major or minor in
their subjects may be adequately prepared to teach in
1998

1994
1998

1994
1994

1994
1998

1994
1998

1998
40% those subject fields. In addition, these data do not
account for teachers who teach without a major or
minor in a field that is not their main teaching
20%
assignment.

0%
Eng/Lang Arts F oreign Social Studies Math Science
Language

M ain Teaching Field

Indicator 1.4.d. Increasing percentages of teachers will have weekly, common

planning periods or weekly collaborative meetings with other teachers to
improve curriculum, teacher knowledge, teaching skills, and student
performance.
Assessment of Progress. The Education Department is unable to judge progress for this indicator
because only 1998 baseline data are currently available. In 1998, 60 percent of teachers reported having
weekly common planning periods and 34 percent reported having regular collaborative meetings. Data for
2000 will be reported in summer 2001.

Figure 1.4.d.1

Sources: The Teacher Quality Fast Response Survey

P e r c e n t a g e o f T e a c h e r s w it h W e e k ly C o m m o n (FRS) and the Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS).
P la n n in g P e r io d s o r C o lla b o r a t iv e M e e tin g s o n Frequency: FRS: Every two years; SASS: Every six
I n s tr u c tio n a n d S tu d e n t P e r fo r m a n c e years. Next Update: FRS: 2001; SASS: 2001.
1 0 0 % Validation procedure: Data validated by NCES’s
review procedures and NCES Statistical Standards.
Limitations of data and planned improvements: The
8 0 % main source of data for this indicator is large-scale
P e r c e n ta g e o f

6 4 %
surveys of teachers; this kind of survey will not provide
6 0 % in-depth data on the quality, content, and productivity of
6 0 %
G this collaborative time. For example, in 1998, although
O G 60 percent of teachers indicated they had a common
A O planning period, it is possible that some of these planning
L
4 0 % 3 6 %
A 3 4 %
periods are short in duration and occur infrequently.
L G
G
O
O
2 0 %
A
A
L
L
0 %
C o m m o n P la n n in g R e g u la r C o lla b o r a t iv e
P e r io d M e e t in g
1998 2000 1998 2000
Y e a r

Page 18 Goal 1, Objective 1.4

Indicator 1.4.e. Increasing percentages of teachers will participate in a
formal, high-quality induction program during their first year of teaching.
Assessment of Progress. No baseline data are available. The first data report will be in summer 2001.
The future sources are listed below.

Source: Teacher Quality Fast Response Survey (FRS); Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS). Frequency: FRS: Every two years; SASS: Every
six years. Next Update: FRS 2001; SASS: 2001.

Indicator 1.4.f. The number of nationally board-certified teachers will

increase annually.
Assessment of Progress. The goal for 1999-2000 was exceeded. The National Board for
Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) establishes rigorous standards and assessments for certifying
accomplished teaching. The number of nationally board-certified teachers increased more than five-fold
between 1996-97 and 1998-99, from 912 to 4,799 teachers, and doubled again to 9,524 teachers in 1999-
2000. Forty states and 215 school districts now offer at least one incentive to candidates for National
Board certification, including fee support for candidates and salary increases for teachers who achieve
National Board certification. The data for 2000-2001 will not be available until fall 2001.

Figure 1.4.f.1

C u m u la tive N u m b er o f N atio n a lly B o a rd - Source: National Board for Professional Teaching

1 20 00 C ertif ied T ea ch ers Standards (NBPTS). Frequency: Annual. Next Update:
fall 2001. Validation procedure: Data supplied by
1 00 00 9 52 4 NBPTS. No formal verification or attestation procedure
applied. Limitations of data and planned
N um be r of Te ac he r

8 00 0
7 ,9 00 7 ,9 00 improvements: This indicator does not fully capture the
impact of the NBPTS. For example, the work of the
6 00 0
Board has influenced the development of teacher
4 ,7 99
G standards in states and districts and is currently bringing
O about changes in curriculum or program structure at
4 00 0
teacher-training programs across many states.
A
1 ,8 35
2 00 0 L
9 12

0
1 99 6-9 7 1 99 7-9 8 1 99 8-9 9 1 99 9-0 0 1 99 9-0 0 G o al

S ch o o l Y ea r

Indicator 1.4.g. There will be an increase in the percentage of new teachers

who feel very well prepared to (1) address the needs of students with limited
English proficiency; (2) address the needs of students with disabilities; and (3)
integrate educational technology into the grade or subject they teach.

Assessment of Progress. Unable to judge. The Education Department currently only has baseline data
from 1998, so it is not yet possible to measure whether or not there has been an increase. Data will be
available in summer 2001.

Goal 1, Objective 1.4 Page 19

 Figure 1.4.g.1

Percentage of New Full-time Public School Teachers Source: Teacher Quality Fast Response Survey (FRS).
Frequency: Every two years. Next Update: 2001.
Indicating They Feel “Very Well Prepared” in Challenge Validation procedure: Data validated by NCES review
Areas procedures and NCES Statistical Standards. Limitations
40% of data and planned improvements: The 1998 Fast
Response Survey asks teachers whether they are prepared
35% to address the needs of students with limited English
proficiency or those from diverse cultural backgrounds.
Percentage of Teachers

30% 28%
Therefore, it did not obtain separate measures for these two
25% 22% 24% different populations. The 2000 FRS will limit this
19% G question by asking how well prepared teachers are to
20% O
18%
G address the needs of students with limited English
15%
15% O G A proficiency only.
A O L
10%
L A
5% L
0%
Address the needs of LEP Address the needs of Integrate educational
students or those from students with disabilities technology
diverse cultural backgrounds

1998 2000 1998 2000 1998 2000

Indicator 1.4.h. Increasing numbers of states will require as part of the

process of certification and licensure of new teachers a performance-based
assessment of subject matter expertise and teaching skills.
Assessment of Progress. The Education Department is unable to judge progress. According to limited
1998 self-reported data submitted by states, two states—Connecticut and Ohio—require a performance
assessment of new teachers for initial certification and licensure. These performance assessments include
classroom observation, portfolio evaluation, or both. New more rigorous data will be available in 2001.

Source: State Report Card on the Quality of Teacher Preparation. Frequency: Annual. Next Update: October 2001. Validation procedure:
Data supplied by states using definitions and uniform reporting methods developed by NCES. Limitations of data and planned improvements:
Baseline data from the Initial Report are limited in three ways. First, the data provided are only those that states had readily available. Second,
there are no uniform definitions used by states in reporting information. Third, not all states submitted responses. These limitations will be
corrected in future reports, as states will be required to provide information in a timely and uniform manner.

Indicator 1.4.i. Increasing percentages of teachers will report that their

principal (a) has structured teachers’ workload so teachers have regularly
scheduled time to work together and (b) routinely engages the faculty in
conversations about how to improve instruction.
Assessment of Progress. The Education Department is unable to judge progress. Baseline data will be
available in 2001.

Source: Teacher Quality Fast Response Survey (FRS). Frequency: Every two years. Next Update: 2001. Validation procedure: Data
validated by NCES’s review and NCES Statistical Standards. Limitations of data and planned improvements: These data will be collected for
the first time in 2000.

Page 20 Goal 1, Objective 1.4