Available via license: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
A peer-reviewed scholarly journ
a
Editor: Gene V Glass
College of Education
Arizona State University
Copyright is retained by the first or sole author, who grants right of first publication to the
EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS ARCHIVES
.
EPAA
is a project of the Education Policy
Studies Laboratory.
Articles appearing in
EPAA
are abstracted in the Current Index to Journals in Education
by the ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation and are permanently archived
in Resources in Education.
PDF file of this article available:
This article has been retrieved times since September 17, 2003
Volume 11 Number 33 September 17, 2003 ISSN 1068-2341
Wanted: A National Teacher Supply Policy for Education:
The Right Way to Meet
The "Highly Qualified Teacher" Challenge
Linda Darling-Hammond
Stanford University
Gary Sykes
Michigan State University
Citation: Darling-Hammond, L.. and Sykes, G.. (2003, September 17). Wanted: A national teacher
supply policy for education: The right way to meet the "Highly Qualified Teacher" challenge?. Education
Policy Analysis Archives, 11(33). Retrieved [Date] from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n33/.
Abstract
Teacher quality is now the focus of unprecedented policy
analysis. To achieve its goals, the No Child Left Behind Act
(NCLB) requires a “highly qualified teacher” in all
classrooms. The concern with teacher quality has been
driven by a growing recognition, fueled by accumulating
research evidence, of how critical teachers are to student
learning. To acquire and retain high-quality teachers in our
Nation’s classrooms will require substantial policy change
at many levels. There exists longstanding precedent and
strong justification for Washington to create a major
Pa
g
e 1 of 57EPAA Vol. 11 No. 33 Darlin
g
-Hammond & S
y
kes: Wanted: A National Teacher Su
pp
l
y
...
9/16/2003htt
p
://e
p
aa.asu.edu/e
p
aa/v11n33
/
Recent policy developments have drawn unprecedented attention to issues of
teacher quality. To achieve its goals for improved school outcomes, the No Child
Left Behind Act (NCLB) requires a “highly qualified teacher” in all classrooms, as
well as better-prepared paraprofessionals and public reporting of staff qualifications.
The concern with teacher quality has been driven by a growing recognition, fueled
by accumulating research evidence, of how critical teachers are to student learning.
In this, policymakers have been catching up with parents, who have long believed
that teachers matter most. (Note 1)
To turn the NCLB mandate into a reality, however, the nation will have to overcome
serious labor market obstacles. For one, inequalities in school funding—along with
widely differing student needs and education costs—produce large differentials in
staff salaries and working conditions that affect the supply of teachers to different
schools. For another, teacher labor markets, although starting to change, have
been resolutely local. In many states, most teachers still teach in schools near
education manpower program. Qualified teachers are a
critical national resource that requires federal investment
and cross-state coordination as well as other state and local
action. NCLB provides a standard for equitable access to
teacher quality that is both reasonable and feasible.
Achieving this goal will require a new vision of the teacher
labor market and the framing of a national teacher supply
policy. States and local districts have vital roles to play in
ensuring a supply of highly qualified teachers; however,
they must be supported by appropriate national programs.
These programs should be modeled on U.S. medical
manpower efforts, which have long supplied doctors to
high- need communities and eased shortages in specific
health fields. We argue that teacher supply policy should
attract well-prepared teachers to districts that sorely need
them while relieving shortages in fields like special
education, math and the physical sciences. We study the
mal-distribution of teachers and examine its causes. We
describe examples of both states and local school districts
that have fashioned successful strategies for strengthening
their teaching forces. Unfortunately, highly successful state
and local program to meet the demand for qualified
teachers are the exception rather than the rule. They stand
out amid widespread use of under-prepared teachers and
untrained aides, mainly for disadvantaged children in
schools that suffer from poor working conditions,
inadequate pay and high teacher turnover. The federal
government has a critical role to play in enhancing the
supply of qualified teachers targeted to high-need fields and
locations, improving retention of qualified teachers,
especially in hard-to-staff schools, and in creating a national
labor market by removing interstate barriers to mobility.
(Note 0).
Pa
g
e 2 of 57EPAA Vol. 11 No. 33 Darlin
g
-Hammond & S
y
kes: Wanted: A National Teacher Su
pp
l
y
...
9/16/2003htt
p
://e
p
aa.asu.edu/e
p
aa/v11n33
/
where they grew up or went to college (Boyd et al, 2003). These factors, together
with other labor market conditions, have meant that some schools traditionally have
been “hard to staff.” The hardest-hit schools chiefly serve poor, minority and low-
achieving children—the same children whose learning must increase significantly if
the central NCLB goal of closing the achievement gap between advantaged and
disadvantaged pupils is to be accomplished. To get and keep high-quality teachers
in these children’s classrooms will require substantial policy change at all levels.
While more extensive federal roles in curriculum, testing and school choice are
hotly contested, there is longstanding precedent and strong justification for
Washington to create a major education manpower program. As in other key
professions such as medicine, where the national government has long provided
vital support for training and distributing doctors in shortage areas, the ability of
schools to attract and retain well-trained teachers is often a function of forces
beyond their boundaries. But without well-qualified teachers for schools with the
neediest students, it will be impossible for them to make the progress on
achievement in reading and mathematics that NCLB demands.
In that case, we would continue the historic pattern of failed federal education
programs, in which low-income, disabled, language minority and other vulnerable
students are taught by the least qualified teachers and untrained aides, rather than
the skilled practitioners envisioned by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
and other national laws. The very purpose of these multibillion-dollar programs—to
ensure equal education opportunity for the disadvantaged—has long been
undermined by local inability or unwillingness to provide teachers capable of
meeting the pupils’ needs.
As the importance of well-qualified teachers for student achievement has become
increasingly clear, this source of inequality has become more and more difficult to
j
ustify or ignore. On both equity and adequacy grounds, qualified teachers comprise
a critical national resource that requires federal investment and cross-state
coordination as well as other state and local action. No Child Left Behind provides a
standard for equitable access to teacher quality that is both reasonable and
feasible. Meeting this goal, however, calls for a new vision of the teacher labor
market and development of a national teacher supply policy.
Understanding the Problems
To make headway on this agenda, it is essential to alter popular misunderstandings
about teacher issues. For example:
z
The hiring of unqualified teachers is generally a result of distributional
inequities, rather than overall shortages of qualified individuals.
Contrary
to what some believe, the United States does not face an overall shortage of
qualified teachers. While some schools
have dozens of qualified applicants
for each position
, others—mostly those with poor and minority pupils—suffer
from shortfalls, a mismatch that stems from an array of factors. They range
from disparities in pay and working conditions, interstate barriers to teacher
mobility and inadequate recruitment incentives to bureaucratic hiring systems
Pa
g
e 3 of 57EPAA Vol. 11 No. 33 Darlin
g
-Hammond & S
y
kes: Wanted: A National Teacher Su
pp
l
y
...
9/16/2003htt
p
://e
p
aa.asu.edu/e
p
aa/v11n33
/
that discourage qualified applicants, transfer policies that can slow hiring and
allocate staff inequitably, and financial incentives to hire cheaper, less
qualified teachers.
z
Retaining teachers is a far larger problem than training new ones—and a
key to solving teacher “shortages.”
In the years ahead, the chief problem
will not be producing more new teachers, as many seem to believe. The main
problem is an exodus of new teachers from the profession, with more than
30% leaving within five years. This, too, chiefly hurts low-income schools,
which suffer from turnover rates as much as 50% higher than affluent schools
(Ingersoll, 2001, p. 516). Such churning, which results in a constant influx of
inexperienced teachers, is caused largely by insufficient preparation and
support of new teachers, poor working conditions and uncompetitive salaries.
z
While the nation actually produces far more new teachers than it needs,
some specific teaching fields do experience shortages.
These include
teachers for children with disabilities and those with limited English proficiency
as well as teachers of mathematics and physical science, two of the three
subjects in which NCLB mandates student exams. Increasing supply in the
few fields with shortfalls requires both targeted recruitment and helping
preparatory institutions expand programs to meet select national needs.
To address these problems, we need to recognize that while teacher supply and
demand historically have been local affairs, states and districts alone have been
unable to solve these problems. Teacher issues increasingly are national in origin
and consequences. While we should be mindful of the vital roles and prerogatives
of states and localities, they need to be supported by appropriate national
programs. These programs, we argue, should be modeled in good measure on U.S.
medical manpower efforts, which have long supplied doctors to high-need
communities and eased shortages in specific health fields. Similarly, teacher supply
policy should help induce well-prepared teachers into districts that sorely need
them—and enable them to succeed and stay there—while relieving shortages in
fields like special education, math and physical science. It also should help stem
departures of new teachers, which cost the nation billions of dollars a year. Indeed,
the cost of the new programs could be entirely sustained by savings incurred by
reducing teacher turnover.
The Alternative: Lowering Teacher Standards
The alternative to such policies is to lower standards for teacher knowledge and
skills, through either continued emergency hiring or “quick-fix” programs that send
people into difficult classrooms with little training in how to teach or deal with
children. This has been the usual answer to teacher shortages, with unhappy
results over the better part of a century. There are, fortunately, a growing number of
new and rigorous alternate-certification programs based on careful selection,
purposeful preparation, and intensive mentoring and practice teaching that are
successful in preparing mid- career recruits from other fields. There is evidence that
graduates of such programs feel confident about their teaching, are viewed as
successful with children, and intend to stay in teaching (e.g. National Commission
Pa
g
e 4 of 57EPAA Vol. 11 No. 33 Darlin
g
-Hammond & S
y
kes: Wanted: A National Teacher Su
pp
l
y
...
9/16/2003htt
p
://e
p
aa.asu.edu/e
p
aa/v11n33
/
on Teaching and America’s Future [NCTAF], 1996, p. 93; Miller, McKenna, &
McKenna, 1998; Darling-Hammond, Kirby, & Hudson, 1989). We endorse these
approaches.
However, we believe the evidence is clear that shortcut versions—those providing
little training and meager support for new teachers—fail to prepare teachers to
succeed or to stay, thus adding to the revolving door of ill-prepared individuals who
cycle through the classrooms of disadvantaged schools, wasting district resources
and valuable learning time for their students. Unfortunately, as some states develop
plans to implement NCLB, they are including entrants into these programs (even
before they have completed their modest training) in their definitions of “highly
qualified” teachers.
The evidence to date provides cause for concern about this approach. For example,
alternate-route teachers whose training lasts just weeks before they take over
classes quit the field at high rates. Recent studies have documented such
outcomes for recruits from the Massachusetts MINT program, nearly half of whom
had left teaching within three years (Fowler, 2002) and the Teach for America
program, an average of 80% of whom had left their teaching jobs in Houston,
Texas, after two years (Raymond, Fletcher, & Luque, 2001). Analyses of national
data show that individuals who enter teaching without student teaching (which
these programs generally omit) leave teaching at rates twice as high as those who
have had such practice teaching (Henke et al., 2000; NCTAF, 2003). Those who
enter teaching without preparation in key areas such as instructional methods, child
development and learning theory also leave at rates at least double those who have
had such training (NCTAF, 2003, p. 84).
It is not hard to fathom why such teachers swiftly disappear. A former investment
banking analyst, for example, tells of the “grim” circumstances she faced in a New
York City elementary school, scarcely trained, unsupported, and realizing that “a
strong academic background and years in an office are not preparation for
teaching.” Enthusiasm does not compensate for inexperience, she found, and
teacher turnover is “so high that a school’s ‘veteran’ teachers have frequently been
around only three years, which makes it hard for new teachers to find experienced
mentors.” She quit after a year, part of the problem, not the solution. (Mehlman,
2002).
Despite this, the push to lower teacher standards, especially through quick-fix
programs or back-door entry paths that skirt preparation, has strong adherents.
These include some with influence in the U.S. Department of Education, as
evidenced by the Secretary of Education’s report to Congress on teacher quality.
Called Meeting the Highly Qualified Teachers Challenge (U.S. Department of
Education, 2002), the report is highly critical of teacher education, viewing
certification requirements (Note 2) as a “broken system” and urging that attendance
at schools of education, coursework in education and student teaching become
“optional” (p. 19). By contrast, it regards alternate-route programs—especially those
that eliminate most education coursework, student teaching and “other bureaucratic
hurdles”—as the model option, getting teachers into classrooms on what it calls a
“fast- track” basis. The report’s prescription is for states to redefine teacher
Pa
g
e 5 of 57EPAA Vol. 11 No. 33 Darlin
g
-Hammond & S
y
kes: Wanted: A National Teacher Su
pp
l
y
...
9/16/2003htt
p
://e
p
aa.asu.edu/e
p
aa/v11n33
/
certification to stress content knowledge and verbal ability and to de-emphasize
knowledge of how to instruct, assess, motivate or manage pupils.
The problem is not only that the report ignores and misrepresents research
evidence, as has been documented in detail elsewhere. (Note 3) It is also that,
together with other signals from Washington, it raises questions about how the
Department of Education will enforce the requirement for all teachers to be highly
qualified by the end of the 2005-2006 school year. “Highly qualified,” according to
NCLB, means that all teachers “must be fully licensed or certified by the state and
must not have had any certification or licensure requirements waived on an
emergency, temporary, or provisional basis.” Teachers also must demonstrate
subject matter competence (Title IX, Part A, Sec. 9101).
Now, however, the department appears to be signaling that states can comply in
ways that dilute or undercut the law’s standard. The statute permits “highly
qualified” teachers to obtain full certification through traditional or alternative routes.
However, the final regulations indicate that the department will accept state plans
that designate as “highly qualified” those who have simply enrolled in alternative-
certification programs, even if they have not completed them, demonstrated an
ability to teach, or met the state’s standards for a professional license. Such
teachers may “assume the functions of a teacher” for up to three years without
having received full certification and be considered “highly qualified.” (Note 4) The
department’s comments on the final regulations make a point of noting that
teachers in alternative routes to certification are to be considered an exception to
the requirement that “highly qualified” teachers may not have had certification
requirements “waived on an emergency, provisional, or temporary basis.” (Note 5)
The comments further suggest that “these alternative routes can also serve as
models for the certification system as a whole.” (Note 6)
Some states are proposing to meet NCLB requirements by lowering certification
standards even further. For example, bills introduced in the 2002-2003 legislative
sessions in Texas, Florida and California would allow candidates who have no
preparation to teach to be certified so long as they have a bachelor’s degree and
pass a state test. In pressing for the Texas bill, (Note 7) the state comptroller
argued that Texas should eliminate teacher education entirely from certification
requirements, citing as her primary supporting evidence the Secretary of
Education’s report to Congress and speeches at a conference sponsored by the
department (Strayhorn, 2003). The department, moreover, has signaled that it
would welcome this further lowering of the bar on teacher standards.
Such interpretations of NCLB involve a sleight of hand on teacher qualifications. If
certification requirements are redesigned to require less stringent standards than at
present, meeting such standards will be an even poorer guarantee of teacher
quality than what already exists. If some traditional teacher education programs
have their flaws, essentially unregulated alternate-route programs lie almost
completely beyond careful scrutiny. At this juncture in our history, encouraging the
proliferation of untested alternatives raises the specter of a legally sanctioned, two-
tiered staffing system. Schools that cannot afford competitive salaries, that cannot
provide attractive working conditions, and that educate the most needy students will
Pa
g
e 6 of 57EPAA Vol. 11 No. 33 Darlin
g
-Hammond & S
y
kes: Wanted: A National Teacher Su
pp
l
y
...
9/16/2003htt
p
://e
p
aa.asu.edu/e
p
aa/v11n33
/
be staffed via untested alternate programs, while more advantaged schools will
continue to recruit teachers with extended professional education. This certainly is
not the intent of NCLB, but it could well be the result.
As we describe below, there is no research support for this approach. There is
evidence, however, that it would reduce teacher effectiveness and contribute to
teacher attrition. The chief victims would be the most vulnerable children in the
hardest-to-staff schools, where underprepared teachers commonly work during
their initial teaching years, before they meet licensing standards or leave the
profession. This would extend the historic pattern of shortchanging disadvantaged
students, even as evidence mounts that teacher quality is critical to student
achievement. To cite just one of many studies, a 1991 analysis of 900 Texas school
districts (Ferguson 1991) found that combined measures of teacher expertise—
scores on a licensing examination, master’s degrees and experience—accounted
for more of the interdistrict difference in students’ reading and mathematics
achievement in grades 1 through 11 than any other factor, including students’ family
income. The effects were so strong and the variations in teacher quality so great
that after controlling for socioeconomic status, the large disparities in achievement
between black and white students were almost entirely accounted for by differences
in teacher qualifications.
On the central importance of teachers there is, in fact, little disagreement, even
among advocates for eased entry requirements. For example, the Thomas B.
Fordham Foundation states, “The research shows that great teachers are the most
important ingredients in any school. Smart, caring teachers can help their students
overcome background problems like poverty and limited English proficiency.” (Note
8) However, putting teachers with less preparation in classrooms for the neediest
children will not provide equal opportunity or an adequate education. The far better
strategy, we believe, is to craft a national teacher supply policy to ensure that well-
prepared teachers are available to high-need districts, to produce more teachers in
shortage fields, and to stem high teacher attrition rates. Even with such a system, of
course, most decisions on teachers would remain the domain of state and local
school officials, some of whom, as we shall see, have made important strides
toward filling their classrooms with high-quality teachers—in part by doing exactly
the opposite of what advocates for shortcuts recommend.
A Compelling State Interest
Those urging few certification requirements want to shift more decisions away from
the states and to the local level. But states have a compelling interest in setting
meaningful teacher standards. Murnane and colleagues (1991) note, for example,
that traditional economic assumptions about consumer competence, priorities,
knowledge, and information do not always hold with respect to teacher hiring, that
“…some local districts (the purchasers of teachers’ services) are underfunded,
incompetent, or have priorities that the state finds unacceptable” (p. 94). If poor
information were the only problem, then states could concentrate on requiring tests
and other measures of the “right stuff,” however defined. Local districts could then
select based on scores and other information. However, if some local districts are
likely to hire teachers whom the state finds unacceptable, then simple information
Pa
g
e 7 of 57EPAA Vol. 11 No. 33 Darlin
g
-Hammond & S
y
kes: Wanted: A National Teacher Su
pp
l
y
...
9/16/2003htt
p
://e
p
aa.asu.edu/e
p
aa/v11n33
/
alone will not solve this problem. The consequences of poor choices are not only
local:
States are concerned because equal opportunity is threatened when incompetent
teachers are hired, and the costs of inadequate education are borne not only by the
children themselves, but also by the larger society. Dimensions of these costs
include a lower rate of economic growth, higher incidence of welfare, greater crime
rates, and higher unemployment rates (p. 95).
Economist Henry Levin (1980) makes a similar point:
[T]he facts that we expect the schools to provide benefits to society that
go beyond the sum of those conferred upon individual students, that it is
difficult for many students and their parents to judge certain aspects of
teacher proficiency, and that teachers cannot be instantaneously
dismissed, mean that somehow the state must be concerned about the
quality of teaching. It cannot be left only to the individual judgments of
students and their parents or the educational administrators who are
vested with managing the schools in behalf of society. The purpose of
certification of teachers and accreditation of the programs in which they
received their training is to provide information on whether teachers
possess the minimum proficiencies that are required from the teaching
function (p. 7).
Without strong, meaningful, and well-enforced certification requirements, not only
will districts lack important information about candidates, but parents also will lack
important safeguards regarding those entrusted with their children. In addition,
states will lack the policy tools needed to encourage improvements in training and
to equalize access to the key educational resource of well-prepared teachers.
To demonstrate why combining a national teacher supply program with state and
local reform is the wiser way to meet the “highly qualified” teacher challenge, we
examine the evidence on five issues:
z The kinds of teacher preparation that make a difference for student
achievement.
z The evidence on alternative routes to certification.
z The current workings of the teacher labor market.
z
The factors influencing teacher distribution.
z The steps some states and districts have been taking to ensure teacher
quality.
We then turn to the elements of a national teacher supply policy for education.
I. What Preparation Makes a Difference in Student Learning?
There is wide agreement on some teacher attributes that appear to be related to
teacher effectiveness and student learning. For example, virtually everyone
acknowledges the importance of teachers’ verbal ability and knowledge in the
Pa
g
e 8 of 57EPAA Vol. 11 No. 33 Darlin
g
-Hammond & S
y
kes: Wanted: A National Teacher Su
pp
l
y
...
9/16/2003htt
p
://e
p
aa.asu.edu/e
p
aa/v11n33
/
subjects taught. Those qualities, along with a liberal arts grounding, are at the heart
of most state certification processes, which began requiring tests and coursework to
assure competence in these areas in the early 1980s. These qualities are also
central to the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards’ voluntary
certification process and other efforts to strengthen teacher education and
professional development. The fact that alternative-certification advocates focus
intently on such skills can only be welcomed. The problem is that these advocates
very nearly stop there, as if little else mattered. Common sense and research
evidence, however, tell us otherwise.
The Importance of Knowing How to Teach
Research shows that beyond verbal skills, subject matter knowledge and academic
ability, teachers’ professional knowledge and experience also make an important
difference in student learning. Many other characteristics also matter for good
teaching—enthusiasm, flexibility, perseverance, concern for children—and many
specific teaching practices make a difference for learning (see e.g., Good & Brophy,
1995). The evidence suggests, in fact, that the strongest guarantee of teacher
effectiveness is a combination of all these elements. (For reviews, see Darling-
Hammond, 2000a; Wilson, Floden, & Ferrini-Mundy, 2001). It is this combination
that most licensure processes seek to encourage, through requirements for
courses, tests, student teaching and the demonstration of specific proficiencies.
Much of the research debate about what factors matter is due to the fact that few
large-scale databases allow a comprehensive set of high- quality measures to be
examined at once. Estimates of the relationships between particular teacher
characteristics and student learning vary from study to study, depending on what
factors are examined and when and where the study was conducted. Moreover,
many variables that reflect teacher quality are highly correlated with one another.
For example, teachers’ education levels typically are correlated with age,
experience and general academic ability. Similarly, licensure status is often
correlated with academic skills, content background, education training and
experience.
Studies linking teacher scores on tests of academic ability to student achievement
(e.g. Coleman, et al., 1966; Ferguson & Ladd, 1996; Hanushek, 1992, 1996) have
led some analysts to suggest that general academic or verbal ability are the primary
measurable predictors of teacher quality. However, these studies typically have
lacked other measures of teachers’ preparation (for discussions, see Murnane,
1983; Wayne & Youngs, in press). When studies have looked directly at teachers’
knowledge of both subject matter and how to teach, they have found that knowing
how to teach also has strong effects on student achievement. Indeed, such studies
show that knowledge of teaching is as important as knowledge of content (Begle,
1979; Monk, 1994; Wenglinsky, 2000).
For example, based on national survey data for 2,829 students, Monk (1994) found,
not surprisingly, that teachers’ content preparation, as measured by coursework in
the subject field, was often positively related to student achievement in math and
science. But courses in such subjects as methods of teaching math or science also
Pa
g
e 9 of 57EPAA Vol. 11 No. 33 Darlin
g
-Hammond & S
y
kes: Wanted: A National Teacher Su
pp
l
y
...
9/16/2003htt
p
://e
p
aa.asu.edu/e
p
aa/v11n33
/
had a positive effect on student learning at each grade level in both fields. For
math, in fact, these teaching-method courses sometimes had “more powerful
effects than additional preparation in the content area” (p. 142). Monk concluded
that “a good grasp of one’s subject area is a necessary but not a sufficient condition
for effective teaching” (p. 142).
Wenglinsky (2002) looked at how math and science achievement levels of more
than 7,000 8th graders on the 1996 National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP) were related to measures of teaching quality, teacher characteristics and
student social class background. He found that student achievement was
influenced by both teacher content background (such as a major or minor in math
or math education) and teacher education or professional development coursework,
particularly in how to work with diverse student populations (including limited-
English-proficient students and students with special needs). Measures of teaching
practices, which had the strongest effects on achievement, were related to
teachers’ training: Students performed better when teachers provided hands-on
learning opportunities and focused on higher-order thinking skills. These practices
were, in turn, related to training they had received in developing thinking skills,
developing laboratory skills and having students work with real-world problems. The
cumulative effect of the combined teacher quality measures, in fact, outweighed the
effect of socioeconomic background on student achievement.
Teacher Certification and Student Learning
Since teacher certification or licensure has come in for criticism, we should look
more closely at this factor. Although some analysts view licensure—or the teaching
preparation that has typically been one of its major components—as unnecessary,
the preponderance of evidence indicates that it, too, is associated with teacher
effectiveness. Indeed, studies using national and state data sets have shown
significant links between teacher education and licensure measures (including
education coursework, credential status and scores on licensure tests) and student
achievement. These relationships have been found at the level of the individual
teacher (e.g., Goldhaber & Brewer, 2000; Hawk, Coble, & Swanson, 1985; Monk,
1994); the school (Betts, Reuben, & Danenberg, 2000; Fetler, 1999; Fuller, 1998,
2000; Goe, 2002); the school district (Ferguson, 1991; Strauss & Sawyer, 1986),
and the state (Darling-Hammond, 2000a). The multi- level findings reinforce the
inferences that might be drawn from any single study.
Goldhaber and Brewer (2000) concluded, for example, that the effects of teachers’
certification on student achievement exceed those of a content major in the field,
suggesting that what licensed teachers learn in the pedagogical portion of their
training adds to what they gain from a strong subject matter background:
[We] find that the type (standard, emergency, etc.) of certification a teacher holds is
an important determinant of student outcomes. In mathematics, we find the
students of teachers who are either not certified in their subject…or hold a private
school certification do less well than students whose teachers hold a standard,
probationary, or emergency certification in math. Roughly speaking, having a
teacher with a standard certification in mathematics rather than a private school
Pa
g
e 10 of 57EPAA Vol. 11 No. 33 Darlin
g
-Hammond & S
y
kes: Wanted: A National Teacher Su
pp
l...
9/16/2003htt
p
://e
p
aa.asu.edu/e
p
aa/v11n33
/
certification or a certification out of subject results in at least a 1.3 point increase in
the mathematics test. This is equivalent to about 10% of the standard deviation on
the 12th grade test, a little more than the impact of having a teacher with a BA and
MA in mathematics (emphasis added). Though the effects are not as strong in
magnitude or statistical significance, the pattern of results in science mimics that in
mathematics (p. 139).
In this study, beginning teachers on probationary certificates (those who were fully
prepared and completing their initial 2- to 3- year probationary period) from states
with more rigorous certification exam requirements had positive effects on student
achievement, suggesting the value of recent reforms to strengthen certification.
(Note 9)
Similarly, a number of studies from states with large numbers of underprepared
teachers have found strong effects of certification on student achievement.
California is a case in point. There, three recent school-level studies found
significant negative relationships between the percentage of teachers on
emergency permits and student scores on state exams (Betts, Rueben, &
Dannenberg, 2000; Fetler, 1999; Goe, 2002). Similarly, Fuller (1998, 2000) found
that students in Texas schools with smaller proportions of certified teachers were
significantly less likely to pass the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS),
after controlling for students’ socioeconomic status and teacher experience.
This and other evidence suggests that it is a mistake to believe that one or two
characteristics of teachers can explain their effects on student achievement. The
message from the research is that multiple factors are involved and that teachers
with a combination of attributes—knowing how to instruct, motivate, manage and
assess diverse students, strong verbal ability, sound subject matter, and knowledge
of effective methods for teaching that subject matter—hold the greatest promise for
producing student learning. Those aspects of preparation that enable teachers to
teach students with the greatest educational needs are, of course, most needed for
teachers who will work with such children, a point that advocates of reduced
standards for teachers in hard-to-staff schools (which serve these children) seem to
miss. States and local districts should be pursuing fully prepared teachers,
especially for the neediest students. They are the teachers whose training includes
all of the attributes intended by the NCLB “highly qualified” definition.
II.The Evidence on Alternate Routes to Certification
The evidence on alternate-route programs is consistent with the research described
above: In general, efforts that include a comprehensive program of education
coursework and intensive mentoring have been found to produce more positive
evaluations of candidate performance than models that forgo most of this
coursework and supervised support.
Just as a quality distribution exists for conventional programs of teacher education,
so there appears to be an even wider quality distribution for alternate programs
(Darling-Hammond, Chung, & Frelow, 2002). At one end of the spectrum is a state
alternative- certification program in New Hampshire that provides little structure or
Pa
g
e 11 of 57EPAA Vol. 11 No. 33 Darlin
g
-Hammond & S
y
kes: Wanted: A National Teacher Su
pp
l...
9/16/2003htt
p
://e
p
aa.asu.edu/e
p
aa/v11n33
/
support. Candidates take “full responsibility for students prior to any preparation,
and [have] three years to acquire 14 state- identified competencies through
workshops or college courses” (Jelmberg, 1996, p.61). A study found that these
alternate-route teachers were rated significantly lower than traditional teachers on
instructional skills and instructional planning by their principals, and they rated their
own preparation significantly lower than did traditionally certified teachers.
Some programs impart more systematic training and support. In a 1992 study of
Connecticut’s alternative-certification program—whose two-year training model
provided “a significantly longer period of training than in any other alternate- route
program” at the time (Bliss, 1992, p. 52)—supervisors gave mixed reviews of
recruits’ performance. Weaknesses were noted in relation to other teachers in
terms of classroom management, but some strengths were found in teaching skills.
A study of the Los Angeles Teacher Trainee Program, another two-year training
model, also produced mixed results: University-trained English teachers were rated
as more skillful than alternate-route (intern) teachers, while the levels of skill
appeared more comparable but lower overall for math teachers from both groups
(Stoddart, 1992).
In California, the Commission on Teacher Credentialing has worked to overcome
shortcomings found in many local internship programs (McKibbin, 1998). A recent
study of California State University teacher education graduates, however, found
that those who prepared to teach after having entered teaching through emergency
routes or internships felt less well prepared than those who had experienced a
coherent program of pre-service preparation, and they also were perceived as less
competent by their supervisors (California State University, 2002a; 2002b). A recent
study by Stanford Research International echoed these concerns:
Principals reported that interns were less well prepared than fully credentialed
recent hires in terms of their subject matter knowledge, their knowledge of
instructional and assessment techniques, and their ability to teach basic skills to a
diverse student population (Shields et al., 2001, p. 37).
The Dallas Schools’ alternative-certification program provides summer training and
then places recruits in mentored internships during the school year while they
complete other coursework. In a study of this program, supervisors’ perceptions of
recruits were positive for the 54% who completed the intern year without dropping
out or being held back due to “deficiencies” in one or more areas of performance
(Lutz & Hutton, 1989). The study also reported data from an evaluation of the
program by the Texas Education Agency (Mitchell, 1987), which surveyed
principals, finding that:
The principals rated the [traditionally trained] beginning teachers as more
knowledgeable than the AC interns on the eight program variables: reading,
discipline management, classroom organization, planning, essential elements, ESL
methodology, instructional techniques, and instructional models. The ratings of the
AC interns on nine other areas of knowledge typically included in teacher
preparation programs were slightly below average in seven areas compared with
those of beginning teachers (Lutz & Hutton, 1989, p. 250).
Pa
g
e 12 of 57EPAA Vol. 11 No. 33 Darlin
g
-Hammond & S
y
kes: Wanted: A National Teacher Su
pp
l...
9/16/2003htt
p
://e
p
aa.asu.edu/e
p
aa/v11n33
/
Only two controlled studies of student achievement outcomes of alternate-route and
traditionally trained teachers have been reported, again with mixed results. One,
examining data from the Dallas program noted above, found that students of
traditionally prepared teachers experienced significantly larger gains in language
arts than those of alternate-route teachers (Gomez & Grobe, 1990). The other,
using data from a well-designed program with strong pedagogical preparation and
mentoring, found student outcomes comparable across the two groups (Miller,
McKenna, & McKenna, 1998). This study focused on a university-sponsored
program that provided 15 to 25 credit hours of coursework before interns entered
classrooms. There they were intensively supervised and assisted by university
personnel and school- based mentors while they completed additional coursework
needed to meet full state licensure requirements. Because this design is so different
from the many quick-entry, alternate-route programs, Miller, McKenna and
McKenna (ibid) concluded that their studies
. . . provide no solace for those who believe that anyone with a
bachelor’s degree can be placed in a classroom and expect to be
equally successful as those having completed traditional education
programs . . . The three studies reported here support carefully
constructed AC programs with extensive mentoring components, post-
graduation training, regular in-service classes, and ongoing university
supervision (p.174).
One other program often cited in reference to alternative certification is Teach for
America, although TFA is a recruiting program rather than an alternative-
certification program. After controlling for teacher experience and school and
classroom demographics, one study found that TFA recruits in Houston were about
as effective as other inexperienced teachers in schools and classrooms serving
high percentages of minority and low-income students, which is where most
underqualified teachers in the district are placed (Raymond et al., 2001). In 1999-
2000, the last year covered by the study sample, about 50% of Houston’s new
teachers were uncertified, and the researchers reported that 35% of new hires
lacked even a bachelor’s degree, so TFA teachers were compared to an
extraordinarily ill-prepared group. Raymond and colleagues did not report how TFA
teachers’ outcomes compare to those of trained and certified teachers. However, a
separate study in Arizona that examined this question found that students of TFA
teachers did significantly less well than those of certified beginning teachers on
math, reading and language arts tests (Laczko-Kerr & Berliner, 2002).
Ideally, we would like to know more about the effectiveness of different kinds of
alternate-route programs. Although the research is not definitive (see Wilson,
Floden, & Ferrini-Mundy, 2001 for one synthesis, SRI International, 2002, for
another), most studies to date tend to support more extensive training over
speeding recruits into classrooms with little preparation or support.
Given the evidence suggesting the importance of the preparation intended by
NCLB, the question is whether it is possible for states to comply in the face of what
appear to be substantial teacher shortages in some places? The evidence suggests
that states can indeed comply—with targeted policies that better organize and more
Pa
g
e 13 of 57EPAA Vol. 11 No. 33 Darlin
g
-Hammond & S
y
kes: Wanted: A National Teacher Su
pp
l...
9/16/2003htt
p
://e
p
aa.asu.edu/e
p
aa/v11n33
/
equitably distribute their own teaching force, supplemented with a national system
that, among other things, works to correct the maldistribution of well-qualified
teachers.
III. The Teacher Labor Market
To understand how teachers become so inequitably distributed, we need to
examine how teacher supply and demand operate, what causes teacher attrition,
and why there are teacher shortages in particular fields. We will then look at the
chief causes of the inequitable distributions that are the target of No Child Left
Behind.
More Supply Than Demand.
The nation currently is in the midst of a teacher hiring
surge that began in the early 1990s. Annual demand recently has averaged about
230,000 teachers—demand that can easily be met with existing well-prepared
teachers from our three main supply sources. Only one of these sources is newly
prepared teachers, who generally constitute no more than half the teachers hired in
a given year. (Note 10) In 1999, for example, when U.S. schools hired 232,000
teachers who had not taught the previous year, fewer than 40% (about 85,000) had
graduated from college the year before. About 80,000 were from the second
source—re-entrants from the reserve pool of former teachers (NCTAF, 2003). (Note
11) Of the remaining 67,000, most were from the third source—delayed entrants
who had prepared to teach in college but who had taken time off to travel, study,
work in another field or start a family. (Note 12)
In the aggregate, worries about preparing many more new teachers to meet
demand are misplaced. As a nation, we produce many more new teachers than the
100,000 or fewer that are needed annually. In 2000, for example, the 603
institutions counted in the AACTE/NCATE joint data system—representing about
half of all teacher training institutions and about three-quarters of teachers in
training—reported 123,000 individuals who completed programs that led to initial
teaching certification. So the newly prepared pool that year was well above
160,000, (Note 13) before counting those who entered teaching through alternative
pathways that were not university-based. (Note 14) (see Figure 1). Overall,
according to the U.S. Census Bureau, more than 6 million people in the nation held
a bachelor’s degree in education in 1993. This represented only a fraction of the
credentialed teacher pool, since most teachers now enter teaching with a major in a
disciplinary field plus a credential or master’s degree in education. So excluding the
2.5 million active teachers at that time, more than 4 million people were prepared to
teach but were not doing so.
If we have no overall “shortage” of individuals prepared to teach, why are there so
many unqualified teachers in some states and cities? What we do have is a
maldistribution of teachers, with surpluses in some areas and shortfalls in others. In
2000, for example, there were surpluses of teachers in most fields in the Northwest,
the Mid-Atlantic and much of the South but shortages in the far West, the Rocky
Mountain States, and Alaska (American Association for Employment in Education,
2000). With slowed employment in other sectors of the economy during 2002 and
teacher salary hikes in some places that had previously had hiring problems,
Pa
g
e 14 of 57EPAA Vol. 11 No. 33 Darlin
g
-Hammond & S
y
kes: Wanted: A National Teacher Su
pp
l...
9/16/2003htt
p
://e
p
aa.asu.edu/e
p
aa/v11n33
/
newspapers across the country carried stories of shortages being resolved (see,
e.g. Gormley, 2003; Zhao, 2002). In some growing areas, enrollment increases will
likely continue to create hiring pressures, while enrollment declines promise to
expand teacher surpluses elsewhere. By 2007, for example, enrollments are
projected to climb by more than 20% in California and Nevada while shrinking in
most parts of the Northeast and Midwest. But enrollment levels are not the central
problem.
The Exodus of Beginning Teachers.
A much larger challenge than preparing new
teachers is retaining existing teachers. Since the early 1990s, the annual outflow
from teaching has surpassed the annual influx by increasingly large margins,
straining the nation’s hiring systems. While schools hired 232,000 teachers in 1999,
for example, 287,000 teachers left the profession that year (see Figure 2).
Retirements make up a small part of this attrition. Only 14% of teachers who left in
1994-1995 listed retirement as their primary reason (Ingersoll, 2001). More than
half left to take other jobs and/or because they were dissatisfied with teaching.
Especially for hard-to- staff schools, the largest exodus is by newer teachers who
are dissatisfied with working conditions or have had insufficient preparation for what
they face in classrooms (Ingersoll, 2001; Henke, et al., 2000).
Pa
g
e 15 of 57EPAA Vol. 11 No. 33 Darlin
g
-Hammond & S
y
kes: Wanted: A National Teacher Su
pp
l...
9/16/2003htt
p
://e
p
aa.asu.edu/e
p
aa/v11n33
/
The early exodus of teachers from the profession has been a longstanding problem.
Studies indicate that as many as 20% of new teachers may leave teaching after
three years and that closer to 30% quit after five years. (Note 15) Departure rates
for individual schools and districts run higher, as they include both “movers,” who
leave one school or district for another, as well as “leavers,” who exit the profession
temporarily or permanently. Together, movers and leavers particularly affect
schools serving poor and minority students. Teacher turnover is 50% higher in high-
poverty schools than in more affluent ones (Ingersoll, 2001, p. 516), and new
teachers in urban districts exit or transfer at higher rates than suburban
counterparts (Hanushek, Kain, & Rivkin, 1999). In addition, teachers quit schools
serving low-performing students at much higher rates than they quit successful
schools (Hanushek, Kain & Rivkin, 1999, p. 15). As a result, these schools are often
staffed disproportionately with inexperienced as well as ill-prepared teachers.
The costs of early departures from teaching are immense, as evidenced by a recent
study in Texas that employed different models to estimate the costs of teacher
turnover. Based on the state’s current turnover rate of 15.5%, which includes more
than 40% of beginning teachers quitting the field in their first three years, the study
found that, “Texas is losing between $329 million and $2.1 billion per year,
depending on the industry cost model that is used” (Benner, 2000, p. 2). This
represents between $8,000 and $48,000 for each beginning teacher who leaves.
The larger figure, truly a staggering number, stems from a model that includes
separation costs, replacement or hiring costs, training costs, and learning-curve
loss. Using even the lowest estimate for this one state, however, it is clear that early
attrition from teaching costs the nation billions of dollars each year.
Such churn among novices also reduces overall education productivity, since
teacher effectiveness rises sharply after the first few years in the classroom
(Hanushek, Kain, & Rivkin, 1998; Kain & Singleton, 1996). It drains affected
schools’ financial and human resources. These schools, which typically can least
afford it, must constantly pour money into recruitment and professional support for
new teachers, many of them untrained, without reaping benefits from the
investments. Other teachers, including the few who could serve as mentors, are
stretched thin by the needs of their colleagues as well as their students (Shields et
Pa
g
e 16 of 57EPAA Vol. 11 No. 33 Darlin
g
-Hammond & S
y
kes: Wanted: A National Teacher Su
pp
l...
9/16/2003htt
p
://e
p
aa.asu.edu/e
p
aa/v11n33
/
al., 2001). Scarce resources are wasted trying to re-teach the basics each year to
teachers who arrive with few tools and leave before they become skilled (Carroll,
Reichardt, & Guarino, 2000). Most important, the constant staff churn consigns a
large share of children in high-turnover schools to a parade of relatively ineffective
teachers.
Shortage Fields.
While U.S. teacher supply is sufficient on the whole to meet
demand, there are nonetheless longstanding shortages in particular fields. These
result largely from more attractive earnings opportunities outside teaching.
Mathematics and science teaching, for example, suffer larger wage disparities than
those for English and social studies. Thus college graduates trained in mathematics
and the sciences typically must forgo greater salaries in order to teach. Likewise,
increased demand for special education and bilingual education teachers, and the
skill sets that trained teachers in these fields possess, have produced shortfalls in
many states and localities. (Note 16)
These shortages, again, particularly hurt disadvantaged students. This is not only
because of pupils taught by unqualified special education and bilingual education
teachers. It is also because less advantaged minority students disproportionately
end up with unqualified teachers of science and math as well. In 1993-1994 only
8% of public school teachers in wealthier schools taught without a major or minor in
their main academic assignment—compared with fully a third of teachers in high-
poverty schools. Moreover, nearly 70% of those in poor, minority schools taught
without at least a minor in their secondary field (National Center for Education
Statistics, 1997). In 1998, the proportions of out-of-field math and science teachers,
though somewhat lower, were still much higher in low-income, minority and urban
schools (NCES, 2000) (see Figure 3).
The Children Who Suffer Most.
With all of these problems—whether the general
maldistribution of teachers, the exodus of younger teachers from the profession, or
shortages in special fields—the chief victims are disadvantaged students in big
cities or poor rural areas. This heavily reflects the nation’s inequitable funding of
Pa
g
e 17 of 57EPAA Vol. 11 No. 33 Darlin
g
-Hammond & S
y
kes: Wanted: A National Teacher Su
pp
l...
9/16/2003htt
p
://e
p
aa.asu.edu/e
p
aa/v11n33
/
education. In most states, the wealthiest districts have revenues and expenditures
per pupil that are two or three times those of the poorest districts (Educational
Testing Service, 1991; Kozol, 1991). Poor rural districts typically spend the least,
and urban districts serving students with multiple needs spend much less than
surrounding suburbs, where students and families have far fewer challenges. These
inequities translate into differentials in salaries and working conditions—resources
that greatly affect teacher labor markets.
A recent report from the Education Trust (2002) found that, in many states, the
quartile of districts with the highest child poverty rates receives less state and local
funding per pupil than the most affluent quartile. The study indicated that,
nationwide, this disparity decreased slightly between 1997 and 2000, a somewhat
hopeful sign. (Note 17) Nevertheless, the disparities persist, and their effects are
amplified by the needs students bring to school. A recent large-scale study of young
children found that children’s socioeconomic status (SES) is strongly related to
cognitive skills at school entry. For example, the average cognitive scores of
entering children in the highest SES group are 60% above the average scores of
the lowest SES group (Lee & Burkham, 2002). As the study documents, low-SES
children then begin kindergarten in systematically lower-quality schools than their
more advantaged peers, no matter what measure of quality is used—qualified
teachers, school resources, teacher attitudes, achievement or school conditions.
From the outset of schooling, then, inequalities associated with family
circumstances are multiplied by inequalities of education.
Those unequal opportunities then continue throughout the students’ educations. In
almost every field, central city schools with the largest numbers of disadvantaged
children are much more likely than other schools to report unfilled teacher
vacancies (NCES, 1997, Table A8.11). These schools are also far more likely than
others to fill vacancies with unqualified teachers. The funding inequalities also lead
to enlarged class sizes and lack of access to higher-level courses as well as to
poorer teaching (Choy, et al., 1993).
California data provide a dramatic example of the maldistribution of qualified
teachers and its effects. On the one hand, many California districts have little
difficulty hiring qualified teachers. In 2000- 2001, for example, about 47% of districts
(41% of schools) had fewer than 5% uncredentialed teachers, and about 25% hired
no unqualified teachers at all (Shields, et al., 2001, p. 21-23). However, in another
quarter of California schools, more than 20% of teachers were underqualified (i.e.,
lacking a preliminary or professional clear credential), and in some schools a
majority of teachers lacked full certification. As Figure 4 shows, the presence of
underqualified teachers is strongly related both to student socioeconomic status
and to student achievement, with students who most need highly qualified teachers
least likely to get them.
Pa
g
e 18 of 57EPAA Vol. 11 No. 33 Darlin
g
-Hammond & S
y
kes: Wanted: A National Teacher Su
pp
l...
9/16/2003htt
p
://e
p
aa.asu.edu/e
p
aa/v11n33
/
Across the nation, disparities in access to qualified teachers occur not only among
districts but also among schools within districts. Among other things, recent studies
show:
z Nonwhite, low-income and low-performing students, particularly in urban
areas, are disproportionately taught by less qualified teachers (Hanushek,
Kain, & Rivkin, 2001; Ingersoll, 2002; Jerald, 2002; Lankford, Loeb, &
Wyckoff, 2002).
z Teachers most often transfer out of schools with poor, minority, and low-
achieving students (Ingersoll, 2001; Lankford, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2002;
Hanushek, Kain, & Rivkin, 2001; Scafidi, Sjoquist, & Stinebrickner, 2002).
z School and district disparities in teacher qualifications persist over time and
have worsened in the past 10 to 15 years as teacher demand and funding
inequities both have increased (Jerald, 2002; Lankford, Loeb, & Wyckoff,
2002; NCES, 2002).
IV. What Factors Influence Teacher Distribution?
Researchers have examined what factors influence who teaches where and how
long they stay. These include wages and benefits, “non- pecuniary” considerations
such as working conditions and student characteristics, teacher preparation and
district personnel policies (Lankford, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2002, pp. 38-39).
Disentangling these factors is essential to the evaluation of policy alternatives. If
teachers generally prefer teaching white, middle-class, high-performing students,
for example, that preference may be hard to influence. But if teachers object to
working conditions that often attend teaching poor and minority children, those are
Pa
g
e 19 of 57EPAA Vol. 11 No. 33 Darlin
g
-Hammond & S
y
kes: Wanted: A National Teacher Su
pp
l...
9/16/2003htt
p
://e
p
aa.asu.edu/e
p
aa/v11n33
/
potentially alterable. Many analysts (e.g., Ballou, 1996, Ballou & Podgursky, 1997;
Wise, Darling- Hammond, & Berry, 1987) also contend that districts and schools
often fail to hire the best candidates, at any given salary level, introducing
inefficiencies into the labor market for teachers. So the joint preferences of
individuals and organizations interact to determine who teaches and where they
teach. A brief tour of this terrain suggests the kinds of policies needed.
The Draw of Home.
The first feature of note is the longstanding tendency for many
teachers to seek positions close to where they grew up or, to a lesser extent, went
to college. As Boyd and colleagues (2003) note: “The importance of distance in
teachers’ preferences particularly challenges urban districts, which are net
importers of teachers” (p.12). While teachers who grew up in cities often are
inclined to teach in their hometowns, the number of urban recruits falls short of the
number needed, requiring urban districts to seek teachers from elsewhere. If urban
districts cannot offer compensating incentives, urban recruits are likely to be less
qualified overall than those who teach in suburbs. The differential qualifications of
teachers in disadvantaged urban schools appear to be at least as much a function
of first-job placements as differential exits or transfers accounts. Geography, then,
clearly plays a powerful role, a point to which we return in our policy
recommendations.
Salaries.
Even if teachers may be more altruistically motivated than many other
workers, teaching must compete for talented college graduates in ways that include
pay. On this score, although overall teacher demand can be met, there is reason for
concern. Teacher pay not only is relatively low, but during the 1990s it also declined
relative to other professional salaries (see Figure 5). Even after adjusting for the
shorter work year in teaching, teachers earn 15% to 30% less than college
graduates who enter other fields.
Today’s troubled economy is temporarily offsetting these trends because of the
relative stability of teaching compared with such hard-hit sectors as high
technology. Thus in the Silicon Valley area, the flow of technology workers into
math and science teaching recently has swelled, and reports indicate that
applications are up elsewhere as well (Hayasaki, 2003). The profession needs to
maximize this temporary opportunity, ensuring that enough new entrants, especially
from high- need fields, receive sufficient training and support to succeed, adding to
the long-term supply of high-quality teachers. Otherwise, demand from career-
switchers may increase pressure for fast-track training, creating teachers who may
soon become part of the exodus from the profession. It is important to recognize,
moreover, that the economy’s cycles are temporary, so before too long many
career- switchers may return to more lucrative occupations if they do not find
satisfying work in teaching. What happens with respect to school revenues, teacher
salaries, and subsidies for decent training for these new entrants will determine
whether schools can benefit from these trends.
Pa
g
e 20 of 57EPAA Vol. 11 No. 33 Darlin
g
-Hammond & S
y
kes: Wanted: A National Teacher Su
pp
l...
9/16/2003htt
p
://e
p
aa.asu.edu/e
p
aa/v11n33
/
There is evidence that wages are at least as important to teachers in their decision
to enter and quit the profession as they are to workers in other occupations (Baugh
and Stone, 1982). Teachers are more likely to leave the field when they work in
districts with lower pay and when their salaries are low compared to other wage
opportunities (Brewer, 1996; Mont & Rees, 1996; Murnane, Singer & Willett, 1989;
Theobald, 1990; Theobald & Gritz, 1996). These factors are strongest at the start of
the teaching career (Hanushek, Kain & Rivkin, 1999; Gritz & Theobald, 1996) and
for teachers in high- demand fields like math and science (Murnane and Olsen,
1990; Murnane, et al., 1991).
But do pay increases result in better educational results? To find out, some analysts
have examined the relationship between changes in teacher salaries and student
achievement. Based on a meta-analysis of about 60 production function studies, for
example, Greenwald, Hedges and Laine (1996) found larger effects for student
achievement associated with increased teacher salaries (as well as with teacher
experience and education, which are rewarded in salary schedules) than for such
other resources as reduced pupil-teacher ratios. Ferguson’s (1991) analysis of
student achievement in Texas also concluded that student gains were associated
with the use of resources to purchase higher-quality teachers. In an analysis of
hiring practices and salaries in California counties, Pogodzinski (2000) found that
higher salaries appeared to attract better-prepared teachers. Finally, in a study
looking across states from 1960 through 1990 and across districts in California from
1975 through 1995, Loeb and Page (2000) found that student educational
attainment increased most in states and districts that increased teacher wages.
Studies confirm that salaries are widely disparate both within and across states—
and that school systems serving large numbers of low-income and minority
students often have lower salary levels than surrounding districts (Lankford, Loeb,
& Wyckoff, 2002). Nationally, teachers in schools serving the largest concentrations
Pa
g
e 21 of 57EPAA Vol. 11 No. 33 Darlin
g
-Hammond & S
y
kes: Wanted: A National Teacher Su
pp
l...
9/16/2003htt
p
://e
p
aa.asu.edu/e
p
aa/v11n33
/
of low-income students earn, at the top of the scale, salaries one-third less than
those in higher-income schools (NCES, 1997), while they also face lower levels of
resources, poorer working conditions, and the stresses of working with students
and families who have an array of needs. Pogodzinski (2000) found that large
differences in teachers’ wages across schools districts within the same county are a
significant factor in explaining the use of emergency permits and waivers.
Once teachers begin work, however, transfers to other schools often appear to be
influenced only modestly by salaries and more by other factors (Loeb & Page,
2000). While one study found that teacher transfers tended to improve salary
slightly (Hanushek, Kain, & Rivkin, 2001), another found that salary variation
seemed to contribute little to teacher sorting among schools (Lankford, Loeb, &
Wyckoff, 2002). We conclude, then, that teacher salaries are important in attracting
individuals to teaching from the college-educated pool and in influencing early
career behavior. They also have an effect on attrition. But other factors also matter
to teachers’ decisions about whether and where to continue teaching.
Working Conditions and Dissatisfaction.
Surveys have long shown that working
conditions play a large role in teacher decisions to change schools or leave the
profession. Reasons for remaining in teaching or leaving are strongly associated
with such matters as how teachers view administrative support, available education
resources, teacher input into decisionmaking, and school climate (Darling-
Hammond, 1997; Ingersoll, 2001, 2002). Moreover, there are large differences in
the support teachers receive in affluent and poor schools. Teachers in more
advantaged communities experience easier working conditions, including smaller
class sizes and pupil loads, more materials and greater influence over school
decisions (NCES, 1997, Table A 4.15). In 1994-1995, more than a quarter of all
school leavers listed dissatisfaction with teaching as a reason for quitting, with
those in high-poverty schools more than twice as likely to leave because of this
than those in wealthier schools (Darling-Hammond, 1997).
A number of studies have found that teacher attrition appears related to student
demographics, with teachers transferring out of high-minority and low-income
schools (e.g., Carroll, Reichardt, & Guarino, 2000; Scafidi, Sjoquist, &
Stinebrickner, 2002) or out of low-performing schools into better-performing ones
(Hanushek, Kain, & Rivkin, 2001). Given the confluence of negative conditions in
schools serving low-income and minority students, the question is whether these
demographic variables can be disentangled from other non- pecuniary factors that
are amenable to policy influences.
There is evidence that working conditions are an important independent cause of
teacher attrition, beyond the student characteristics frequently associated with
them. For example, a survey of California teachers (Harris, 2002) found that
teachers in high- minority, low-income schools reported significantly worse working
conditions, including poorer facilities, fewer textbooks and supplies, less
administrative support and larger class sizes. Furthermore, the teachers were
significantly more likely to say that they planned to leave a school soon if working
conditions were poor. The relationship between teachers’ plans to leave and
schools’ demographic characteristics was much smaller.
Pa
g
e 22 of 57EPAA Vol. 11 No. 33 Darlin
g
-Hammond & S
y
kes: Wanted: A National Teacher Su
pp
l...
9/16/2003htt
p
://e
p
aa.asu.edu/e
p
aa/v11n33
/
A multivariate analysis of these California data found that turnover problems at the
school level are, in fact, influenced by student characteristics, but that demographic
variables become much less significant when working conditions and salaries are
considered. Working conditions—ranging from large class sizes and facilities
problems to multi-track, year-round schedules and faculty ratings of teaching
conditions—proved to be the strongest predictors of turnover problems, along with
salaries (Loeb, Darling-Hammond, & Luczak, forthcoming). We believe that such
conditions constitute a primary target for policies aimed at retaining qualified
teachers in high-need schools.
Finally, a new aspect of working conditions that affects teacher retention may be
traced to unexpected consequences of the new accountability. In many states
today, schools that fail to meet performance standards on state assessments are
being targeted for special attention, often associated with new labels. Low-
performing schools frequently are identified in the local press and may be subject to
sanctions and interventions. Such targeting can be valuable in identifying schools
that most need more help, but it can also stigmatize such schools, affecting staff
morale and leading to a teacher exodus. Evidence of such effects is beginning to
emerge. A Florida report described teachers leaving schools rated “D” or “F” in
“droves” (DeVise, 1999). A North Carolina study found “failing” schools lagging
behind others in their ability to attract more highly qualified teachers, a trend
researchers attribute to the accountability system (Clotfelter et al., 2003). In the
California study noted above, teachers rated more negatively than any other
working condition the state tests they are required to administer. This was a
component of the measure that significantly predicted turnover (Loeb, Darling-
Hammond, & Luczak, 2003).
Teacher Preparation and Support
. A factor often overlooked in economic
analyses is the effect of preparation on teacher retention. A growing body of
evidence indicates that attrition is unusually high for those with little initial
preparation. A recent NCES study found, for example, that 49% of uncertified
entrants left the profession within five years, more than triple the 14% of certified
entrants who did so (Henke, et al., 2000). This report and an analysis of another
NCES data base both showed attrition rates for new teachers who lacked student
teaching at rates double those of those who had had student teaching (NCTAF,
2003).
In California, the state standards board has found that 35% to 40% of emergency
permit teachers leave the profession within a year (Darling-Hammond, in press;
Tyson, Hawley, & McKibbin, 2000, p. 3). National data from the Recent College
Graduates Survey indicate that about two-thirds of novices who enter without
teacher education (neither certified nor eligible for certification) leave teaching
within their first year (Grey, et al., 1993). As noted previously, moreover, studies of
entry paths to teaching that offer only a few weeks of training before assumption of
full teaching responsibilities have also found high attrition rates.
Conversely, accumulating evidence indicates that better-prepared teachers stay
longer. For example, a longitudinal study of 11 institutions found that teachers who
complete redesigned 5-year teacher education programs enter and stay in teaching
Pa
g
e 23 of 57EPAA Vol. 11 No. 33 Darlin
g
-Hammond & S
y
kes: Wanted: A National Teacher Su
pp
l...
9/16/2003htt
p
://e
p
aa.asu.edu/e
p
aa/v11n33
/
at much higher rates than 4-year teacher education graduates from the same
campuses (Andrew & Schwab, 1995). The 5-year programs allow a major in a
disciplinary field, intensive training for teaching and long-term student teaching. In
addition, both 4- and 5-year teacher education graduates enter and stay at higher
rates than teachers hired through alternatives that offer only a few weeks of training
before recruits are left on their own in classrooms (Darling-Hammond, 2000b).
These differences are so large that, considering the costs to states, universities and
school districts of preparing, recruiting, inducting and replacing teachers due to
attrition, the cost of preparing a career teacher through a 5- year program is actually
far less than that of preparing larger numbers, many of whom leave, through short-
term routes (see Figure 6). Graduates of 5-year programs also report higher levels
of satisfaction with their preparation and receive higher ratings from principals and
colleagues.
Similarly, Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) data for 1999-2000 show big
differences in plans to stay in teaching between first-year teachers who felt well
prepared and those who felt poorly prepared. On such items as preparation in
planning lessons, using a range of instructional methods and assessing students,
two-thirds of those reporting strong preparation intended to stay, compared to only
one- third of those reporting weak preparation. The differentials hold true for actual
attrition as well. Analyses of SASS Teacher Follow-up data show that new recruits
who had training in such aspects of teaching as selecting instructional materials,
child psychology and learning theory, who had practice teaching experience and
who received feedback on their teaching left the profession at rates half as great as
those who did not have such preparation (NCTAF, 2003) (see Figure 7). Similarly, a
survey of 3,000 beginning teachers in New York City found that recruits who felt
better prepared were more inclined to stay in teaching, to feel effective, and to say
they would enter through the same program or pathway again. Graduates of
teacher education programs felt significantly better prepared and more effective
than those entering through alternative routes or with no training (Darling-
Pa
g
e 24 of 57EPAA Vol. 11 No. 33 Darlin
g
-Hammond & S
y
kes: Wanted: A National Teacher Su
pp
l...
9/16/2003htt
p
://e
p
aa.asu.edu/e
p
aa/v11n33
/
Hammond, Chung, and Frelow, 2002).
The effects of strong initial preparation are likely to be enhanced by equally strong
induction and mentoring in the early teaching years. School districts such as
Cincinnati, Columbus and Toledo, Ohio, and Rochester, New York, have reduced
beginning-teacher attrition rates by more than two-thirds by providing expert
mentors with release time to coach beginners in their first year (NCTAF, 1996).
These young teachers not only stay in the profession at higher rates, but they also
become competent more quickly than those who learn by trial and error.
States increasingly are requiring induction programs, some with strong results.
Unfortunately, quality can decline as programs expand. In an assessment of one of
the oldest, California’s Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment (BTSA)
Program, for example, early pilots with carefully designed mentoring systems found
rates of new- teacher retention exceeding 90% in the first two to three years on the
job. However, as the program scaled up with more uneven implementation across
the state, a later study reported that only 47% of BTSA participants had received
classroom visits from their support provider at least monthly, and only 16% of
novice teachers participating in other induction programs had received such visits.
Often, districts provided orientation sessions and workshops rather than on-site
mentoring, the most powerful component of induction programs (Shields, et al.,
2001, p. 101). While state induction programs for beginning teachers rose from
seven in 1996-97 to 33 in 2002, only 22 states fund the programs, and many do not
require regular, on-site coaching (NCTAF, 2003). To reap the gains that well-
designed programs have realized, state-mandated induction programs must include
real support and follow- through.
Particularly in hard-to-staff schools, then, policies encouraging strong initial teacher
education are warranted, along with strong induction and continuing support. Initial
preparation cannot overcome poor working conditions and inadequate support, but
it can launch teachers successfully, reducing the odds that they will leave teaching
altogether.
Personnel Management.
Finally, how districts and schools—within the constraints
of state policies and collective bargaining agreements—recruit, hire, assign, support
Pa
g
e 25 of 57EPAA Vol. 11 No. 33 Darlin
g
-Hammond & S
y
kes: Wanted: A National Teacher Su
pp
l...
9/16/2003htt
p
://e
p
aa.asu.edu/e
p
aa/v11n33
/
and manage transfers of teachers plays a large role in determining shortages.
Studies in locales ranging from large cities to small rural districts make clear how
local management preferences and practices shape who teaches in which
schools—and how such preferences can systematically enhance or undermine both
efficiency and effectiveness.
Some states, for example, enforce redundant requirements for fully qualified and
credentialed candidates from other states, making it difficult for them to enter the
local teaching force. (Note 18) Additional barriers include late budget decisions by
state and local government, teacher transfer provisions that push new hiring
decisions into August or September, lack of pension portability across states and
loss of salary credit for teachers who move. Nor does the list stop there. For
example, most districts have salary caps for experienced candidates. As a result,
some highly desirable teachers must take pay cuts if they want to teach in new
schools where they have moved. Changing professions can look like a better option
in those circumstances. Likewise, few districts reimburse travel and moving
expenses, yet another barrier to mobility in the teacher labor market.
A
top all of this, many districts do not hire the best applicants because of inadequate
information systems or antiquated and cumbersome procedures that discourage or
lose candidates in seas of paperwork (Wise, Darling-Hammond, & Berry, 1987). For
example, before its recent overhaul, the 62-step hiring process in Fairfax County,
Virginia, mirrored those of many other large districts that attract a surplus of
qualified applicants but cannot find an efficient way to hire them (NCTAF, 1996). A
process that takes months and features long lines and delays can discourage all
but the most persistent.
In districts with high demand relative to supply, late hiring and disorganized hiring
processes can undermine the recruitment of qualified teachers. In one recent study,
conducted in four states, researchers found that one-third of a sample of new,
young teachers were hired after the school year had already started; only 23% had
any sort of reduced load; 56% received no extra assistance; and 43% went through
the entire first year with no observations from a mentor or more experienced
teacher (HGSE, 2003, April). In another study, nearly 50% of newly hired California
teachers were hired after August 1, and 25% were hired after the start of the school
year (Shields, et al., 1999). Teachers in schools with large numbers of
underprepared teachers were significantly less likely to report that they had been
actively recruited or assisted in the hiring process and more likely to report that the
hiring process had been slow and filled with obstacles (Shields, et al., 2001, p. 84).
The California State Fiscal and Crisis Management Team reports hiring and
screening procedures that are erratic and fraught with glitches, application
processes that are not automated or well-coordinated, applicants and vacancies
that are not tracked, and recruitment that is disorganized in districts that hire large
numbers of underqualified teachers (Darling-Hammond, in press).
Various studies have uncovered still more reasons for district hiring of unqualified
teachers. These include patronage, a desire to save money on salaries by hiring
low-cost recruits over better- qualified ones, and beliefs that more qualified teachers
are more likely to leave and less likely to take orders (Pflaum & Abramson, 1990;
Pa
g
e 26 of 57EPAA Vol. 11 No. 33 Darlin
g
-Hammond & S
y
kes: Wanted: A National Teacher Su
pp
l...
9/16/2003htt
p
://e
p
aa.asu.edu/e
p
aa/v11n33
/
Schlechty, 1990; Wise, Darling-Hammond, & Berry, 1987). Testimony before the
California Assembly Select Committee on Low Performing Schools (2001) pointed
to the prevalence of such concerns:
[I]n some situations districts hire emergency permit holders because [they] can be
paid less; need not initially be provided with benefits; cannot be placed on a tenure
track; can be dismissed easily; and need not be provided with systematic support
and assistance… (p. 5).
Yet other influences on the assignment of teachers may operate at the school level.
In schools serving advantaged families, parents will tolerate less mediocrity in
teaching and are more likely to exert pressure to hire and retain well-qualified
teachers. At the classroom level, some parents pressure administrators to obtain or
avoid certain teachers for their children. Responding to such informal pressures
may systematically alter the availability of effective teachers for students who lack
vocal and knowledgeable parent advocates. Such informal, “micro-level” processes
are likely to operate unless countervailing tendencies are present (see Bridges,
1990, Clotfelter, et al., 2003).
Finally, in many states collective bargaining agreements influence the effective
deployment of teachers. In particular, contract provisions that regulate transfers
among schools by seniority often mean that hard-to-staff schools systematically
lose experienced teachers. Turnover in such schools is high, with a steady influx of
young, inexperienced teachers who often are ill supported by mentor or induction
programs. In some locales, progressive labor-management relations have resulted
in bargaining agreements that create more equitable staffing patterns, but these are
the exceptions.
Several critical points emerge from this thicket of issues. First, incentives that
influence teacher entry and mobility often fail to support an equitable distribution of
teachers across districts, schools and classrooms. Salaries and working conditions
are unequal, and they fail to provide compensating inducements in support of hard-
to-staff schools. Second, teacher preferences and school system behaviors
influence teacher distribution. Many states and districts manage hiring inefficiently
for reasons ranging from fiscal conditions to management procedures, contract
provisions and parent pressures. Taken together, these factors create a
maldistribution of teachers that is systemic in nature and that will require
coordinated responses across the levels of government and education to solve. As
we discuss in the next section, some locales have begun to develop policies and
practices that make genuine headway on these problems. These and other
exemplars suggest how policies can be developed that directly address the sources
of longstanding disparities.
V. Lessons from State and District Experiences
In this section, we describe examples of both states and local school districts that
have fashioned successful strategies for strengthening their teaching forces. These
approaches inform our recommendations at the end of this paper.
Pa
g
e 27 of 57EPAA Vol. 11 No. 33 Darlin
g
-Hammond & S
y
kes: Wanted: A National Teacher Su
pp
l...
9/16/2003htt
p
://e
p
aa.asu.edu/e
p
aa/v11n33
/
A. State Approaches
Beginning in the 1980s, Connecticut and North Carolina enacted some of the
nation’s most ambitious efforts to improve teaching. On the heels of these efforts,
these states, which serve sizable numbers of low-income and minority students,
(Note 19) registered striking gains in overall student learning and narrowed
achievement gaps between advantaged and disadvantaged pupils. During the
1990s, for example, North Carolina posted the largest student achievement gains of
any state in math and sizable advances in reading, putting it well above the national
average in 4th grade reading and math, although it had entered the decade near
the bottom of state rankings. Of all states during the 1990s, it was also the most
successful in narrowing the minority-white achievement gap (National Education
Goals Panel, 1999). In Connecticut, also following steep gains throughout the
decade, 4th graders ranked first in the nation by 1998 in reading and math on the
NAEP, despite increased poverty and language diversity among its public school
students. Its minority-white achievement gap, too, narrowed notably. The proportion
of Connecticut 8th graders scoring at or above proficient in reading was first in the
nation. In the world, moreover, only top-ranked Singapore could outscore
Connecticut students in science (Baron, 1999).
Among the reforms that contributed to such gains were the significant
improvements in both states’ teaching forces, including in inner cities and rural
areas. How did they accomplish this? With ambitious teacher initiatives that
introduced standards, incentives and professional learning for teachers, along with
curriculum and assessment reforms for schools (Darling-Hammond, 2000a; Wilson,
Darling-Hammond, & Berry, 2000).
Notably, neither state succeeded by relaxing teacher education or licensure. On the
contrary, they strengthened both. For a teaching license, for example, Connecticut
insisted on additional preparation at entry, meaning a major in the content area
taught and more pedagogical training as well as learning to teach reading and
special-needs pupils and passing basic skills and content tests before entry to
teaching. The state also eliminated emergency licensing and toughened
requirements for temporary licenses. Teachers must complete a master’s degree
and a rigorous performance assessment modeled on that of the National Board for
Professional Teaching Standards to gain a professional license.
North Carolina likewise increased licensing requirements for teachers and
principals (in the form of increased coursework in content and pedagogy as well as
licensing tests), required schools of education to undertake professional
accreditation through the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education
(NCATE), invested in improvements in teacher education curriculum, and supported
creation of professional development schools connected to schools of education.
Both states also developed mentor programs for beginning teachers that extended
assistance and assessment into the first year of teaching, and both introduced
intensive professional development for veteran teachers. A recent study of North
Carolina’s reforms noted the strong quality of teachers in the state as a whole and
in schools serving diverse student populations. The authors write:
Pa
g
e 28 of 57EPAA Vol. 11 No. 33 Darlin
g
-Hammond & S
y
kes: Wanted: A National Teacher Su
pp
l...
9/16/2003htt
p
://e
p
aa.asu.edu/e
p
aa/v11n33
/
Like the dog that did not bark in the night . . . what is most significant is what is
absent. One does not see teachers without pedagogical training, teachers with
inadequate content knowledge, or teachers whose own literacy and mathematical
skills are poor…. (Asher, et al., forthcoming).
These efforts were successful because both states created strong labor market
incentives linked to their teacher standards. Among measures they adopted:
z
Increased and Equalized Salaries, Tied to Standards.
Both states coupled
major statewide increases in teacher salaries with improved pay equity across
districts. In Connecticut, for example, the average teacher salary climbed from
$29,437 in 1986 to $47,823 in 1991, with the equalizing nature of the state aid
making it possible for urban districts to compete for qualified teachers.
Because Connecticut’s state teacher salary assistance could be spent only for
fully certified teachers, districts had greater incentives to recruit those who
had met the high new standards, and individuals had greater incentives to
meet these standards. North Carolina created standards-based incentives by
adopting notable salary increases for teachers to pursue National Board
Certification, so that North Carolina now has more teachers certified by the
National Board than any other state.
z
Recruitment Drives and Incentives.
To attract bright young candidates, both
states initiated programs to subsidize teacher education in return for teaching
commitments. The highly selective North Carolina Teaching Fellows program,
for example, paid all college costs, including an enhanced and fully funded
teacher education program, for thousands of high-ability students in return for
several years of teaching. After seven years, retention rates for these
teachers exceeded 75%, with many of the remaining alumni holding public
school leadership posts (NCTAF, 1996). Connecticut’s service scholarships
and forgivable loans similarly attracted high-quality candidates and provided
incentives to teach in high-need schools and shortage fields, while the state
also took steps to attract well- trained teachers from elsewhere. By 1990,
nearly a third of its newly hired teachers had graduated from colleges rated
“very selective” or better in the Barron’s Index of College Majors, and 75%
had undergraduate grade point averages of “B” or better (Connecticut State
Board of Education, 1992, p. 3).
z
Support Systems.
Both states bolstered support systems that make a
difference in stemming teacher turnover. North Carolina launched a mentoring
program for new teachers that greatly increased their access to early career
support (National Education Goals Panel Report, 1998). Connecticut provided
trained mentors for all beginning teachers and student teachers as part of its
staged licensing process. For existing teachers, North Carolina created
professional development academies, a North Carolina Center for the
Advancement of Teaching, and teacher development networks such as the
National Writing Project and analogous institutes in mathematics. This was in
addition to its incentives for National Board Certification. Connecticut, among
other things, required continuing professional development, including a
master’s degree for a professional license.
Such teacher reforms began paying off early on. After Connecticut’s $300 million
Pa
g
e 29 of 57EPAA Vol. 11 No. 33 Darlin
g
-Hammond & S
y
kes: Wanted: A National Teacher Su
pp
l...
9/16/2003htt
p
://e
p
aa.asu.edu/e
p
aa/v11n33
/
1986 initiative, for instance, the higher salaries and improved pay equity, combined
with the tougher preparation and licensing standards and an end to emergency
hiring, swiftly raised teacher quality. An analysis found, in fact, that within three
years, the state not only had eliminated teacher shortages, even in cities, but also
had created surpluses (Connecticut State Department of Education, 1990). Even as
demand increased, the pool of qualified applicants remained solid. A National
Education Goals Panel report (Baron, 1999) found that in districts with sharply
improved achievement, educators cited the high quality of teachers and
administrators as a critical reason for their gains and noted that “when there is a
teaching opening in a Connecticut elementary school, there are often several
hundred applicants” (p. 28).
These teacher initiatives occurred alongside other education changes—increased
investments in early childhood education and in public schools generally, as well as
wide-ranging, standards-based reform—which also contributed to the states’
student achievement gains. There is little doubt, however, that higher-quality
teachers supplied to all schools were substantial contributors to these other reforms
as well as to the overall achievement increases. Both states sought to increase not
only salaries and the quality of preparation for teachers, but also the incentive
structure for distributing teachers to fields and locations. Both sharply reduced
hiring of unlicensed and underprepared staff. Most notably, both held to the course
of teacher improvement over a sustained period—more than 15 years in each case.
They demonstrate what state policy in support of good teaching can accomplish.
B. District Approaches
District success stories reflect the importance of recruiting, inducting and supporting
qualified teachers using policy tools available at the local level and leveraging state
assistance. Following are just four examples of what urban districts in high-demand
states have done.
New York City.
New York City illustrates how a focus on recruiting qualified
teachers, coupled with necessary salary increases, can have a large effect in a brief
period. The city long had hired thousands of underprepared teachers, typically filling
as many as half of its vacancies with uncertified applicants, many well after
September. The state, however, pressured the city to hire qualified teachers and
mandated that uncertified teachers could no longer teach in low-performing
schools. This, plus awareness of pending NCLB requirements, led to the
improvements. The district focused on more aggressive recruiting and hiring of
qualified teachers and implemented a steep increase in salaries—averaging 16%
overall and more than 20% for beginning teachers—to make them more competitive
with surrounding suburban districts. With these policies, 2002-2003 vacancies were
filled by July, and 90% of new hires were certified, up from 60% the year before.
The remaining 10% were in programs that would lead to certification by the end of
the school year (Hays & Gendar, 2002).
Community School District #2.
Much earlier, New York City’s Community District
#2 was an oasis widely heralded as a turnaround story, with a strategic emphasis
on professional development for teachers and principals. But student achievement
Pa
g
e 30 of 57EPAA Vol. 11 No. 33 Darlin
g
-Hammond & S
y
kes: Wanted: A National Teacher Su
pp
l...
9/16/2003htt
p
://e
p
aa.asu.edu/e
p
aa/v11n33
/
gains clearly relied on both a development and recruitment strategy (Elmore &
Burney, 1999). In 1996, after a decade of reforms focused on strengthening
teaching, this “majority minority” district—which serves large numbers of low-
income and immigrant students—realized sharp achievement gains that ranked it
2nd in the city in reading and math.
Sweeping changes instituted by Superintendent Anthony Alvarado stressed
continuing professional development for teachers and principals, coupled with a
relentless concentration on instructional improvement. At the same time, Alvarado
recognized the need for more talented and committed teachers and principals.
Backed by the teachers’ union, he replaced nearly half the teacher workforce and
two-thirds of principals over a period of years through a combination of retirements,
pressure and inducements. Meanwhile, the central office carefully managed the
recruitment, hiring and placement of new teachers and principals. It ended the
hiring of unprepared teachers and sought recruits from several leading teacher
education programs in the city, forging partnerships for student teaching and
professional development with these institutions as well. Similar programs for
developing principals were launched. The district’s growing reputation for quality
also attracted other teachers. Salary changes were not within the district’s purview.
Its strategies, rather, involved recruiting aggressively, creating university
partnerships to develop a pipeline of well-prepared teachers, and supporting
teachers with strong mentoring and professional development.
New Haven, California.
California success stories are particularly notable because
that state in recent years has ranked first in the nation in the number of unqualified
teachers. In this high-demand context, with state policies that were, until recently,
relatively unsupportive (e.g., low expenditures, lack of reciprocity with other states,
restricted teacher education options), some districts have nonetheless achieved
significant staffing improvements. New Haven Unified School District, just south of
Oakland in Union City, which enrolls 14,000 mostly low-income and minority
students, is one that has succeeded while neighboring districts have not. New
Haven combined high salaries, aggressive recruiting and close mentoring with a
high-quality training program worked out with area universities. Although not a top-
spending district, it invested its resources in teacher salaries and good teaching
conditions. In 1998, for example, New Haven’s salaries were more than 30% higher
than nearby Oakland’s, where large numbers of unqualified teachers were hired,
even though New Haven’s per-pupil spending was below Oakland’s (Snyder, 2002).
Thus, over an extended period it built a well-prepared, highly committed and
diverse teaching staff. For the 2001-2002 school year, 10 of its 11 schools had no
uncredentialed teachers. The district averaged 0.1% uncredentialed teachers—
while some neighboring districts averaged more than 20% (Futernick, 2001). New
Haven uses advanced technology and a wide range of teacher supports to recruit
from a national pool of exceptional teachers and to hire them quickly. The district
was one of California’s first to implement a Beginning Teacher Support and
Assessment Program that assists teachers in their first two years in the classroom;
all beginning teachers get help from a trained mentor, who is given release time for
the purpose. In addition, New Haven collaborated with California State University-
Hayward on the right kind of alternative-certification program, combining college
Pa
g
e 31 of 57EPAA Vol. 11 No. 33 Darlin
g
-Hammond & S
y
kes: Wanted: A National Teacher Su
pp
l...
9/16/2003htt
p
://e
p
aa.asu.edu/e
p
aa/v11n33
/
coursework and an internship, including student teaching, conducted under the
close supervision of university- and school-based educators. As a result of these
initiatives, the district has a teacher surplus in the midst of general shortages (for
details, see Snyder, 2002).
San Diego, California
. Using similar strategies, San Diego City Schools recently
overhauled its teacher recruitment and retention system, aggressively recruiting
well-trained teachers, collaborating with universities on new training programs in
high-need fields, and creating smooth pathways with local schools of education. It
offers contracts to well-prepared teachers as early as possible (sometimes as much
as a year in advance of hiring) and reaches out to teachers in other states. In
addition, the district streamlined the hiring process, putting the entire system online,
improving its capacity to manage hiring data, vacancy postings and interviews that
had slowed the process and caused many candidates to give up and go elsewhere.
In the fall of 2001, districts like San Francisco and Los Angeles hired hundreds of
uncredentialed teachers, and the state as a whole hired more than 50% of novices
without full credentials. But San Diego filled almost all of its 1,081 vacancies with
credentialed teachers, eliminating all but 11 of the hundreds of previously hired
emergency permit teachers who had been assigned largely to high-minority, low-
income schools. (Darling-Hammond, et al., 2002).
What State and Local Successes Tell Us
Taken together, these state and local cases demonstrate that determined, well-
focused, and sustained efforts can make a difference in staffing even hard-to-staff
schools, which in turn greatly increases the probability of student learning. These
cases also make clear that schools can be staffed without lowering the bar on
teacher standards by counting untrained novices as “highly qualified” or by
encouraging states to dilute certification requirements. While it is important to
broaden the sources of supply for teaching, it is also essential to safeguard the
quality of that supply if the NCLB goals for children’s learning are to be achieved.
This can be achieved by clarifying three aspects of the law:
z Teachers should be considered “fully certified” under NCLB’s definition of
“highly qualified” when they have completed a traditional or alternative-route
program.
z “Full certification” should continue to include content and pedagogical
preparation.
z Standards should be adopted for acceptable alternate-route (and traditional)
programs. One careful synthesis of teacher preparation research (Wilson,
Floden, & Ferrini-Mundy, 2001, p. 30) suggests, for example, that the
following components should be included in high- quality, alternate-
certification programs (components that could be applied equally as well to
traditional programs):
{ High entrance standards.
{ Intensive training in instruction, management, curriculum, assessment
and how to work with diverse students.
{ Extensive mentoring and supervision by well-prepared teachers.
{
Frequent and substantial evaluation.
Pa
g
e 32 of 57EPAA Vol. 11 No. 33 Darlin
g
-Hammond & S
y
kes: Wanted: A National Teacher Su
pp
l...
9/16/2003htt
p
://e
p
aa.asu.edu/e
p
aa/v11n33
/
{ Guided practice in lesson planning and teaching, with benchmarks for
competence prior to taking full responsibility as a teacher.
{ High exit standards tied to state standards for teaching.
Around such standards states and districts can improve teacher preparation, with
Washington developing incentives to attend such programs, thereby boosting
supply while encouraging the elimination of ineffective alternatives.
VI. The Need for a National Teacher Supply Policy
While we can learn a good deal from state and local successes, such cases are the
exceptions to the rule. They stand out amid widespread use of underprepared
teachers and untrained aides, mainly for disadvantaged children in schools that
suffer from poor working conditions, inadequate pay and high teacher turnover.
Thus while much that must be done lies at the state, district and even school level,
the federal government has a critical role to play, focused on three goals:
z Enhancing the supply of qualified teachers targeted to high-need fields and
locations.
z Improving retention of qualified teachers, especially in hard-to- staff schools.
z
Creating a national labor market by removing interstate barriers to mobility.
This can be accomplished, we believe, by drawing in part on the federal experience
with medical manpower programs. Since 1944, Washington has subsidized medical
training and facilities to meet the needs of underserved populations, to fill shortages
in particular fields and to increase diversity in the medical profession. (Note 20) The
federal government also collects data to monitor and plan for medical manpower
needs. This consistent commitment, on which we spend hundreds of millions of
dollars annually, has contributed significantly to America’s world-renowned system
of medical training and care. Although the teacher labor market is also vital to the
nation’s future, federal efforts in this area have tended to be modest, fragmented
and inconsistent over time. (Note 21) Washington has periodically adopted
programs to enhance teacher supply, but these have not continued on the scale
and with the targeting needed to address the problems noted. There has been little
investment in developing a national system to monitor and adjust the teacher labor
market. (Note 22) There have been scarce efforts to develop the capacity of training
institutions to ensure teacher supplies in high-demand locales and fields. There has
been no serious attempt to establish comprehensive federal-state partnerships like
those created to meet specific health-field shortages. Thus we recommend a series
of measures to create a federal teacher supply program that substantially
addresses the problems we face. The general strategy is to supply grants to
individuals and institutions, with funds concentrated where they are needed most,
where they will create new institutional capacity, and where they will work to relieve
the maldistribution of teaching talent.
Increasing Supply in Shortage Fields and Areas
While there have long been surpluses of candidates in elementary education,
English, and social studies in most states, there are inadequate numbers of
Pa
g
e 33 of 57EPAA Vol. 11 No. 33 Darlin
g
-Hammond & S
y
kes: Wanted: A National Teacher Su
pp
l...
9/16/2003htt
p
://e
p
aa.asu.edu/e
p
aa/v11n33
/
teachers trained in high-need areas like mathematics, physical science, special
education, bilingual education and English as a Second Language (ESL). The
nation requires targeted incentives to attract qualified teachers to schools and areas
that historically have been undersupplied. A two-pronged approach seems
warranted. First, Washington should consolidate all of its small-scale fellowship,
scholarship, and loan forgiveness programs into a single, sustained program of
service scholarships and forgivable loans that includes the following elements:
z Scholarships allocated both on the basis of academic merit and indicators of
potential success in teaching, such as perseverance, capacity and
commitment.
z Scholarships targeted in substantial part to areas of teaching shortage.
Washington would allocate half the funds to national priorities, reserving the
other half for states to establish their own priorities.
z Scholarships awarded in exchange for teaching in priority schools, defined on
the basis of such criteria as poverty rates and the percentage of language
minority students.
z Awards available for training at either the undergraduate or graduate level,
with scholarships forgiven over three to five years in exchange for teaching in
high-need areas and fields. Because the chances of staying in teaching
increase significantly after three years, calibrating the length of the service
required with an inducement of sufficient size would be important to the
initiative’s success.
The federal government is the appropriate primary source of such programs for two
reasons. First, the program can influence the flows of talent across areas of the
country. Second, the budgetary implications are extremely modest for Washington
relative to the states. This is an area where a relatively small federal outlay can go
a long way—and actually save the nation sizable sums.
Assume, for example, that the country needs an annual influx of 40,000 new
teachers supported by such scholarships (Note 24) and that each candidate would
receive up to $20,000 to cover tuition for undergraduate or graduate teacher
preparation. (Note 25) Such a program, costing $800 million a year, could meet
most of the nation’s teacher supply needs in a few years. Given that we currently
lose billions of dollars each year due to early attrition from teaching—much of it a
result of hiring underprepared teachers—this program would repay itself many
times over if it induced recipients to remain in teaching even for several more years.
Such a program alone, however, would not be sufficient to attack the systemic
nature of teacher shortages in urban and isolated rural schools. Recall that teacher
labor markets are intensely local and that many young teachers have a strong
preference to teach close to home, hurting some districts’ efforts to attract qualified
applicants. Urban and rural schools must either lure applicants from other areas,
which is often difficult, or enhance the pool of college graduates who grew up in
neighborhoods served by urban schools. This second prospect suggests a
recruitment strategy that might underwrite the development of “grow your own”
programs in urban and rural areas. (Note 26)
Pa
g
e 34 of 57EPAA Vol. 11 No. 33 Darlin
g
-Hammond & S
y
kes: Wanted: A National Teacher Su
pp
l...
9/16/2003htt
p
://e
p
aa.asu.edu/e
p
aa/v11n33
/
Grants are needed to build the capacity of teacher preparation programs within
cities where the problems are most severe. These programs would need to meet
three criteria: ensuring a high-quality teacher preparation experience, attracting
local residents to the programs, and ensuring a pipeline from preparation to hiring.
Some cities have many higher education opportunities, but not all are affordable to
local residents or have close ties with the district to facilitate an easy pathway from
preparation to hiring. The value of many alternate-route programs is that they
finance and prepare candidates explicitly for a given district; thus the district reaps
the investment’s benefits, and candidates know they will have a job. When these
are high-quality programs with the components described earlier, the bargain is a
good one. Some cities, like New York and San Diego, have created local university
partnerships that include underwriting the preparation of candidates, with service in
the city’s schools required in exchange. Some of these universities enable
candidates to engage in practice teaching in professional development schools that
are particularly successful with urban and minority teachers, so that they learn
effective practices rather than mere survival. And some programs target both local
residents and longtime paraprofessionals already knowledgeable about and
committed to their communities. The key is a combination of strong training
targeted at local talent and strong incentives for hiring and retention in the district.
Such opportunities could be encouraged by a new federal grant program, possibly
with a state or local matching requirement, directed to urban universities and
districts to create or expand programs that meet the standards for program quality
that we have described and that support local candidates from preparation through
hiring. Some funds could be used for program development or expansion, while
others could provide subsidies to enable candidates to attend, with pledges for
service in the district. Analogs are available in federal support for urban medical
training models (see Appendix A). [from ldh: Note I use federal instead of
Washington because Washington is a city or a state, NOT a level of government].
If we wanted these institution-building grants to operate in the 50 largest cities, with
an average of two programs per city (calibrated to size and need), and if each
developmental grant allocated $1 million per program for each of five years, the
annual cost would be $100 million (with attendant administrative and evaluation
costs adding marginally to this sum). This would add only modestly to the
previously noted scholarship program and still keep total yearly expenses far below
the noted savings. If we wanted to spread these costs over time, moreover, the
programs could be phased in over, say, a decade.
The models that emerged might well be richly diverse, including new forms of
professional development schools that emulate the teaching hospitals used to
develop state-of-the-art medical practices. They might include new applications of
distance technology, new forms of collaboration by the private and public sectors,
and new kinds of partnerships among schools, districts and the multiple
universities. This would make the investment worth its weight in gold, especially
given the subsequent diffusion of successful models.
Improving Teacher Retention
Pa
g
e 35 of 57EPAA Vol. 11 No. 33 Darlin
g
-Hammond & S
y
kes: Wanted: A National Teacher Su
pp
l...
9/16/2003htt
p
://e
p
aa.asu.edu/e
p
aa/v11n33
/
In addition to incentives for entering teaching, improving teacher retention in high-
need areas would be an essential goal of a federal teacher supply program for
education. Growing evidence indicates that high turnover, particularly in the early
years, is a major part of the problem for the system, especially in hard-to-staff
schools. Washington could help stem such attrition by becoming engaged in
several areas, starting with helping to ensure that teachers in such schools receive
appropriate preparation and mentoring.
a. Preparation and Support.
While quality local programs to prepare urban
teachers would go a long way toward supplying schools, a great unfinished task in
American education is to create conditions for better support of new teachers,
encompassing hiring procedures, protected initial assignments, steady provision of
mentor and other support, and improved evaluation to help novices. These matters
have been neglected for too long, and they particularly harm hard-to-staff schools
that need greater personnel stability if they are to create effective learning
communities. The intervention point here clearly is induction, beginning with hiring
and assignment practices, reduced teaching loads, close fits between qualifications
and teaching duties, and the orchestration of support from experienced teachers
and administrators. How might more effective induction practices be promoted?
State certification policy is one vehicle. As evidenced by such cases as
Connecticut, states can establish conditions for effective induction through
certification requirements established for new teachers. In addition to encouraging
such innovations through the U.S. Department of Education’s leadership activities,
Washington could create a targeted, matching grant program aimed explicitly at
supporting effective induction practices. Since many states and some districts have
created induction programs, some resources already are focused on these needs.
Relatively few programs, however, ensure that expert mentors in the same teaching
field are made available for in- classroom support, the component of induction with
the greatest effect on teacher retention and learning.
Part of such a program would supply grants to state agencies willing to develop
statewide induction programs that would be integrated with their licensure and
certification requirements. States might use such grants to fund universities,
districts and other agencies to develop and test model induction programs,
concentrating on support for new teachers in hard-to-staff schools. Another part of
the program would distribute grants to high-need districts to support induction
practices such as mentor cadres and related supports.
The annual costs would again be exceedingly modest. The grants to states might
supply startup funds, with the pledge that states would continue effective programs
and practices after that period. If individual state grants averaged $500,000
annually for three years running and were phased in 10 states at a time, the total
direct cost of this part would be $75 million, allocated over seven years. The grants
to local districts might allocate an average of $250,000 a year for three years of
startup funds, also with the requirement that districts continue effective practices. If
100 district grants were given to 20 districts a year and phased-in over time, the
second part would total $75 million, also spread over seven years. If Washington
took on the role of evaluating and disseminating knowledge from these programs,
Pa
g
e 36 of 57EPAA Vol. 11 No. 33 Darlin
g
-Hammond & S
y
kes: Wanted: A National Teacher Su
pp
l...
9/16/2003htt
p
://e
p
aa.asu.edu/e
p
aa/v11n33
/
the nation would benefit considerably from new policies and practices that receive
hardy tests under a variety of conditions.
b. Pay and Working Conditions
. These factors clearly are of great importance, as
is evident from states and localities that have implemented successful policies
directed at salaries, benefits and working conditions. Too many urban districts are
doubly disadvantaged in the competition for teaching talent. They have difficult
living and working conditions, and they offer salaries below those of nearby
suburban districts. As noted, Connecticut provides an example of how a state dealt
with these problems by both raising and equalizing salaries.
While issues of pay and working conditions are centrally the concerns of states and
localities, Washington could encourage more states to address these issues by
sponsoring research within and across states on the success of various strategies
in different contexts. These might include systemic state strategies like
Connecticut’s and local experiments with compensation plans. Experiments with
extra pay for teaching in hard-to-staff schools (sometimes known as “combat pay”)
generally have proven ineffective, but some states and districts are exploring further
innovation with compensation and working conditions that bear watching. For
example, some analysts have advocated advancement on teacher salary schedules
based on indicators of performance in teaching, including National Board
Certification and other measures of merit or accomplishment. California
implemented $10,000 bonuses for National Board-certified teachers, increased to
$30,000 for such teachers who taught in low-performing schools. California also
implemented its Teachers as a Priority Program, which sent resources to high-need
schools to recruit and retain fully certified teachers through improving working
conditions, adding mentors, reducing class sizes and providing hiring bonuses.
Moreover, hard-to-staff districts might experiment with pay packages that include,
for example, special housing, parking, or transportation allowances, additional
medical and retirement benefits, or summer-based professional development
opportunities for travel, workshops, institutes and other experiences.
In addition to sponsoring research, Washington might play a role in stimulating the
development and testing of innovative compensation and support models explicitly
designed to retain effective teachers in needy schools and districts. In this case, the
Department of Education or other relevant agency would announce a national grant
program that would support two phases of work, the first to develop innovative
compensation plans, the second to evaluate trials of these models to determine
their effectiveness. If 10 to 12 such grants were let, then studied over a significant
period, the knowledge return could be substantial, leading to the adoption of new
compensation practices in districts that historically have had difficulty retaining
teachers. Once evaluation research had validated the worth of such models, there
would be a basis for states and districts to invest in these models out of operating
funds.
c. The Prospect of Success.
Finally, teachers are more likely to stay in schools
where they feel they can succeed. In this regard, research stresses the importance
of professional supports and redesigned schools to build stronger teacher-student
relationship that promote trust, motivation, commitment and collective efficacy (for
Pa
g
e 37 of 57EPAA Vol. 11 No. 33 Darlin
g
-Hammond & S
y
kes: Wanted: A National Teacher Su
pp
l...
9/16/2003htt
p
://e
p
aa.asu.edu/e
p
aa/v11n33
/
one example, see Bryk & Schneider, 2002). These “soft” features of schools are
alterable through more skillful management and organization, which could be
supported through development of new administrative leadership programs and
continued support of redesigned schools, such as those offered through the New
American Schools development program and the Small Schools Act.
Teachers in difficult classrooms, however, are unlikely to be encouraged to stay by
the perverse incentives that may be encouraged by NCLB. Under that law, schools
are being branded as “in need of improvement”—widely viewed as a euphemism for
“failing”—if all students and such subgroups as poor, minority and limited-English-
proficient students do not all show adequate yearly progress on test scores.
Schools stand to be reconstituted and states and districts stand to lose funds based
on missing testing targets. The problem is not only that school scores are so volatile
as to be useless as indicators of improvement (Linn & Haug, 2002) and that the
targets adopted are likely to result in more than half the nation’s schools seen as
failing over the next few years. The problem is also that the stigma is likely to make
it even harder for such schools to recruit and retain highly qualified teachers. These
labels and the accompanying pressure could chase teachers away from such
schools even more persuasively than current conditions (Clotfelter et al., 2003;
Figlio, 2001; DeVise, 1999; Tye and O’Brien, 2002).
If evidence mounts that schools face a teacher exodus because they are seen as
failing or because of rising dismay at excessive accountability pressures,
countervailing measures may be necessary. In addition to amending NCLB to
develop more sensible measures of progress, Washington, along with states and
localities, may need to create other inducements to teach, and remain teaching, in
such schools. Otherwise, even less- qualified individuals may end up instructing
these students.
3. Facilitating a National Labor Market for Teachers
Finally, Washington can create the foundation of a national labor market for
teachers, including the removal of unnecessary interstate barriers to teacher
mobility. Because teacher supply and demand vary regionally, the country can only
benefit if states with teacher surpluses in particular fields can be connected to
states with corresponding shortages. Washington could work with states to
accomplish three goals:
z Developing common licensing exams and interstate agreements about
content and pedagogical coursework that would facilitate reciprocity and
respond to the standard called for by NCLB.
z Creating a system of pension portability across the states.
z Providing labor market data and analyses for federal, state and local planning.
Several groups already are working on these agendas in ways that could be
leveraged toward genuine changes. For example, the Interstate New Teacher
Assessment and Support Consortium, sponsored by the Council of Chief State
School Officers, has brought together more than 30 states to create licensing
standards and new assessments for beginning teachers. The consensus they have
Pa
g
e 38 of 57EPAA Vol. 11 No. 33 Darlin
g
-Hammond & S
y
kes: Wanted: A National Teacher Su
pp
l...
9/16/2003htt
p
://e
p
aa.asu.edu/e
p
aa/v11n33
/
forged could be the basis for an eventual national system. The organization of State
Higher Education Executive Officers, along with the Education Commission of the
States, has examined how to achieve teacher pension portability, and TIAA-CREF
has developed such plans as well. A public/private partnership to stimulate the next
steps in these plans could be extremely productive.
Finally, the long-standing federal role of keeping statistics and managing research
is well suited to the job of creating a database and analytic agenda for monitoring
teacher supply and demand. Such a system, which would inform all other policies,
could document and project shortage areas and fields, determine priorities for
federal, state and local recruitment incentives, and support plans for institutional
investments where they are needed.
In making all of these recommendations, we are mindful of the federal deficits that
are looming. However, these initiatives could be undertaken for less than 1% of the
$350 billion tax cut enacted in May 2003, and, in a matter of only a few years, they
would build a strong teaching force that could last decades. We would stress again,
moreover, that these proposals could save far more than they would cost. The
savings would include the several billion dollars now wasted because of high
teacher turnover as well as the costs of grade retention, summer schools and
remedial programs required because too many children are poorly taught. This is to
say nothing, moreover, of the broken lives and broader societal burdens that could
be avoided with strong teachers in the schools that most need them. In the
competition for educational investment, the evidence strongly points to the centrality
of teacher quality to educational improvement. That should be a centerpiece of the
nation’s education agenda. The benefits of this strategy, in terms of students’
school success, employability and contributions to society, will, we believe, repay
the costs many times over.
Notes
0. The research reported here was originally commissioned by the
Education Commission of the States as part of its 10th Amendment
Project. A version of the report can be found at
http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/46/34/4634.doc. The authors wish to
acknowledge the assistance in preparing this report provided by Debbi
Harris and Lisa Ray of Michigan State University, and Lisa Marie
Carlson of Stanford University. The opinions expressed, however, are
the authors alone.
1. A number of recent polls demonstrate that large majorities of parents and
members of the general public (90%) believe that getting and supporting well-
qualified teachers is the strategy most likely to improve schools; that such
teachers should have knowledge of content, how children learn, and how to
teach; and that salaries – and taxes – should be raised if necessary to get
well-qualified teachers in all schools. See, for example, Educational Testing
Service, 2002; Recruiting New Teachers, 1998.
2. In education, including in the NCLB legislation, “licensure” and
“certification” often are used interchangeably. However, in most other
Pa
g
e 39 of 57EPAA Vol. 11 No. 33 Darlin
g
-Hammond & S
y
kes: Wanted: A National Teacher Su
pp
l...
9/16/2003htt
p
://e
p
aa.asu.edu/e
p
aa/v11n33
/
professional fields, licensure refers to state requirements governing entry to a
field, while certification denotes advanced standing based on standards set by
a profession. For example, states grant physicians a license to practice
medicine; professional boards grant certification in particular medical
specialties. Similarly, the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards
(NBPTS) certifies teachers who demonstrate “accomplished practice,” while
states grant licenses to practice. Here, we conform to general usage, using
“certification” and “licensure” as equivalent terms for the mandatory state
requirements for entry to teaching.
3. See Darling-Hammond and Youngs (2002) for a review of the evidence on
which the report’s recommendations are based.
4. 34 CFR Part 200, Federal Register, Vol. 67, No. 231 (December 2, 2002),
p. 71712. Downloaded on April 20, 2003 from
http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/finrule/2002-4/120202a.html.
5. 34 CFR Section 200.56, Federal Register, Vol. 67, No. 231 (December 2,
2002), p. 71765.
6. 34 CFR Section 200.56, Federal Register, Vol. 67, No. 231 (December 2,
2002), p. 71764.
7. HB 318. Downloaded on 5/3/03 from
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlo/78R/billtext/HB00381.thm.
8. See Teacher Quality, Introduction, Thomas B. Fordham Foundation
Website, http://www.edexcellence.net/topics/teachers.html.
9. Some opponents of teacher certification have misconstrued one finding of
this study to argue against teacher education requirements. Because students
of a small number of science teachers with temporary or emergency
certification (24 of 3,469 teachers in the sample) did no worse than students
of certified teachers, these opponents have termed teacher certification
unnecessary (see e.g. Strayhorn, 2003). However, these teachers, like those
with standard certification, were found to be more effective than uncertified
teachers. Another analysis of these data (Darling-Hammond, Berry, &
Thoreson, 2001) showed that most of the science teachers in the sample with
temporary or emergency certificates had many years of experience and
subject matter and education training comparable to that of certified teachers.
Their backgrounds and teaching contexts suggested that many were
previously certified, out- of-state entrants working on a temporary credential
while becoming certified in a new state. Others were certified in math or
another sub- field of science. It is not surprising, then, that their students did
about as well as those of certified teachers with similar qualifications. Only a
third of the NELS sample teachers on temporary/emergency licenses were
new entrants to teaching with little education training. The students of this
sub-sample had smaller achievement gains than those of the more
experienced, traditionally trained teachers in an analysis of covariance that
controlled for pre- test scores, content degrees and experience.
10. A decade ago, only a quarter to a third of newly hired teachers were
“newly minted.” This proportion has increased with growing demand, reaching
as many as half of new hires in the late 1990s. In a few high- demand states
like California, the proportion has reached 60 percent, but this is unusual.
11. Various studies of teacher supply have found that about 20% to 30% of
teachers who have left the classroom eventually return to teaching in the
same state (Beaudin, 1993; Massachusetts Institute for Social and Economic
Pa
g
e 40 of 57EPAA Vol. 11 No. 33 Darlin
g
-Hammond & S
y
kes: Wanted: A National Teacher Su
pp
l...
9/16/2003htt
p
://e
p
aa.asu.edu/e
p
aa/v11n33
/
Research, 1987; Murnane et al., 1991). Some leave to teach in another state,
although most studies have not had data sets to track these individuals. The
likelihood that those who have left teaching will re- enter depends heavily on
salary levels and work conditions (Beaudin, 1993; 1995).
12. Boe (1998) and colleagues have found that, nationally, delayed entrants
comprise about a third of new entrants to teaching annually, which in this case
would be about 50,000.
13. Between 1983 and 1999, annual graduates with a bachelor’s or master’s
degree in education jumped from 134,870 to 234,408. However, this does not
translate directly into new teacher supply, since bachelor’s degrees in
education now represent fewer than half of newly prepared teachers. Most
now receive a degree in a disciplinary field and a second major, minor or
master’s in education. While a growing share of teachers are trained in
master’s programs, many master’s degrees are gained after teachers have
already completed initial preparation.
14. Because a large majority of alternative programs are run by or in
collaboration with universities, their graduates are counted in university totals.
Estimates of alternative-certification programs vary, depending on
classification, but by 1999, 40 states and the District of Columbia had 117
state-authorized programs (Feistritzer & Chester, 2000). In addition, the
American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (1996) cataloged
328 alternative programs run by colleges and universities.
15. Researchers using longitudinal data from the 1993-94 Baccalaureate and
Beyond survey find a 4-year attrition rate of about 20% for those who entered
teaching directly after college (Henke, et al., 2000). Ingersoll (2001)
extrapolates from cross-sectional data on teacher attrition (from the 1999-
2000 Schools and Staffing Surveys) to estimate a 5-year attrition rate for
beginning teachers of 46%, including private school teachers. However, the 5-
year attrition rate for public school teachers is only about 38%. Furthermore,
some individuals who left teaching for childrearing or further study will have
returned to the classroom in the first five years—a proportion that, other
estimates suggest, could be about 20% of leavers. With this adjustment, the
5-year cumulative attrition rate would be just over 30% for public school
teachers.
16. Analysts have long recognized that salary differentials across teaching
areas contribute to shortages, based on the sensible proposition that
individuals are influenced by salaries available to them. In response, some
have argued for altering the structure of public school salary schedules by
allowing differential pay across teaching specialties. Some experiments along
these lines have appeared over the years, including recent efforts in
Cincinnati, OH, Douglas County, CO, and Denver, CO, among others. In
2003, the Kentucky State Department of Education awarded grants to ten
districts for innovations in salary systems. These experiments are worth
careful study, but for the most part salary schedules have remained uniform
and fixed. See Kershaw & McKean (1962) and Murnane, et al. (1991) for
further discussion of this issue.
17. Flanagan and Grissmer (2002) point out, however, that while one-third of
the inequality in educational spending is within-state, almost two-thirds of the
variance is between-state. Even accounting for between-state differences in
the costs of education, this basic fact points to the need for equity policies at
Pa
g
e 41 of 57EPAA Vol. 11 No. 33 Darlin
g
-Hammond & S
y
kes: Wanted: A National Teacher Su
pp
l...
9/16/2003htt
p
://e
p
aa.asu.edu/e
p
aa/v11n33
/
the federal level.
18. For example, a study for the California Commission on Teacher
Credentialing (CCTC, 1998) documented the difficulties out-of-state
candidates experienced in seeking teaching positions. Problems included
costs of courses and exams, confusion about how to complete the many and
varied requirements, and redundancy with other requirements teachers had
already met elsewhere. In a survey of out-of-state teachers who had received
an initial permit to teach in California, credential requirements were the
leading factor in decisions to leave the state.
19. In the fall of 1999, Connecticut had 30% students of color, including the
12th largest Hispanic enrollment in the nation, and in 2002, 36% of students
attended Title I schools. In the same years, North Carolina had 38% students
of color, including the 8th largest enrollment of African Americans, and 38% of
students attended Title I schools (NCES, 2001, table 42; NAEP State Data,
2002, retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/statedata).
20. See Appendix A for a brief history of federal involvement in medical
teacher supply policy.
21. See Appendix B for a brief history of federal involvement in the teacher
labor market.
22. Although the Schools and Staffing Surveys provide useful data for
monitoring aspects of supply and demand, they have never been fully
exploited for this purpose. Modifications to the questionnaires have made the
data about training and certification too imprecise for some important
analyses. Furthermore, the delay between surveys and the delay in releasing
data to the public for outside analysis make them much less useful than they
could be for monitoring supply trends. Although the SASS was intended to
occur every three years, the delayed 1999-2000 survey came six years after
the 1993-94 survey.
23. While Title I status is a key indicator, the Title I program fails to reach a
large portion of students from poor families. Thus a national program of
teacher scholarships ultimately should be tied to service targeted at the actual
distribution of poor children, not to Title I school status alone.
24. Of the 250,000 teachers hired annually, no more than 50,000 enter
without standard certification in their main teaching field. This overestimates
the need, since many of these teachers are certified in some field, if not the
one they are teaching, and some are in transition from one state to another or
have been hired without yet taking the state licensing examinations, so they
are only temporarily in the ‘not fully qualified’ category.
25. This is enough to pay full tuition and some stipend in a public college or
university for a one-year master’s program in teaching for recent graduates or
mid-career entrants—or enough for 2-3 full years of undergraduate tuition in a
state university for juniors and seniors preparing to teach.
26. We are indebted to Susanna Loeb for suggesting this point, and for
elaborating it in several papers she has written with her colleagues.
27. This might include school improvement measures that rely on aggregated
longitudinal scores for individual students, rather than annual cross-sectional
estimates that can fluctuate from year to year for a variety of reasons
unrelated to school practices; averages of these longitudinal score gains over
multiple years; annual targets that are not statistically unreasonable; and
multiple measures of school practice and performance that extend beyond
Pa
g
e 42 of 57EPAA Vol. 11 No. 33 Darlin
g
-Hammond & S
y
kes: Wanted: A National Teacher Su
pp
l...
9/16/2003htt
p
://e
p
aa.asu.edu/e
p
aa/v11n33
/
test scores.
References
American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. (1996). Alternative paths to teaching: A
directory of post-baccalaureate programs. Washington, DC: Author.
American Association for Employment in Education. (2000). Educator supply and demand in the United
States: 2000 Research Report. Columbus, OH: Author.
Andrew, M. & Schwab, R. (1995). Has reform in teacher education influenced teacher performance? An
outcome assessment of graduates of eleven teacher education programs. Action in Teacher
Education, 17, 43-53.
Asher, C., (forthcoming). Improving teaching in North Carolina: How school design intersects with school
reform. Seattle: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington.
Baron, J. (1999). Exploring high and improving reading achievement in Connecticut. Washington, DC:
National Educational Goals Panel.
Ballou, D. (1996). Do public schools hire the best applicants? Quarterly Journal of Economics 111(1), 97-
133.
Ballou, D., & Podgursky, M. (1997). Teacher pay and teacher quality. Kalamazoo, MI: The Upjohn
Institute for Employment Research.
Baugh, W.H., & Stone, J.A. (1982). Mobility and wage equilibration in the educator labor market.
Economics of Education Review, 2 (3): 253- 274.
Beaudin, B. (1993). Teachers who interrupt their career: Characteristics of those who return to the
classroom. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15, (1): 51-64.
Beaudin, B. (1995). Former teachers who return to public schools: District and teacher characteristics of
teachers who return to the districts they left. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 17(4): 462-
475.
Begle, E. (1979). Critical variables in mathematics education: Findings from a survey of empirical
literature. Washington, DC: National Council for Teachers of Mathematics.
Benner, A. D. (2000). The cost of teacher turnover. Austin, TX: Texas Center for Educational Research.
Betts, J. R., Rueben, K.S., & Danenberg, A. (2000). Equal resources, equal outcomes? The distribution
of school resources and student achievement in California. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of
California.
Bliss, T. (1992). Alternative certification in Connecticut: Reshaping the profession. Peabody Journal of
Education, 67(3): 35-54.
Boe, E., Bobbitt, S.A., Cook, L.H., Barkanic, G., Maislin, G. (1998). National trends in teacher supply and
turnover for special and general education. Data analysis report no. 1998- DAR1. Philadelphia:
Center for Research and Evaluation in Social Policy, University of Pennsylvania.
Boyd, D., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2003, March). The draw of home: How teacher
preferences for proximity disadvantage urban schools. Unpublished paper.
Pa
g
e 43 of 57EPAA Vol. 11 No. 33 Darlin
g
-Hammond & S
y
kes: Wanted: A National Teacher Su
pp
l...
9/16/2003htt
p
://e
p
aa.asu.edu/e
p
aa/v11n33
/
Brewer, D. (1996). Career paths and quit decisions: Evidence from teaching. Journal of Labor
Economics, 14(2), 313-339.
Bridges, E. (1990). Evaluation for tenure and dismissal. In J. Millman & L. Darling-Hammond (Eds.).
Handbook of teacher evaluation (pp. 147-157). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Bryk, T. & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. New York: Russell
Sage Foundation.
California Commission for Teacher Credentialing (CCTC) (1998a, June). A report on issues involving the
recruitment and retention of teachers prepared in other states. Sacramento, CA: Author.
California State University. (2002a). First system wide evaluation of teacher education programs in the
California State University: Summary Report. Longbeach, CA: Office of the Chancellor, California
State University.
California State University. (2002b). Preparing teachers for reading instruction (K-12): An evaluation brief
by the California State University. Longbeach, CA: Office of the Chancellor, California State
University.
California Select Committee on Low Performing Schools. (2001).
Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy. (1986). A nation prepared: Teachers for the twenty-first
century. New York: Carnegie Forum, Carnegie Corporation of New York.
Carroll, S., Reichardt, R. & Guarino, C. (2000). The distribution of teachers among California’s school
districts and schools. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
Choy, S., Henke, R., Alt, M., Medrich, E., & Bobbitt, S. (1993). Schools and staffing in the United States:
A statistical profile, 1990-91. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S.
Department of Education.
Clotfelter, C., Ladd, H., Vigdor, J., & Diaz, R. (2003, February)(revised). Do school accountability
systems make it more difficult for low performing schools to attract and retain high quality teachers?
Paper prepared for the annual meeting of the American Economic Association, Washington, DC.
Coleman, J., Campbell, E., Hobson, C., McPartland, J., Mood, A., Weinfeld, R., et al. (1966). Equality of
educational opportunity. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Connecticut State Department of Education (1990). Impact of Education Enhancement Act, Research
Bulletin, School Year 1990, No. 1. Hartford, CT: Author.
Connecticut State Board of Education. (1992). The other side of the equation: Impact of the teacher
standards provisions of the Education Enhancement Act. Hartford, CT: Author.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). Doing what matters most: Investing in quality teaching. New York: National
Commission on Teaching & America’s Future (0-9654535-3-7).
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000a). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy
evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1): http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n1.
Darling-Hammond, L. (Ed.) (2000b). Studies of excellence in teacher education (three volumes).
Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.
Darling-Hammond, L. (in press). Access to quality teaching: An analysis of inequality in California’s public
schools. Santa Clara Law Review.
Pa
g
e 44 of 57EPAA Vol. 11 No. 33 Darlin
g
-Hammond & S
y
kes: Wanted: A National Teacher Su
pp
l...
9/16/2003htt
p
://e
p
aa.asu.edu/e
p
aa/v11n33
/
Darling-Hammond, Berry, B., & Thoreson, A. (2001). Does teacher certification matter? Evaluating the
evidence. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(1), 57-77.
Darling-Hammond, L., Chung, R, & Frelow, F. (2002). Variation in teacher preparation: How well do
different pathways prepare teachers to teach? Journal of Teacher Education, 53(4): 286-302.
Darling-Hammond, L., Hightower, A., Husbands, J., LaFors, J., & Young, V. (2002, April). Building
instructional quality: Inside-out, bottom-up, and top-down perspectives on San Diego’s school
reform. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
New Orleans, LA.
Darling-Hammond, L., Kirby, S., & Hudson, (1989). Redesigning Teacher Education: Opening the Door
for New Recruits to Science and Mathematics Teaching. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation,
1989.
Darling-Hammond, L. & Youngs, P. (2002). Defining “Highly Qualified Teachers:” What does
“Scientifically-Based Research” Actually Tell Us? Educational Researcher, 31(9), 13-25.
DeVise, D. (1999). A+ Plan Prompts Teacher Exodus in Broward County. Miami Herald, Nov. 5, 1999.
Educational Testing Service. (1991). The state of inequality. Princeton, NJ: Author.
Educational Testing Service (2002). A national priority: Americans speak on teacher quality. Princeton,
NJ: ETS.
The Education Trust (2002). The funding gap: Low income and minority students receive fewer dollars.
Washington, DC: Author. http://www.edtrust.org/main/documents/investment.pdf.
Elmore, R. & Burney, D. (1999). Investing in teacher learning: Staff development and instructional
improvement. In L. Darling-Hammond and G. Sykes (Eds.). Teaching as the learning profession.
Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 263-291). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Feistritzer, E. & Chester, D. (2000). Alternative teacher certification: A state-by-state analysis 2000.
Washington, DC: National Center for Education Information.
Ferguson, R. F. (1991). Paying for public education: New evidence on how and why money matters.
Harvard Journal of Legislation, 28(2), 465-498.
Ferguson, R.F. & Ladd, H.F. (1996). How and why money matters: An analysis of Alabama schools. In
H. Ladd (Ed.). Holding schools accountable (pp. 265-298). Washington, DC: Brookings Press.
Fetler, M. (1999). High school staff characteristics and mathematics test results. Education Policy
Analysis Archives, 7(9): http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v7n9.html
Figlio, D. (2001). What might school accountability do? Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic
Research.
Flanagan, A. & Grissmer, D. (2002). The role of federal resources in closing the achievement gap. In T.
Loveless and J. Chubb (Eds.). Bridging the achievement gap (pp. 199-226). Washington, DC:
Brookings Press.
Fowler, C. (2002). Fast track…slow going? Research Brief. Ed Policy 2(1). Retrieved September, 2002
from http://www.edpolicy.org/publications/documents/updatev2i1.pdf.
Fuller, E. (1998). Do properly certified teachers matter? A comparison of elementary school performance
on the TAAS in 1997 between schools with high and low percentages of properly certified regular
Pa
g
e 45 of 57EPAA Vol. 11 No. 33 Darlin
g
-Hammond & S
y
kes: Wanted: A National Teacher Su
pp
l...
9/16/2003htt
p
://e
p
aa.asu.edu/e
p
aa/v11n33
/
education teachers. Austin: The Charles A. Dana Center, University of Texas at Austin.
Fuller, E. (2000). Do properly certified teachers matter? Properly certified algebra teachers and Algebra I
achievement in Texas. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Futernick, K. (2001, April). A district-by-district analysis of the distribution of teachers in California and an
overview of the Teacher Qualification Index (TQI). Sacramento: California State University,
Sacramento.
Gomez, D., & Grobe, R. (1990). Three years of alternative certification in Dallas: Where are we? Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, MA.
Goe, L. (2002, April). Legislating equity: The distribution of emergency permit teachers in California.
Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 10(42). Retrieved November 8, 2002 from
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n42.
Goldhaber, D.D. & Brewer, D.J. (2000). Does teacher certification matter? High school certification status
and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22, 129-145.
Good, T.L. & Brophy, J.E. (1995). Contemporary educational psychology, 5th edition. NY: Longman, Inc.
Gormley, M. (2003, January 2). State: The teacher shortage is abating. Boston Globe.
Greenwald, R., Hedges, L., & Laine, R.D. (1996). The effect of school resources on student
achievement. Review of Educational Research, 66, 361-396.
Grey, L., Cahahlan, M., Hein, S., Litman, C., Severynse, J., Warren S., Wisan, G., & Stowe, P. (1993).
New teachers in the job market. 1991 update. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education,
Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
Gritz, M., & Theobold, N. (1996). The effects of school district spending priorities on length of stay in
teaching. Journal of Human Resources, 31, 477-512.
Hanushek, E. (1992). The trade-off between child quantity and quality. Journal of Political Economy, 100
(1), 84-117.
Hanushek, E. (1996). School resources and achievement in Maryland. Baltimore: Maryland State
Department of Education.
Hanushek, E., Kain, J., & Rivkin, S. (1998). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. (Working
Paper 6691). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Hanushek, E., Kain, J., & Rivkin, S. (1999). Do higher salaries buy better teachers? Cambridge, MA:
National Bureau of Economic Research.
Hanushek, E., Kain, J., & Rivkin, S. (2001). Why public schools lose teachers (Working Paper #8599).
Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Harris, P. (2002). Survey of California teachers. Peter Harris Research Group.
Hawk, P., Coble, C. R. & Swanson, M. (1985). Certification: Does it matter? Journal of Teacher
Education, 36(3), 13-15.
Hayasaki, E., (2003, February 10), Teacher Shortage Abates, Los Angeles Times.
http://www.latimes.com.
Pa
g
e 46 of 57EPAA Vol. 11 No. 33 Darlin
g
-Hammond & S
y
kes: Wanted: A National Teacher Su
pp
l...
9/16/2003htt
p
://e
p
aa.asu.edu/e
p
aa/v11n33
/
Hayes, E. & Gendar, A. (2002, July 24). Pay hike lures better-qualified teachers. New York Daily News.
http://www.nydailynews.com.
Henke, R.R., Chen, X., Geis, S., & Knepper, P. (2000). Progress through the teacher pipeline: 1992-93
college graduates and elementary/secondary school teaching as of 1997. NCES 2000-152.
Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
HGSE News. (2003, April 22). New research finds school hiring and support practices fall short.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Ingersoll, R. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational analysis. American
Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 499-534.
Ingersoll, R. (2002, January). Out-of-field teaching, educational inequality, and the organization of
schools: An exploratory analysis (R-02-1). Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
Jelmberg, J. (1996). College-based teacher education versus state-sponsored alternative programs.
Journal of Teacher Education, 47(1), 60-66.
Jerald, C. (2002, August). All talk, no action. Putting an end to out-of-field teaching. Washington, DC:
The Education Trust.
Kain, J., & Singleton, K. (1996). Equality of educational opportunity revisited. New England Economic
Review (May/June), 87-111.
Kershaw, J. & McKean, R. (1962). Teacher shortages and salary schedules. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequalities. New York: Crown Publishers.
Laczko-Kerr, I., & Berliner, D.C. (2002, September 6). The effectiveness of "Teach for America" and
other under- certified teachers on student academic achievement: A case of harmful public policy,"
Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(37). Retrieved 5/3/03 from
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n37/.
Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2002). Teacher sorting and the plight of urban schools: A
descriptive analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(1), 37- 62.
Lee, V., & Burkam, D. (2002). Inequality at the starting gate: Social background differences in
achievement as children begin school. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.
Levin, H. M. (1980). Teacher certification and the economics of information. Educational Evaluation and
Policy Analysis, 2 (4), 5-18.
Linn, R.L. & Haug, C. (2002). Stability of school-building accountability scores and gains. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24 (1), 29-36.
Loeb, S. & Page, M. (2000). Examining the link between teacher wages and student outcomes: The
importance of alternative labor market opportunities and non-pecuniary variation. Review of
Economics and Statistics, 82(3), 393-408.
Loeb, S., Darling-Hammond, L., and Luczak, J. (forthcoming). Teacher turnover: The role of working
conditions and salaries in recruiting and retaining teachers. Stanford: Stanford University School of
Education.
Lutz, R. & Hutton, J. (1989). Alternative teacher certification: Its policy implications for classroom and
personnel practice. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11
(3), 237-254.
Pa
g
e 47 of 57EPAA Vol. 11 No. 33 Darlin
g
-Hammond & S
y
kes: Wanted: A National Teacher Su
pp
l...
9/16/2003htt
p
://e
p
aa.asu.edu/e
p
aa/v11n33
/
Massachusetts Institute for Social and Economic Research (1987). Report on the status of teacher
supply and demand in Massachusetts. Amherst, MA: Author.
McKibbin, M. (1998). Teaching internship programs: Alternative prepration and licensure in California:
Purposes, procedures and performance. Sacramento, CA: California Commission on Teacher
Credentialing.
Mehlman, N., My Brief Teaching Career (June 24, 2002, New York Times, need op ed page #
Miller, J., McKenna, M., & McKenna, B. (1998). A comparison of alternatively certified and traditionally
prepared teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 49(3), 165-176.
Mitchell, N. (1987). Interim evaluation report of the alternative certification system (REA87-027-2).
Dallas, TX: DISD Department of Planning, Evaluation, and Testing.
Monk, D. (1994). Subject area preparation of secondary mathematics and science teachers and student
achievement. Economics of Education Review, 12(2), 125-142.
Mont, E., & Rees, D. (1996). The influence of classroom characteristics on high school teacher turnover.
Economic Inquiry, 34(1), 152-167.
Murnane, R. (1983). Understanding the sources of teaching competence: Choices, skills, and the limits
of training. Teachers College Record, 84(3), 564-589.
Murnane, R., & Olsen, R. (1990). The effects of salaries and opportunity costs on length of stay in
teaching: Evidence from North Carolina. Journal of Human Resources, 25(1), 106- 124.
Murnane, R., Singer, J., & Willett, J. (1989). The influences of salaries and ‘opportunity costs’ on
teachers’ career choices: Evidence from North Carolina. Harvard Educational Review, 59(3), 325-46.
Murnane, R., Singer, J., Willett, J., Kemple, J., & Olsen, R. (1991). Who will teach? Policies that matter.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
National Center for Education Statistics. (1997). America's teachers: Profile of a profession, 1993-94.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
National Center for Education Statistics. (1998). Projections of education statistics to 2007. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Education.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2000). Digest of Education Statistics, 1999. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of
National Center for Education Statistics. (2002). Qualifications of the public school teacher workforce:
Prevalence of out-of-field teaching 1987-88 to 1999-2000. Washington, DC: Author.
National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future. (1996). What matters most: Teaching for
America’s future. New York: Author.
National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future. (2003). No Dream denied: A pledge to America’s
children. NY: Author.
National Education Goals Panel. (1999). Reading achievement state by state, 1999. Washington, DC:
U.S. Government Printing Office.
Pflaum, S. W. & Abrahamson, T. (1990). Teacher assignment, hiring, and preparation.
The Urban
Review, 22, (1), 17-31.
Pa
g
e 48 of 57EPAA Vol. 11 No. 33 Darlin
g
-Hammond & S
y
kes: Wanted: A National Teacher Su
pp
l...
9/16/2003htt
p
://e
p
aa.asu.edu/e
p
aa/v11n33
/
Pogodzinski, J. M. (2000). The teacher shortage: Causes and recommendations for change. San Jose:
Department of Economics, San Jose State University.
Raymond, M., Fletcher, S., & Luque, J. (2001). Teach for America: An evaluation of teacher differences
and student outcomes in Houston, Texas. Stanford, CA: The Hoover Institution, Center for Research
on Education Outcomes.
Recruiting New Teachers (1998). The essential profession: A survey of public attitudes toward teaching,
educational opportunity, and school reform. Belmont, MA: Author.
Rivkin, S., Hanushek, E., and Kain, J. (2000). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. (Working
paper #6691, revised). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Rothstein, R. (2002, July). Raising school standards and cutting budget: Huh? New York Times, July 7,
2002.
Scafidi, B., Sjoquist, D., & Stinebrickner, T. (2002, September). The impact of wages and school
characteristics on teacher mobility and retention. Unpublished manuscript.
Schlechty, P. (1990). Schools for the 21st century: Leadership imperatives for educational reform. San
Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Schlechty, P. & Vance, V. (1983). Recruitment, selection, and retention: The shape of the teaching force.
Elementary School Journal, 83, 469-487.
Shields, P. M., Esch, C., Humphrey, D. C., Young, V. M., Gaston, M., & Hunt, H. (1999). The status of
the teaching profession: Research findings and policy recommendations. A report to the Teaching
and California's Future Task Force. Santa Cruz, CA: The Center for the Future of Teaching and
Learning.
Shields, P.M., Humphrey, D.C., Wechsler, M.E., Riel, L.M., Tiffany-Morales, J., Woodworth, K., Young,
V.M. & Price, T. (2001). The status of the teaching profession 2001. Santa Cruz, CA: The Center for
the Future of Teaching and Learning.
Snyder, J. (2002). New Haven Unified School District: A teaching quality system for excellence and
equity. In A. Hightower, M. Knapp, J. Marsh, and M. McLaughlin (Eds.). School districts and
instructional renewal (pp. 94-110). New York: Teachers College Press.
SRI International. (2002, October). Alternative certification: Design for a national study. Menlo Park, CA:
Author.
Strauss, R. P. & Sawyer, E. A. (1986). Some new evidence on teacher and student competencies.
Economics of Education Review, 5 (1), 41-48.
Strayhorn, C. K. (2003, January). ED 4: Alleviate the Texas teacher shortage. E-Texas: Limited
Government, Unlimited Opportunity. Downloaded on 5/3/03 from
http://www.window.state.tx.us/etexas2003/ed04.html.
Stoddart, Trish (1992). An alternate route to teacher certification: Preliminary findings from the Los
Angeles Unified School District Intern Program. Peabody Journal of Education, 67(3).
Theobold, N. (1990). An examination of the influence of personal, professional, and school district
characteristics on public school teacher retention. Economics of Education Review, 9(3), 241-250.
Theobold, N., & Gritz, R. (1990). The effect of school district spending priorities on the exit paths of
beginning teachers leaving the district. Economics of Education Review, 15(1), 11-22.
Pa
g
e 49 of 57EPAA Vol. 11 No. 33 Darlin
g
-Hammond & S
y
kes: Wanted: A National Teacher Su
pp
l...
9/16/2003htt
p
://e
p
aa.asu.edu/e
p
aa/v11n33
/
Tye, B. B. & O’Brien, L. (2002). Why are experienced teachers leaving the profession? Phi Delta
Kappan, 84(1), 24-32.
Tyson, S., Hawley, H., & McKibbin, M. (2000). Pre-internship teaching program: A progress report to the
legislature. Sacramento, CA: California Commission on Teacher Credentialing.
U.S. Department of Education. (2002, June). Meeting the highly qualified teachers challenge: The
secretary’s annual report on teacher quality. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office
of Postsecondary Education.
Wayne, A., & Youngs, P. (in press). Teacher characteristics and student achievement gains: A review.
Review of Educational Research.
Wenglinsky, H. (2000). How teaching matters: Bringing the classroom back into discussions of teacher
quality. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Wenglinsky, H. (2002). How schools matter: The link between teacher classroom practices and student
academic performance. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(12); retrieved from
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n12/.
Wilson, S., Darling-Hammond, L., & Berry B. (2000). A case of successful teaching policy: Connecticut’s
long-term efforts to improve teaching and learning. Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching
and Policy.
Wilson, S., Floden, R., & Ferrini-Mundy, J. (2001, February). Teacher preparation research: Current
knowledge, gaps, and recommendations (R-01-3). Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching
and Policy.
Wise, A., Darling-Hammond, L., & Berry, B. (1987). Effective teacher selection: From recruitment to
retention. Santa Monica: Rand Corporation.
Zhou, Y. (2002, October 5). To find teachers, raise hand high and yell, ‘me!’ New York Times.
About the Authors
Linda Darling-Hammond
School of Education
Stanford University
Linda Darling-Hammond is Charles E. Ducommun Professor of Education at
Stanford University School of Education. She also served as executive director of
the National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future which produced the
1996 widely cited blueprint for education reform: What Matters Most: Teaching for
America’s Future. Darling-Hammond's research, teaching, and policy work focus on
teaching and teacher education, school restructuring, and educational equity. She
has been active in the development of standards for teaching, having served as a
two- term member of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards and
as chair of the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium
(INTASC) committee that drafted model standards for licensing beginning teachers.
She is author of The Right To Learn, A License to Teach, and Professional
Development Schools: Schools for Developing a Profession, along with six other
books and more than 200 book chapters, journal articles, and monographs on
education. Dr. Darling-Hammond works on issues of education policy and practice,
Pa
g
e 50 of 57EPAA Vol. 11 No. 33 Darlin
g
-Hammond & S
y
kes: Wanted: A National Teacher Su
pp
l...
9/16/2003htt
p
://e
p
aa.asu.edu/e
p
aa/v11n33
/
including school reform, authentic assessment, professional development schools
and educational research. She serves as the faculty sponsor for Stanford's Teacher
Education Program (STEP). As a leader in the charge for better teacher education
and teacher preparedness, Dr. Darling- Hammond is instrumental in redesigning
STEP to better prepare teachers to teach diverse learners in the context of
challenging new subject matter standards. She also is helping to create a network
of Bay Area schools of education and professional development schools (PDS)
interested in working together on school reform, and learning communities for Bay
Area practitioners through an ongoing series of workshops, institutes, peer
coaching networks and study groups.
Gary Sykes
College of Education
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI
Email: garys@pilot.msu.edu
Gary Sikes is a professor in the Departments of Educational Administration and
Teacher Education, College of Education, Michigan State University. Recent work
includes two strands. One is on the effects of school choice policies on educational
systems; his most recent book, co-edited with David Plank (Choosing Choice:
School Choice in International Perspective. Teachers College Press, 2003)
explores this theme. The other strand of work examines the effects of policies
directed at teaching and teachers. That theme is represented in a book co-edited
with Linda Darling Hammond, Teaching as the Learning Profession (Jossey Bass,
1999).
Appendix A
Federal Funding for Health Professionals
Since 1944, the federal government has offered loans to students preparing for
health professions careers and has supported the development of medical
education programs. These programs were expanded during the 1950s by the
Medical Manpower Act and in 1963 by the Health Professions Education
Assistance Act, which have been amended and expanded regularly ever since.
Over a half century, a strong federal role in managing the medical workforce and
strengthening medical training has contributed to America’s world-class system of
medical training. Title 42, chapter 6A, subchapter V of the U.S. Code details the
many components of this system, which includes:
1. Forgivable loans, scholarships, fellowships, and traineeships that are
designed to:
a. Increase the numbers of doctors and nurses in fields of high- demand.
b. Improve the geographic distribution of health professionals in medically
underserved and rural areas.
c. Recruit as medical students individuals who are members of minority
groups.
Pa
g
e 51 of 57EPAA Vol. 11 No. 33 Darlin
g
-Hammond & S
y
kes: Wanted: A National Teacher Su
pp
l...
9/16/2003htt
p
://e
p
aa.asu.edu/e
p
aa/v11n33
/
2. Investments in health professions schools, which are designed to:
a. Underwrite the costs of planning, developing and operating training
programs in specified high-need fields (currently, for example, family
medicine, internal medicine, pediatrics and general dentistry), often with
special consideration for projects that prepare practitioners to work with
underserved populations.
b. Create “Centers of Excellence” at specific medical schools for increasing
the supply of minority medical students and faculty and improving the
capacity of professionals to address minority health issues, including
development of community-based health facilities.
c. Establish area health education centers that assess regional health
personnel needs and assist in the development of training programs to
meet such needs, especially in underserved areas. (Some costs are
funded by state and local partners).
d. Expand training programs for public health workers, especially in
“severe shortage disciplines” (e.g. epidemiology, biostatistics,
environmental health, maternal and child health, public health nursing
and behavioral and mental health).
3. Support for analysis concerning the health professions workforce, which aims
to:
a. Operate a uniform health professions data reporting system to collect,
compile and analyze data on health professions personnel and
students-in-training.
b. Develop a non-federal analytic infrastructure (via grants to states and
other institutions) to conduct research on high priority workforce
questions, including projections of supply and need by specialty and
location.
c. Conduct program evaluations and assessments.
Over the years, as needs have been identified, the Congress has continued to
develop innovative strategies to address emerging personnel and service needs.
For example, recent amendments to the Public Health Service Act (PL 107-251)
added, to existing support for health centers and the National Health Service Corps,
the creation of integrated health care networks in rural areas, grants to expand
telehealth resources, and expansion of training grants to include mental health
professionals and increase participation of individuals in other training fields
experiencing shortages, such as dentists. Using partnership strategies, some
grants are directed to states to improve their capacity to recruit and distribute high-
need professionals. For example, Section 340G (42 USC 256g) provides for grants
to states for innovative programs “to address the dental workforce needs of
designated dental health professional shortage areas in a manner that is
appropriate to the states’ individual needs.” States may use the funds for loan
forgiveness programs for dentists who agree to practice in shortage areas or who
agree to provide payments on a sliding scale; for recruitment and retention efforts;
for grants or no-interest loans to help dentists establish or expand practices in
shortage areas; and for the establishment or expansion of dental residency
programs. Through these evolving strategies and the hundreds of millions of dollars
annually allocated to them, the federal government responds to local needs for
health professionals and manages the labor market so that these needs can be
Pa
g
e 52 of 57EPAA Vol. 11 No. 33 Darlin
g
-Hammond & S
y
kes: Wanted: A National Teacher Su
pp
l...
9/16/2003htt
p
://e
p
aa.asu.edu/e
p
aa/v11n33
/
better met.
Appendix B
Federal Funding for Education Professionals
Federal involvement in education manpower issues also emerged in the post-war
era in the United States, but it has been more spotty than the steady, consistent
involvement in the health professions. Rather than developing any overarching
rationale or policy, federal efforts were attached to other priorities, such as national
defense or civil rights, which supplied justification for a federal role. In addressing
teacher recruitment needs and shortages, the national government tended to rely
on incentives with limited time horizons.
The earliest legislation involved support for veterans returning from World War II.
The Serviceman’s Readjustment Act of 1944 contained a provision to help defray
tuition and other costs for G.I.s, with teachers colleges and normal schools on the
list of approved institutions. Subsequently, as the nation was drawn into the Cold
War, national defense emerged as the paramount issue. Among its provisions, the
National Defense Education Act of 1958 launched a loan program that became
identified with its chief sponsor, Congressman Carl Perkins. Title II, the National
Defense Loan Program, supplied student loans for college education, with special
consideration for students with a superior academic background who expressed a
desire to teach in elementary or secondary school. The program provided that any
loans would be canceled, at the rate of 10% annually, for each year of service in a
public school. The Higher Education Act of 1965 increased the rate of cancellation
on Perkins loans from 10% to 15% for teachers who served in schools with high
concentrations of students from low- income families. Such teachers also would be
eligible for 100% of loan cancellation, based on extended years of service, rather
than 50% available to other teachers. The 1998 reauthorization provided Perkins
loan cancellations at the rate of 15% for years one and two of service, 20% for
years three and four, and 30% for year five of service. The amendments added
teachers of learning disabled students to those who teach in high poverty (Title I)
schools or in subject-matter shortage areas, including mathematics, science,
foreign languages and bilingual education, among others. These provisions remain
in effect. While they are modestly helpful, these loans are a retroactive support for
individuals who find their way into teaching, not a proactive recruitment device to
attract college students into training programs that ensure they will be induced into
shortage fields and well-prepared to teach these disciplines.
A new theme—civil rights—entered the federal mix beginning in the 1960s. In
addition to the Perkins loans, the Higher Education Act of 1965 contained
provisions aimed at staffing inner-city and rural schools. This act established the
National Teacher Corps, which operated for the next 15 years. That program
worked through grants to institutions of higher education, which were authorized to
train recruits, who would serve in schools attended by poor children. Following a
few months of initial training, recruits entered schools as interns on teams made up
of an experienced teacher plus other recruits. Continuing their training while
working, the interns received starting salaries from the districts where they worked,
Pa
g
e 53 of 57EPAA Vol. 11 No. 33 Darlin
g
-Hammond & S
y
kes: Wanted: A National Teacher Su
pp
l...
9/16/2003htt
p
://e
p
aa.asu.edu/e
p
aa/v11n33
/
while experienced teachers received added compensation for team leadership.
Over the years, the program was evaluated regularly and improved upon. For
example, the model evolved from isolated placements in individual schools to
clusters that included feeder schools to middle and high schools, and the
training/program evaluation cycle was lengthened from two to five years. The act
also funded fellowships that universities could allocate to support full-time graduate
study at the master’s level in education. A number of Master of Arts in Teaching
(MAT) programs evolved out of these fellowships. These programs became, in
essence, the first alternatives to traditional undergraduate teacher education. The
early MAT efforts, one-year master’s degree programs at places like Harvard,
Stanford, Columbia’s Teachers College, and Duke, later became models for many
university-based alternative programs in the 1990s.
The combination of these investments in recruitment and a reduction in teacher
demand led to the virtual elimination of emergency hiring of teachers by 1979.
Although there were serious questions about the quality of teacher supply at that
time (see e.g., Schlecty and Vance, 1983; Carnegie Forum on Education & the
Economy, 1986), most federal teacher recruitment programs of the 1960s and
1970s were eliminated in 1981. By the late 1980s, however, concern about the
quality and supply of teachers began to emerge again. In 1986, the Paul Douglas
Teacher Scholarship Program (formerly the Congressional Teacher Scholarship
Program) was authorized. Over a 10-year period until its demise in 1996, this
program provided scholarships to outstanding high school graduates who planned
to pursue careers in preK-12 teaching. Applicants had to be ranked in the top 10%
of their high school graduating class or have GED scores in the top 10% of the
state or nation. The program also operated through the states, which could add
their own selection criteria in response to particular targets and needs. State criteria
often included such factors as recruitment from historically under-represented
groups, from low-SES backgrounds, from candidates who wanted to teach in poor
schools, and for teaching mathematics and science. The program was modest in
size, allocating only $15 million from 1987 through 1994. Loans under the program
were forgiven at the rate of two years of teaching service for each year of
scholarship award; this provision was modified to one year of teaching for one year
of scholarship support for teaching in subject shortage fields. Evaluations indicated
that nearly two-thirds of recipients completed teacher certification, and two-thirds of
these taught.
Another program begun in 1986 sought to tap retiring military personnel for
teaching. The Army began a pilot program for servicemen to enroll in teacher
certification program prior to discharge. The Navy followed several years later with
a program of its own. These programs worked through cooperating colleges and
universities to ease the transition from the services into teaching. Some years later,
the Army also established several alternative teacher certification programs for
armed forces personnel, with pilots in Texas and Georgia.
The Troops to Teachers Program (TTT) began as a joint venture between the
departments of Defense and Education. The 1993 National Defense Authorization
Act (PL 102-484, Section 4441) formally established this program, which offered
stipends of up to $5,000 to allow former members of the armed services to obtain
Pa
g
e 54 of 57EPAA Vol. 11 No. 33 Darlin
g
-Hammond & S
y
kes: Wanted: A National Teacher Su
pp
l...
9/16/2003htt
p
://e
p
aa.asu.edu/e
p
aa/v11n33
/
teacher certification. In addition, school districts could receive up to $50,000 over
five years for every TTT teacher they hired. Both the stipends and the grants were
discontinued after 1995, but in 1999 the TTT program was reauthorized and
transferred from the Defense Department to the Education Department. TTT, too,
has been a very modest effort, with the 2001 appropriation reaching only $3 million,
when it was placed within the Eisenhower Professional Development Program. The
program operates through grants to states that submit proposals outlining the
services and activities they will undertake. As of 2000, 22 states had joined the
program, and 13 more were considering it. Studies that have tracked the program
report high rates of participation in math, science, special education, and vocational
education; more teaching at the high school level; and more teaching in the inner
city. Teachers are more likely to be male (86%) and minority (33%) than the overall
teacher workforce.
Under the No Child Left Behind Act, the TTT Program is a subpart of the
Transitions to Teaching initiative but is still a distinct program. Participants can still
receive either stipends of $5,000 a year (up to 5,000 may be awarded annually in
return for a commitment to teach for three years) or bonuses of $10,000 (up to
3,000 annually in return for an agreement to teach for three years in a high-need
school). The Transitions to Teaching Program authorizes 5-year grants to
partnerships and eligible entities to establish programs to recruit and retain highly
qualified mid-career professionals and recent college graduates as teachers for
high-need schools, including recruitment via alternate-route programs that
condense the period of preparation. This is a new authority in the No Child Left
Behind law, but Congress provided $31 million for similar activities in 2001. These
institutional funds may be used for scholarships, pre- or post- induction activities,
placement initiatives, payments to schools to supply incentives for teachers,
collaboration with institutions of higher education to develop recruitment programs
and other strategies. Program participants must teach in a high-need school for at
least three years following receipt of support.
In addition to continued funding for the Perkins loans, another part of the
reauthorized Higher Education Act established the Federal Family Education Loan
Program, together with a Direct Lending provision. Together, these supplied loan
and principal forgiveness of up to $5,000 for Stafford loans for borrowers who agree
to teach for five consecutive years in low-income elementary or secondary schools
(i.e., schools where more than 30% of students are eligible for Title I aid). Loan
repayment is deferred during the 5-year teaching commitment. These provisions
were further amended in 2001-2002 to include three years of Stafford and Federal
Supplemental loans for those who teach in a federally designated teacher-shortage
area, including subject matter, grade level or geographic shortages.
The World Wide Web address for the Education Policy Analysis Archives is
epaa.asu.edu
Editor: Gene V Glass, Arizona State University
Production Assistant: Chris Murrell, Arizona State University
Pa
g
e 55 of 57EPAA Vol. 11 No. 33 Darlin
g
-Hammond & S
y
kes: Wanted: A National Teacher Su
pp
l...
9/16/2003htt
p
://e
p
aa.asu.edu/e
p
aa/v11n33
/
General questions about appropriateness of topics or particular articles
may be addressed to the Editor, Gene V Glass, glass@asu.edu or reach
him at College of Education, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ
85287-2411. The Commentary Editor is Casey D. Cobb:
casey.cobb@unh.edu.
EPAA Editorial Board
Michael W. Apple
University of Wisconsin
David C. Berliner
Arizona State University
Greg Camilli
Rutgers University
Linda Darling-Hammond
Stanford University
Sherman Dorn
University of South Florida
Mark E. Fetler
California Commission on Teacher Credentialing
Gustavo E. Fischman
Arizona State Univeristy
Richard Garlikov
Birmingham, Alabama
Thomas F. Green
Syracuse University
Aimee Howley
Ohio University
Craig B. Howley
Appalachia Educational Laboratory
William Hunter
University of Ontario Institute of
Technology
Patricia Fey Jarvis
Seattle, Washington
Daniel Kallós
Umeå University
Benjamin Levin
University of Manitoba
Thomas Mauhs-Pugh
Green Mountain College
Les McLean
University of Toronto
Heinrich Mintrop
University of California, Los Angeles
Michele Moses
Arizona State University
Gary Orfield
Harvard University
Anthony G. Rud Jr.
Purdue University
Jay Paredes Scribner
University of Missouri
Michael Scriven
University of Auckland
Lorrie A. Shepard
University of Colorado, Boulder
Robert E. Stake
University of Illinois—UC
Kevin Welner
University of Colorado, Boulder
Terrence G. Wiley
Arizona State University
John Willinsky
University of British Columbia
EPAA Spanish Language Editorial Board
Associate Editor for Spanish Language
Roberto Rodríguez Gómez
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
roberto@servidor.unam.mx
Adrián Acosta (México) J. Félix Angulo Rasco (Spain)
Pa
g
e 56 of 57EPAA Vol. 11 No. 33 Darlin
g
-Hammond & S
y
kes: Wanted: A National Teacher Su
pp
l...
9/16/2003htt
p
://e
p
aa.asu.edu/e
p
aa/v11n33
/
Universidad de Guadalajara
adrianacosta@compuserve.com
Universidad de Cádiz
felix.angulo@uca.es
Teresa Bracho (México)
Centro de Investigación y Docencia
Económica-CIDE
bracho dis1.cide.mx
Alejandro Canales (México)
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de
México
canalesa@servidor.unam.mx
Ursula Casanova (U.S.A.)
Arizona State University
casanova@asu.edu
José Contreras Domingo
Universitat de Barcelona
Jose.Contreras@doe.d5.ub.es
Erwin Epstein (U.S.A.)
Loyola University of Chicago
Eepstein@luc.edu
Josué González (U.S.A.)
Arizona State University
josue@asu.edu
Rollin Kent (México)
Universidad Autónoma de Puebla
rkent@puebla.megared.net.mx
María Beatriz Luce(Brazil)
Universidad Federal de Rio Grande do
Sul-UFRGS
lucemb@orion.ufrgs.br
Javier Mendoza Rojas (México)
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de
México
javiermr@servidor.unam.mx
Marcela Mollis (Argentina)
Universidad de Buenos Aires
mmollis@filo.uba.ar
Humberto Muñoz García (México)
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de
México
humberto@servidor.unam.mx
Angel Ignacio Pérez Gómez (Spain)
Universidad de Málaga
aiperez@uma.es
Daniel Schugurensky(Argentina-
Canadá)
OISE/UT, Canada
dschugurensky@oise.utoronto.ca
Simon Schwartzman (Brazil)
American Institutes for Resesarch–Brazil
(AIRBrasil)
simon@sman.com.br
Jurjo Torres Santomé (Spain)
Universidad de A Coruña
jurjo@udc.es
Carlos Alberto Torres (U.S.A.)
University of California, Los Angeles
torres@gseisucla.edu
EPAA is published by the Education Policy Studies
Laboratory, Arizona State University
Pa
g
e 57 of 57EPAA Vol. 11 No. 33 Darlin
g
-Hammond & S
y
kes: Wanted: A National Teacher Su
pp
l...
9/16/2003htt
p
://e
p
aa.asu.edu/e
p
aa/v11n33
/
