Transition to Teaching Program Evaluation: An\
Interim Report on the FY 2002 Grantees

U.S. Department of Education\
Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development\
Policy and Program Studies Service

Prepared by:

Meredith Ludwig\
Amy Bacevich\
Andrew Wayne\
Maggie Hale\
Kazuaki Uekawa\
\
American Institutes for Research\
Washington, D.C.

2007

This report was prepared for the U.S. Department of Education under
Contract Number ED01CO0026/0021 with the American Institutes for
Research. Margery Yeager served as the contracting officer's
representative. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent
the positions or policies of the Department of Education. No official
endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education is intended or should be
inferred.

U.S. Department of Education

Margaret Spellings

Secretary

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development

Doug Mesecar

Acting Assistant Secretary

Policy and Program Studies Service

Alan Ginsburg

Director

Program and Analytic Studies Division

David Goodwin

Director

May 2007

This report is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in
whole or in part is granted. While permission to reprint this
publication is not necessary, the suggested citation is: *Transition to
Teaching Program Evaluation: An Interim Report on the FY 2002 Grantees*,
U.S. Department of Education; Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy
Development; Policy and Program Studies Service, Washington, D.C., 2007.

Copies of this report may be ordered in the following ways:

**Mail.** Write to:

ED Pubs\
Education Publications Center\
U. S. Department of Education\
P. O. Box 1398\
Jessup, MD 20794‑1398

**Fax.** Dial 301‑470‑1244.

**Telephone (toll‑free).** Dial 877‑433‑7827 (877‑4‑ED‑PUBS). If 877
service is not yet available in your area, call 800‑872‑5327
(800‑USA‑LEARN). Those who use a telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD) or a teletypewriter (TTY) should call 1‑877‑576‑7734.

**Electronic mail.** Send your request to: edpubs@inet.ed.gov.

**Online.** Order a copy of the report at: www.edpubs.org. This report
may also be downloaded from the Department's Web site at
www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html#title.

**Alternate formats.** Upon request, this publication is available in
alternate formats such as Braille, large print, or computer diskette.
For more information, please contact the Department's Alternate Format
Center at 202‑260‑0852 or 202‑260‑0818.

This report contains Web site addresses for information created and
maintained by private organizations. This information is provided for
the reader's convenience. The U.S. Department of Education is not
responsible for controlling or guaranteeing the accuracy, relevance,
timeliness, or completeness of this outside information. Further, the
inclusion of information or a Web site address does not reflect the
importance of the organization, nor is it intended to endorse any views
expressed, or products or services offered.

Contents

**LIST OF EXHIBITS v**

[executive summary 1](#__RefHeading___Toc159995454)

[Chapter I: OVERVIEW OF TTT GRANTEES, PARTICIPANTS and Teachers
13](#overview-of-ttt-grantees-participants-and-teachers)

[Highlights 13](#highlights)

[Purpose of the TTT Grant Program 13](#purpose-of-the-ttt-grant-program)

[The TTT Project and Its Components
15](#the-ttt-project-and-its-components)

[Type of Grant Recipient 17](#type-of-grant-recipient)

[Participating LEAs 19](#participating-leas)

[Project Budget Resources 22](#project-budget-resources)

[Project Objectives: Progress and Challenges Over Three Years
25](#project-objectives-progress-and-challenges-over-three-years)

[TTT Teachers 30](#ttt-teachers)

[Chapter II: Recruitment and Selection of TTT PARTICIPANTS
37](#recruitment-and-selection-of-ttt-participants)

[Highlights 37](#highlights-1)

[Recruitment 37](#recruitment)

[Recruitment Strategies in TTT Projects
38](#recruitment-strategies-in-ttt-projects)

[Recruitment Challenges Identified
41](#recruitment-challenges-identified)

[Recruitment Results 47](#recruitment-results)

[Selection Processes 48](#selection-processes)

[Chapter III: Preparation and Certification
53](#preparation-and-certification)

[Highlights 53](#highlights-2)

[Preparation in TTT Projects 53](#preparation-in-ttt-projects)

[Program Delivery Approaches and Challenges
59](#program-delivery-approaches-and-challenges)

[Certification 61](#certification)

[Chapter IV: Hiring and Placement Of New Teachers
65](#hiring-and-placement-of-new-teachers)

[Highlights 65](#highlights-3)

[Hiring and Placement 65](#hiring-and-placement)

[Chapter V: Mentoring and Other Supports for Newly Hired Teachers
73](#mentoring-and-other-supports-for-newly-hired-teachers)

[Highlights 73](#highlights-4)

[TTT Project Support for TTT Participants
73](#ttt-project-support-for-ttt-participants)

[Mentoring in TTT Projects 76](#mentoring-in-ttt-projects)

[Implementing Mentoring Approaches and Challenges
78](#implementing-mentoring-approaches-and-challenges)

[Retention Outcomes 79](#retention-outcomes)

[Chapter VI: Teacher Satisfaction and Future Plans
85](#teacher-satisfaction-and-future-plans)

[Highlights 85](#highlights-5)

[Interest in Teaching and Perspective on Preparedness
86](#interest-in-teaching-and-perspective-on-preparedness)

[Future Plans 90](#future-plans)

[Chapter VII: CONCLUSION 93](#conclusion)

[The TTT Project: A Complex System
93](#the-ttt-project-a-complex-system)

[Areas for Further Investigation 96](#areas-for-further-investigation)

[Recommendations 97](#recommendations)

[References R‑1](#references)

[APPENDIX A: DEFINITIONS A‑1](#definitions)

[APPENDIX B: Participant Sample B‑1](#participant-sample)

[APPENDIX C: Snapshots of the Eight TTT Sites Visited
C‑1](#snapshots-of-the-eight-ttt-sites-visited)

[APPENDIX D: EVALUATION METHODOLOGY D‑1](#evaluation-methodology)

EXHIBITS

[Exhibit 1. Percentage of Grantees Reporting Target Groups and
Percentage of Year 3 Participants from Each Target Group
4](#__RefHeading___Toc161119174)

[Exhibit 2. Number of Participants Targeted, Total Applications
Received, and Total Applicants Determined as Eligible as Reported by FY
2002 TTT Grantees for the Third Project Year, by Target Group
4](#__RefHeading___Toc161119175)

[Exhibit 3. TTT Teachers' Choice of Preparation Pathway Without TTT
6](#__RefHeading___Toc161119176)

[Exhibit 4. Number of TTT Participants Who Were New Teachers of Record
in High‑Need Schools in High‑Need LEAs, by Grade Level and Year and
Subject Area in 2002, 2003 and 2004 7](#__RefHeading___Toc161119177)

[Exhibit 5. Percentage of Participants Who Became Teachers of Record in
2002 and 2003 and Their Retention Status, by Year Entering the TTT
Project (2002 and 2003) 8](#__RefHeading___Toc161119178)

[Exhibit 6. Grantee Component Framework: Addressing Participant Needs
15](#__RefHeading___Toc161119179)

[Exhibit 7. Percentage of FY 2002 TTT Grantees, by Grant Recipient
17](#__RefHeading___Toc161119180)

[Exhibit 8. Percentage of FY 2002 TTT Grantees, by Scope
18](#__RefHeading___Toc161119181)

[Exhibit 9. Percentage of FY 2002 TTT Grantees Reporting Number of
Participating LEAs 20](#__RefHeading___Toc161119182)

[Exhibit 10. Percentage of Participating LEAs by Type of LEA
21](#__RefHeading___Toc161119183)

[Exhibit 11. Percentage of Participating Organizations with TTT
Responsibilities 21](#__RefHeading___Toc161119184)

[Exhibit 12. Percentage of FY 2002 TTT Grantees Reporting Third Year
Budgets, by Size of Budget 23](#__RefHeading___Toc161119185)

[Exhibit 13. Status of Unexpended Funds
24](#__RefHeading___Toc161119186)

[Exhibit 14. Plans for Use of Unexpended Funds
24](#__RefHeading___Toc161119187)

[Exhibit 15. Progress in Meeting Project‑Established Objectives in Year
3 25](#__RefHeading___Toc161119188)

[Exhibit 16. Issues and Changes Made to Meet Project‑Established
Objectives 26](#__RefHeading___Toc161119189)

[Exhibit 17. Approaches to Resolving Difficulties or Barriers
28](#__RefHeading___Toc161119190)

[Exhibit 18. Percentage of TTT Teachers, by Ethnicity and Race
31](#__RefHeading___Toc161119191)

[Exhibit 19. Percentage of TTT Teachers Who Are Hispanic, by Target
Group 31](#__RefHeading___Toc161119192)

[Exhibit 20. Percentage of TTT Teachers, by Target Group
32](#__RefHeading___Toc161119193)

[Exhibit 21. Percentage of 2004--05 Participants by Occupation Prior to
TTT 33](#__RefHeading___Toc161119194)

[Exhibit 22. Percentage of FY 2002 TTT *Grantees* Who Ranked Each
Recruitment Method as One of Their Top Three Recruitment Methods
39](#__RefHeading___Toc161119195)

[Exhibit 23. Percentage of TTT *Teachers* Reporting the Importance of
Sources for Learning About TTT 40](#__RefHeading___Toc161119196)

[Exhibit 24. Percentage of FY 2002 TTT Grantees Reporting Incentives
Offered to Participants 43](#__RefHeading___Toc161119197)

[Exhibit 25. Percentage of Grantees Offering Incentive, Average Amount
of Incentive Provided and Number of Participants Receiving Incentive, as
Reported by FY 2002 TTT Grantees for the Third Project Year, by Type of
Incentive 43](#__RefHeading___Toc161119198)

[Exhibit 26. Average Out‑of‑Pocket Expenses for TTT Participants in
Their First Year 44](#__RefHeading___Toc161119199)

[Exhibit 27. Average Out‑of‑Pocket Expenses Reported by TTT Grantees for
a Typical Participation Year, by Grantee Recipient Type
45](#__RefHeading___Toc161119200)

[Exhibit 28. Percentage of FY 2002 TTT Grantees Indicating Each Element
Was One of the Top Three Most Attractive Elements to Participants
46](#__RefHeading___Toc161119201)

[Exhibit 29. Percentage of TTT Teachers Reporting Influences on Decision
to Participate in TTT 47](#__RefHeading___Toc161119202)

[Exhibit 30. Number of Participants Targeted, Total Applications
Received, and Total Applicants Determined as Eligible as Reported by FY
2002 TTT Grantees for the Third Project Year, by Target Group
48](#__RefHeading___Toc161119203)

[Exhibit 31. Percentage of Grantees Reporting Target Groups and
Percentage of Year 3 Participants From Each Target Group
48](#__RefHeading___Toc161119204)

[Exhibit 32. Percentage of FY2002 Grantees Indicating the Importance of
Various Factors in Selecting Applicants for Admission
51](#__RefHeading___Toc161119205)

[Exhibit 33. Number of FY2002 TTT Grantees Using Multiple Selection
Factors 52](#__RefHeading___Toc161119206)

[Exhibit 34. Percentage of FY 2002 TTT Grantees Requiring Components of
Teacher Preparation, by Component 54](#__RefHeading___Toc161119207)

[Exhibit 35. Percentage of FY 2002 TTT Grantees Who Reported Requiring
Course Credit or Professional Development Hours, by Topic
55](#__RefHeading___Toc161119208)

[Exhibit 36. Percentage of TTT Teachers Reporting Activities and Areas
of Study NOT Part of Their Program 56](#__RefHeading___Toc161119209)

[Exhibit 37. Percentage of TTT Teachers Reporting Their Program Included
a Student Teaching Experience 57](#__RefHeading___Toc161119210)

[Exhibit 38. Percentage of TTT Teachers Reporting Utility of Areas of
Study 58](#__RefHeading___Toc161119211)

[Exhibit 39. Percentage of FY 2002 TTT Grantees Reporting Required
Program Elements Before and After Attaining Teacher of Record (TOR)
Status, by Target Group and Program Element
59](#__RefHeading___Toc161119212)

[Exhibit 40. Most Commonly Used Practices of FY 2002 TTT Grantees for
Determining Eligibility for Certification Status, by Target Group
62](#__RefHeading___Toc161119213)

[Exhibit 41. Percentage of TTT Teachers with Certification Matching
Their Main Teaching Assignment, by Target Group
63](#__RefHeading___Toc161119214)

[Exhibit 42. Percentage of FY 2002 TTT Grantees Reporting Various
Assignment Areas as Being Identified as High‑Need in Participating LEAs,
by Grade Level and Subject Area 66](#__RefHeading___Toc161119215)

[Exhibit 43. Number of TTT Participants Who Were New Teachers of Record
in High‑Need Schools in High‑Need LEAs, by Grade Level and Year and
Subject Area in 2002, 2003 and 2004 67](#__RefHeading___Toc161119216)

[Exhibit 44. Percentage of TTT Teachers Reporting Main Teaching Level
68](#__RefHeading___Toc161119217)

[Exhibit 45. Percentage of TTT Teachers by Subject Area Assignment
70](#__RefHeading___Toc161119218)

[Exhibit 46. Percentage of TTT Teachers Reporting Main Teaching
Assignment Field, by Target Group 71](#__RefHeading___Toc161119219)

[Exhibit 47. Percentage of TTT Teachers Reporting Teaching Assignments
Outside of Main Teaching Field, by Target Groups
71](#__RefHeading___Toc161119220)

[Exhibit 48. Percentage of TTT Teachers Who Teach a Subject Outside of
Their Primary Assignment Subject, by Primary Teaching Subject
72](#__RefHeading___Toc161119221)

[Exhibit 49. Percentage of FY 2002 TTT Grantees Reporting Frequency and
Type of Support Offered 74](#__RefHeading___Toc161119222)

[Exhibit 50. Percentage of FY 2002 TTT Grantees Offering Support, by
Number of Years 74](#__RefHeading___Toc161119223)

[Exhibit 51. Percentage of TTT Teachers Reporting Types of Support
Experienced During TTT Participation, by Target Group
75](#__RefHeading___Toc161119224)

[Exhibit 52. Percentage of Teachers Reporting Having a Mentor This
Year\* 76](#__RefHeading___Toc161119225)

[Exhibit 53. Percentage of TTT Teachers Reporting Entities Providing
Mentoring 77](#__RefHeading___Toc161119226)

[Exhibit 54. Percentage of TTT Teachers Reporting Frequency of Mentor
Meetings 78](#__RefHeading___Toc161119227)

[Exhibit 55. Percentage of Participants Who Became Teachers of Record in
2002 and 2003 and Their Retention Status, by Year Entering the TTT
Project (2002 and 2003) 80](#__RefHeading___Toc161119228)

[Exhibit 56. Percentage of Teachers Who Became Teachers of Record in
2002 and Were Still Teaching in 2004 by the Duration of Site‑Based
Mentoring Offered by FY 2002 TTT Grantees
80](#__RefHeading___Toc161119229)

[Exhibit 57. Percentage of FY 2002 TTT Grantees Ranking Retention
Methods Among Top Three Used 81](#__RefHeading___Toc161119230)

[Exhibit 58. Frequency with which Grantees Reported Various Top Three
Reasons for Not Completing Their Teaching Assignments and Leaving the
Project 82](#__RefHeading___Toc161119231)

[Exhibit 59. Percentage of FY 2002 TTT Grantees Reporting Range of
Participants Who Left the Project After 1 Year (2003--04)
83](#__RefHeading___Toc161119232)

[Exhibit 60. TTT Teachers' Choice of Preparation Pathway Without TTT
86](#__RefHeading___Toc161119233)

[Exhibit 61. Percentage of TTT Teachers Reporting the Extent to Which
Specific Reasons Influenced Their Becoming a Teacher
87](#__RefHeading___Toc161119234)

[Exhibit 62. TTT Teachers' Perceived Level of Preparation to Face
Challenges in Their First Year of Teaching
88](#__RefHeading___Toc161119235)

[Exhibit 63. Percentage of TTT Teachers Reporting Their Feelings of
Preparedness for Teaching Their Subject, by Type of Grant Recipient
89](#__RefHeading___Toc161119236)

[Exhibit 64. Percentage of TTT Teachers Reporting Extent of Challenges
in the First Three Months of Teaching 89](#__RefHeading___Toc161119237)

[Exhibit 65. Percentage of TTT Teachers Reporting Extent to Which
Factors Would Cause Them to Leave Teaching
90](#__RefHeading___Toc161119238)

[Exhibit 66. Percentage of TTT Teachers Reporting the Amount of Time
They Plan to Remain in Teaching, in Comparison With SASS Data on
Alternative Route Teachers and Traditional Route Teachers
91](#__RefHeading___Toc161119239)

[Exhibit 67. Grantee Component Framework: Addressing Participant Needs
93](#__RefHeading___Toc161119240)

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc159995454 .anchor}executive summary

Congress established the Transition to Teaching (TTT) program to serve
*high‑need schools* in *high‑need districts* (local education agencies
or LEAs).[^1] The program is authorized under Title II, Part C, Subpart
1, Chapter B of the *Elementary and Secondary Education Act* *of 1965,*
as amended by the *No Child Left Behind Act of 2001* (*NCLB*) (Pub. L.
No. 107‑110). The purposes of TTT are "(a) to recruit and retain highly
qualified mid‑career professionals (including highly qualified
paraprofessionals), and recent graduates of an institution of higher
education, as teachers in high‑need schools, including recruiting
teachers through alternative routes to certification; and (b) to
encourage the development and expansion of alternative routes to
certification under State‑approved programs that enable individuals to
be eligible for teacher certification within a reduced period of time,
relying on the experience, expertise, and academic qualifications of an
individual, or other factors in lieu of traditional course work in the
field of education."

This report presents the findings of the TTT interim evaluation---an
effort to gather data to describe to Congress the progress at the
three‑year interim point of five‑year grants awarded in FY 2002.

Four primary data sources were used as the basis for the report:

-   An online Annual Performance Report (APR) to document project‑level
    characteristics and outcomes was developed and administered in
    2004--2005, covering the third year of project activities;

-   Eight case studies of FY 2002 projects were conducted in 2004--2005;

-   A survey of participants from the first three project years who were
    hired as teachers of record during that time period was conducted in
    2005--2006; and

-   Interim reports submitted by grantees in the FY 2002 cohort in 2005
    were the basis for a review of objectives, progress made, and
    challenges in the first three years.

Data from the 2003--2004 Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) were also
used to compare the characteristics, teaching assignments, perceptions
and future plans of TTT teachers and teachers in the workforce with less
than three years of experience.

The resulting report brings together data from all of these sources to
describe the overall implementation picture of the FY 2002 grantees,
describing each component of the TTT projects: recruitment and
selection, preparation, certification, placement, support while
teaching, and retention.

TTT grantees are a microcosm of the alternate routes implemented in
approximately 600 program sites in 48 states and the District of
Columbia (Feistritzer, 2006). Of the 92 FY 2002 TTT grantees whose
progress at the third year of project activity were analyzed in this
evaluation, fully half were institutions of higher education (IHEs), 25
percent were LEAs, 17 percent were state departments of education
(SEAs), and 7 percent were nonprofit organizations.[^2] Nearly
two‑thirds of FY 2002 grantees (60 percent) had a local (rather than
statewide or regional or national) focus. [^3] All TTT grantees focus on
serving the needs of high‑need schools in high‑need LEAs, as defined in
the legislation (see footnote 1). A relatively small proportion of all
LEAs working with FY 2002 TTT grantees were urban (26 percent); 69
percent were described as rural by the TTT projects.

TTT projects recruit from one or more target groups, as spelled out in
the authorizing legislation, addressing the needs of school districts
and schools that have met the "high‑need" designation. In most TTT
projects, participants become teachers simultaneously with their
"enrollment" in the project; however, some projects require course
completion and even a lengthy internship prior to becoming a teacher of
record.

TTT projects offer flexibility to participants as they complete state
teacher certification requirements. The approaches used by various
projects are structured to meet the *NCLB* standards for approved
alternate route projects; thus, TTT teachers are considered highly
qualified teachers, according to *NCLB* guidelines. Projects seek
applicants who meet the content knowledge provisions outlined for all
teachers in *NCLB*. In the FY 2002 projects that focus on
paraprofessionals, some individuals are matriculating to earn their
first bachelor's degree, but nearly all other participants already have
an earned bachelor's.

Preparation for teaching is a primary concern, once participants are
selected. Some participants enroll in academic courses through local
IHEs; others participate in seminars and professional development
activities where they demonstrate competencies. Online courses and
online mentoring components are incorporated in a number of TTT
projects. While much of the content is similar to what a typical teacher
studies in preparation for her role, in some TTT projects, the emphasis
at the beginning of preparation is on the craft of teaching and on
classroom management. Many TTT projects require a student teaching
experience during the summer prior to teaching or for an entire year.
About 40 percent of teachers participating in TTT projects (FY 2002)
reported they had a student teaching experience.

Once hired and teaching, participants in TTT projects find an array of
supports available to them. Some TTT projects create and implement
mentoring and other induction programs; in others, participants gain
access to induction programs currently in place and supported by the
state or district.

Interim Report Findings

The findings from this interim report underscore the ways in which the
TTT grantees (and the program) have addressed three key *NCLB* policy
issues related to this federal grant program. Based on one project
year's performance report and interim evaluations of varying depth and
detail, this report stops short of a comprehensive program evaluation,
because grantees continue to make improvements and changes to their
projects and many expected to have a no‑cost extension year.

Increasing the pool of highly qualified teachers by recruiting
nontraditional candidates into teaching

Each TTT grantee specifies the target population it plans to recruit and
sets recruitment targets for the grant overall and for each project
year: most projects target more than one applicant group. Recruitment
strategies and information dissemination about the project are key,
because the populations being targeted may be uncertain about how to
become a teacher and may not be aware that there are (within their
state) many alternative routes to meeting state teacher certification
requirements. Also, with its focus on high‑need schools in high‑need
LEAs, TTT projects face more of a challenge to identify unfilled
positions and recruit and place individuals with the appropriate
credentials for these positions.

TTT grantees reported they learned that the most powerful way to reach
people is by "word of mouth," that is, informal and formal presentations
by project administrators and presentations by TTT participants in
schools and IHEs. TTT teachers, in turn, agreed that the approach
through which they gained the most information was by "word of mouth."
Targeted recruitment efforts for specific populations were highly
recommended by TTT grantees; however, more costly measures, such as TV
advertising, were not as productive because, while the level of interest
received was high, many of those expressing interest were not qualified.
Web site content was found to be very valuable to prospective
participants. Disseminating full information about the project and the
expected commitment proved effective, according to participants, as was
establishing a reputation as a strong project.

As a cohort, the TTT FY 2002 grantees were highly successful in
attracting a large number of applicants for targeted positions in the
third project year: TTT grantees set targets to hire nearly 4,000
teachers and they reported receiving applications from 14,000
prospective candidates. One unique aspect of a TTT project is that it
may have more than one recruiting period in a calendar year and be
serving two or more cohorts of participants in one year.

TTT projects also report generally succeeding in finding placements in
high‑need schools in high‑need districts for eligible participants,
however, they reported many challenges associated with this process,
including budget shifts that reduced positions, changing state
requirements, competition from other routes to teaching, some negative
views toward alternate routes, and a lack of LEAs in their areas that
meet the program standard for high‑need. As a result, in their
three‑year interim evaluations, many grantees recalled that the
challenge of meeting recruiting and placement goals for those specific
districts was felt each year.

Overall, in the first three years of the grant, the FY 2002 grantees
have facilitated the hiring of an estimated 7,000 new teachers. Projects
gradually ramped up in terms of the number hired, with a fairly large
jump from year 1 to year 2.

The following tables describe the level of recruitment for the grantee
cohort of FY 2002 as a whole, highlighting three findings: TTT grantees
tend to recruit more than one type of participant; midcareer
professionals make up the largest portion of teachers recruited and
hired through the TTT grantee projects; and TTT recruitment efforts
yield many more applicants than are eligible to become highly qualified
teachers (see Exhibits 1 and 2).

1.  []{#__RefHeading___Toc161119174 .anchor}Percentage of Grantees
    Reporting Target Groups and\
    Percentage of Year 3 Participants from Each Target Group

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  Target Group of         Percentage of Grantees  Percentage of Total\
  Grantees                Targeting This Group    Year 3 Participants
                                                  From Each Target Group

  Midcareer professionals 87                      59

  Paraprofessionals       52                      14

  Recent college          79                      27
  graduates                                       
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

> Exhibit reads: Eighty‑seven percent of FY 2002 grantees targeted
> midcareer professionals, and fifty‑nine percent of participants were
> midcareer professionals. Not shown in this exhibit is the small
> percentage that target one of the three groups alone; 4 percent of TTT
> FY 2002 projects target paraprofessionals exclusively.
>
> Source: Transition to Teaching Annual Performance Report, 2004--05.

2.  []{#__RefHeading___Toc161119175 .anchor}Number of Participants
    Targeted, Total Applications Received, and Total Applicants
    Determined as Eligible as Reported by FY 2002 TTT Grantees for the
    Third Project Year, by Target Group

  ------------------- -------------- -------------- ------------ ------------ --------------
  Target Group of     Goal (Number   Number of      Number of    Percentage   Ratio of
  Grantees            of             Applications   Applicants   of           Eligible
                      Participants   Received       Determined   Applicants   Applications
                      to Recruit)                   as Eligible  Determined   per Slot
                                                                 as Eligible  

  Midcareer           2,022          8,513          5,467        64           2.7 to 1
  professionals                                                               

  Paraprofessionals   781            1,642          1,068        65           1.4 to 1

  Recent college      893            4,075          3,062        75           3.4 to 1
  graduates                                                                   
  ------------------- -------------- -------------- ------------ ------------ --------------

> Exhibit reads: Across all FY 2002 grantees, the total number of
> individuals from the midcareer target group sought was 2,022; 8,513
> applications were received; 5,467 applicants (64 percent of the total
> applications received) were determined to be eligible through the
> selection and screening process. The ratio of eligible applications
> per slot was 2.7 to 1 in the third project year.
>
> Source: Transition to Teaching Annual Performance Report, 2004--05.

Bringing increased flexibility to the teacher preparation system by
encouraging the creation and expansion of alternative routes or pathways
to teacher certification and lowering barriers of time and cost of
preparation, while raising standards and program rigor

At the time of the awarding of these grants, nearly three‑quarters of
states had already at least one approved alternate route. The rest were
expected to follow suit, stimulated by the *NCLB* expectation that
states eliminate all emergency or provisional certificate and waiver
programs (Feistritzer, personal communication, 2006). Approximately
one‑third of the TTT FY 2002 awards were provided to entities seeking to
build on existing programs (under state‑approved alternate routes) and
approximately two‑thirds of the awards went to entities initiating new
programs. As a federal grant program, TTT has enhanced and sustained the
approved alternate routes in states, and, in some states and districts,
it has been the source of the first alternate route option for those
entering teaching and the first program.

Participants in TTT projects report that financial incentives offered,
an employment guarantee, and support while obtaining certification are
the three most attractive features of TTT projects. Through the TTT
grant, projects were able to offer financial incentives, which could
include scholarship or tuition reimbursement of up to \$5,000 for the
grant period for those committing to teach in high‑need schools in
approved high‑need school districts for at least three years. This
assistance is compelling for many individuals who do not have the
resources to return to school and want to remain continuously employed
while preparing to be certified.

TTT teachers who became teachers of record during the first three years
of the FY 2002 grant primarily reported they made the decision to become
a teacher because of their desire to work with young people (64
percent). TTT teachers also reported they perceived the project to add
value through its requirements for study, and more than two‑thirds said
they felt well prepared to teach their subject area. TTT teachers
reported that their projects followed through on their commitments.
Still, these teachers experienced challenges in their first few months
of teaching, noting that the administrative, classroom management, and
time demands of teaching were very challenging. These challenges, it
should be noted, are similar to the ones experienced by many new
teachers.

Like teachers in the workforce today, about half of the TTT teachers who
have been teaching in the first three years of these grants reported
they planned to stay in teaching for as long as they were able. These
teachers also suggested that, while working conditions and
administrative‑related issues could be a factor in a decision to leave
teaching, they were anticipating the level of these challenges would be
moderate with respect to their long‑term teaching plans.

Twenty percent of TTT teachers indicated they would not have entered
teaching, if the TTT option were not available in their area. Among
targeted groups, paraprofessionals were least likely to say they would
not have taught without the TTT alternative (14 percent) compared to
recent college graduates (22 percent) and midcareer professionals (24
percent). Teachers who were born in the 1980s were much more likely to
say they would have simply not taught if TTT were not available.
Incentives were the top‑ranked influence on a participant's decision to
participate in TTT; for those who placed this as the top influence, if
TTT was not available, they indicated they would have chosen a
traditional program. Finally, teachers of social studies and foreign
languages were least likely to have expected to find another alternate
route and most likely to have simply not taught. No pattern was
discernible for mathematics or science teachers (see Exhibit 3).

3.  []{#__RefHeading___Toc161119176 .anchor}TTT Teachers' Choice of
    Preparation Pathway\
    Without TTT

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  ![](media/image1.png){width="4.303472222222222in"
  height="2.6166666666666667in"}

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

> Exhibit reads: Thirty‑three percent of TTT teachers reported they
> would have participated in a traditional teacher education program if
> the TTT project had not been available.
>
> Source: Transition to Teaching TTT teacher survey, 2005--06.

Improving the retention rate of new teachers by supporting strong
mentoring programs and induction and including a three‑year teaching
commitment in high‑need schools in high‑need districts as part of the
program requirements

Over the first three years of the FY 2002 grants included in this
evaluation, an estimated 7,000 participants were hired to teach and were
working in areas designated by school districts of greatest need: middle
and high school and in the subject areas of science, mathematics and
special education. TTT projects have been generally able to increase the
number of participants recruited and hired in each project year (see
Exhibit 4). The largest percentage of TTT teachers were hired to teach
mathematics (21 percent) and special education (21 percent).

4.  []{#__RefHeading___Toc161119177 .anchor}Number of TTT Participants
    Who Were New Teachers\
    of Record in High‑Need Schools in High‑Need LEAs,\
    by Grade Level and Year and Subject Area in 2002,\
    2003 and 2004

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  ![](media/image2.wmf)

  ![](media/image3.pct)
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

> Exhibit reads: In 2004, 1,125 new teachers of record were hired in
> participating LEAs for high school placements.\
> Source: Transition to Teaching Annual Performance Report, 2004--05.

TTT teachers have been generally assigned to teach in the field in which
they are seeking certification but at least 20 percent overall reported
they have also been assigned to teach subjects outside of their main
teaching area. Eighty percent or more of TTT teachers in the first three
years reported their certification matched their main teaching
assignment.

Calculating a three‑year retention rate for TTT teachers was not
possible for this interim evaluation, because the data were not
available at the time of the grantee reports. However, data for the
first two groups of teachers hired in 2002 and 2003 were available and
show that the retention rate is relatively high, even with some
attrition in a single year or over two years. Seventy‑four percent of
those who entered the project in 2002 were still teaching in 2004
(see Exhibit 5). As a comparison to this retention rate, the most recent
national estimates (from SASS data in 1999--2000) indicate 29 percent of
first‑time teachers either changed schools at the end of the year (15
percent) or left teaching (14 percent) (Smith and Ingersoll, 2004).
These analyses also found that beginning teachers comparable to the TTT
teachers in high‑poverty schools were "less likely than their
counterparts in medium‑poverty schools to move after a year but were
more likely to leave teaching (16 percent as opposed to 9 percent)"
(Smith and Ingersoll, 2004). Additional research on mobility was
recently released which complements these findings (Marvel et al.,
2006).

The importance of TTT support and mentoring to new teachers was
explored, especially in light of research that shows a combination of
supports can be significant in reducing teacher turnover (Smith and
Ingersoll, 2004). Retention rates were not found to be associated with
the number of years over which TTT projects provided mentoring
assistance. The percentage of TTT teachers reporting they had a mentor
(63 percent in the surveyed year) was slightly lower than that reported
by other new teachers in the workforce (approximately 70 percent) (SASS,
2003--04). This was likely due to two factors. First, all TTT projects
did not provide the same kind of support to new teachers, thus mentoring
was not a universal component. Second, in many TTT projects mentoring
support was the responsibility of the district and was not provided for
all years. Thus in any given year, some TTT teachers were participating
in a mentoring program, while others were not. This variability may have
affected the perception of some TTT teachers who reported some
dissatisfaction with the quality and quantity of mentoring and this
feeling was reinforced by the reports of project directors who found it
difficult to ensure a high quality of this and other supports when they
were depending upon existing induction programs administered by
districts in their states.

5.  []{#__RefHeading___Toc161119178 .anchor}Percentage of Participants
    Who Became Teachers\
    of Record in 2002 and 2003 and Their Retention Status,\
    by Year Entering the TTT Project (2002 and 2003)

![](media/image4.pct)

> Note: TTT projects may enroll more than one cohort of participants in
> a given project year.
>
> Exhibit reads: Ninety‑four percent of participants who entered the TTT
> project in 2002 and became teachers of record in 2002 were reported to
> still be teaching in 2003.
>
> Source: Transition to Teaching Annual Performance Report, 2004--05.

Challenges and Lessons Learned

In their approaches to facilitating recruitment, selection, preparation,
hiring, placement, certification, and support while teaching, TTT
grantees have developed approaches that might differ with respect to
recruitment strategies, involvement of school principals and district
administrators, number and background of participants, and the nature
and extent of support. Still, TTT grantees report that they share
certain challenges in starting up and sustaining these components in
alternate routes to certification.

**Recruitment.** The most critical challenge identified by grantees was
that of recruitment, which was cited by almost one‑third of the
grantees. This category encompasses attracting qualified participants to
teaching and to committing to a placement in high‑need LEAs for three
years. Recruitment was complicated by external factors, such as changes
in state or district certification policies that affected alternate
route participants, isolation of rural school districts, labor market
conditions in some cities, competitive programs in the region, and the
expense of living and working in urban districts. TTT projects attract
many applicants with their focused recruitment efforts, but applicants
are not all eligible and there is some attrition over time.

Selection. Some grantees reported receiving applications from
individuals who were not adequately qualified and found it necessary to
refine the participant selection process. A few projects instituted
candidate screeners. Others established extensive selection and
placement processes through which district administrators and IHE
faculty were involved. By taking steps to be more selective and setting
higher standards for entry, the grantees were also establishing a
reputation as a selective program, which, it was believed, would
eventually facilitate both recruitment and hiring.

**Retention.** A number of participants were unhappy with the working
conditions in high‑need schools, and still others who were eligible,
would not commit to the project because they wanted to select the
location where they would work and did not find the needs of specific
types of LEAs compelling. Still others signed up originally, but then
left because of difficulty in maintaining their performance, balancing
work and course commitments, and financial considerations. Projects
reported that participants felt LEAs in rural locations were simply
harder to access, and they were not able to recruit as well for these
districts or attract mentors, so instead focused on preparing training
components that could be conveniently delivered.

**Definition of High‑Need LEAs Provided in the Authorizing
Legislation.** One quarter of the grantees cited problems with meeting
the TTT program constraints regarding the definition of high‑need LEA
and high‑need schools in terms of the level of poverty and the highly
qualified teacher requirement. In their applications, TTT projects
identified the districts that would meet the requirements and then
worked with the program office if any changes were requested (e.g.,
adding an LEA to the list). Besides finding the districts and schools
within the definition, some TTT projects found that their participants
wanted to teach in other schools and districts that did not meet the
definition, resulting in some attrition. Other projects reported that
some high‑need LEAs dropped out of their arrangement or had fewer
openings than anticipated. As a result, projects maintained an ongoing
discourse with the TTT program office about the LEA definition.

Grantees responded to the challenges they faced in meeting their
objectives in many different ways; three key methods were mentioned in
60 percent of grantee responses: (a) networking and collaborating with
LEAs, agencies, projects and schools; (b) providing more or improving
professional development and support; and (c) increasing recruitment
efforts, including more targeted efforts to reach individuals who were
eligible.

Conclusion and Recommendations

The Transition to Teaching grant program supports a wide variety of
alternate route approaches which exist within the broader population of
state-, district- and university-provided options for those wishing to
become teachers. As the data on the third project year activities were
being collected through the APRs, the case studies, and the interim
reports, it became clear that changes were being made to improve on the
approaches. In conjunction with project monitors and through
participation in grantee meetings, project management received support,
particularly in the areas of recruitment and evaluation. Still, some
lessons learned and challenges faced in the first three years of
operations indicate the potential for some changes and new directions
for the TTT program as a whole. Some of these are more appropriately
addressed to the Congress as it plans for reauthorization of *NCLB* and
considers options to strengthen the TTT program within the Office of
Innovation and Improvement (OII).

1\. **In deliberations leading to reauthorization,** **consider giving
the program office (OII) the authority to award shorter planning grants
to prospective entities.** Awarding one‑year planning grants to entities
planning to create new alternate routes would allow them the time to
develop a business plan, pilot effective recruitment approaches, and
obtain formal commitments from participating LEAs. Many FY 2002 projects
indicated that the first year was a start‑up and planning year, in terms
of operations. Recruitment takes time and substantial resources and the
yield is small each year considering the effort made. During this
planning year, TTT projects could be asked to establish more of a
"business plan" and finalize the targeted number of participants based
on numbers of teachers needed. This planning year could also include
project mentoring by program staff to establish the groundwork for
evidence‑based evaluations. There is some precedent for this option. For
example, in the PT3 grant program, initial catalyst grants were awarded.
Many of the IHE programs awarded these used the period to build strong
models planning the integration of technology in teacher preparation
programs and courses.

2\. **Use discretionary funds now available to OII and TTT to invest in
the documentation and dissemination of effective practices for alternate
route projects.** Just as the FY 2002 grants were awarded, ED also
produced a book of promising practices for alternate routes and
established a national clearinghouse to gather annual data and provide
access to policy and research reports. These information dissemination
activities have proved valuable to many in this field. Four years later,
and with the accumulated experience of the more than 100 grantees being
documented, it makes sense to consider establishing a clearinghouse
function within the program's Web site or within the ED's labs and
centers that focuses on effective components of alternate routes.
Through such a resource, alternate route project directors and
evaluators would be able to find, for example, research studies on
induction (including the latest data from the Institute of Education
Sciences \[IES\] study on induction programs) and descriptions of
effective induction activities in TTT projects, along with evidence
about their success.

3\. **Encourage OII and TTT grantees to collaborate at the state and
district level about policies regarding alternate routes.** In their
interim evaluations and in narrative APR responses about promising
practices and challenges, project directors indicated the importance of
working through policy differences that could affect their program
options, their targeted recruitment, and their success in producing
certified teachers. For example, a number of projects raised the concern
that they might not be able to continue special education options due to
changes in certification requirements in their states. In addition**,**
a recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on
Troops‑to‑Teachers indicated that additional collaboration among
alternate routes that share recruiting populations might enhance
recruitment success. Finally, in the case studies conducted for this
interim report, we learned that such collaboration might ameliorate the
confusing situation that sometimes faces applicants to teaching when
there are competing routes, for example, regarding requirements to
become highly qualified, costs, and mentoring. Project directors
indicated that when they try to take advantage of existing mentoring and
induction components in their states and districts, they face challenges
in providing a high‑quality program that is most closely related to the
needs of their own project participants and does not include duplicative
components.

4\. **Use discretionary funds now available to OII to conduct a
small‑scale investigation of the importance of the level of incentives
to project participation.** While the incentives provided by TTT are
helpful, they do not ameliorate the high and rising cost of tuition at
public and private colleges where most participants complete their
academic requirements. The program could be enhanced by more information
on what level of incentive is most appealing to participants and what
makes sense given the cost of recruiting and supporting participants
through to certification. Through this study, ED could explore some
options, for example, removing the cap of \$5,000 to allow flexibility
to projects recruiting from different populations with varying financial
needs; investigating the relationship between different levels of
funding and participation; and exploring whether professional
development‑type online programs are less expensive to operate and to
participate in.

5\. **In deliberations preceding reauthorization, reexamine the
definition of high‑need LEAs and high‑need schools.** Project grantees
reported several challenges in this regard, most notably, they were able
in some cases to identify many districts and schools that needed
teachers, but all of them did not meet the narrow definition. Projects
reported many more applications than expected, but some participants did
not want to teach in designated high‑need schools, so they earned
certification through the TTT route, but did not make a commitment as to
the school in which they would be teaching. ED could examine the impact
of the current definition on total number of participants hired and
retained and work with a group of experienced project directors to
recommend additional criteria to assist grantees and participants. There
should be a way to develop an approach so that unfilled teaching
positions do not remain so and participants who wish to become highly
qualified through alternate routes are not turned away, without
penalizing the neediest schools.

Organization of the Report

This report begins with an overview chapter, and each subsequent chapter
addresses a key component of grantee activity.

**Chapter I: Overview of TTT Grantees, Participants and Teachers.** This
chapter provides an overview of TTT grantees and participants as they
become teachers. Drawing on the APR for the third project year and
reporting on progress toward objectives and challenges from the interim
reports, project‑level data are provided which illustrate the variation
in grantee type, scope, participating organizations, and budget.

**Chapter II: Recruitment and Selection** **of TTT Participants.** This
chapter focuses on the strategies and approaches that TTT projects
implemented to recruit targeted participants, review their
qualifications, and the results of these efforts for the third project
year, addressing the first policy goal of the program: increasing the
pool of highly qualified teachers by recruiting nontraditional
candidates into teaching.

**Chapter III: Preparation and Certification.** This chapter outlines
the activities of TTT projects as they prepare and support participants
who are either serving as interns or as teachers of record while
attending classes and professional development seminars. This chapter
addresses the second policy goal related to breaking down barriers to
teaching.

**Chapter IV: Hiring and Placement of New Teachers.** This chapter
highlights the accomplishments of TTT grantees regarding hiring and
placement in high‑need schools in high‑need LEAs and reviews the subject
area assignments of these new teachers.

**Chapter V: Mentoring and Other Supports for Newly Hired Teachers.**
The variety of supports provided to teachers in TTT projects are
described in this chapter, addressing the policy goal of improving the
retention rates of new teachers. In addition, the retention rates of TTT
teachers in the early years of the FY 2002 grantees are reported in this
chapter.

**Chapter VI: Teacher Satisfaction and Future Plans.** In this chapter
we report TTT teacher data regarding their perception of TTT project
preparation and support, along with the challenges faced and their
future plans regarding teaching.

**Chapter VII: Conclusion.** This chapter draws together the evaluation
findings and identifies potential refinements for the TTT program as
well as questions for further investigation.

# OVERVIEW OF TTT GRANTEES, PARTICIPANTS and Teachers

## Highlights

-   The FY 2002 cohort of TTT grantees was the largest in number in the
    history of the program thus far. Half of the 92 grantees were IHEs,
    25 percent were local education agencies (LEAs), 17 percent were
    state departments of education (SEAs), and 7 percent were nonprofit
    organizations.

-   In total, grantees reported 939 LEAs hired TTT participants in their
    third project year. A relatively small proportion of all LEAs
    working with FY 2002 TTT grantees were urban (26 percent); 69
    percent were described as rural. Nationally, 51 percent of districts
    are rural, 41 percent are suburban, and 8 percent are urban. Some
    grantees served single large urban districts and others, multiple
    small rural districts.

-   As a group, TTT teachers hired in the last three years confirmed the
    grantee reports that their participants were racially and ethnically
    more diverse than teachers in the current teaching workforce with
    three or fewer years of experience; for example, 30 percent of TTT
    teachers reported they were black, compared with 19 percent of
    teachers in the general workforce certified through alternate routes
    and 9 percent of teachers in the workforce trained in traditional
    routes (SASS, 2003--04).

## Purpose of the TTT Grant Program {#purpose-of-the-ttt-grant-program .unnumbered}

To serve high‑need schools in high‑need districts, Congress established
the Transition to Teaching (TTT) program, which is authorized under
Title II, Part C, Subpart 1, Chapter B of the *Elementary and Secondary
Education Act* *of 1965,* as amended by the *No Child Left Behind Act of
2001* (*NCLB*) (Pub. L. No. 107‑110).[^4]

The program provides five‑year grants to a range of eligible applicants,
including a high‑need local education agency (LEA), a state education
agency (SEA), institutions of higher education (IHE) or for‑profit and
nonprofit organizations in partnership with high‑need LEAs or an SEA, a
regional consortium of SEAs, or a consortium of high‑need LEAs. The
program's stated purposes are "(a) to recruit and retain highly
qualified midcareer professionals (including highly qualified
paraprofessionals) and recent graduates of an institution of higher
education, as teachers in high‑need schools, including recruiting
teachers through alternative routes to certification; and (b) to
encourage the development and expansion of alternative routes to
certification under State‑approved programs that enable individuals to
be eligible for teacher certification within a reduced period of time,
relying on the experience, expertise, and academic qualifications of an
individual, or other factors in lieu of traditional course work in the
field of education." All participants in TTT projects are considered
highly qualified since they meet ED's requirements for alternate routes
as specified in *NCLB*.

Specifically, the TTT grant program was designed to address three policy
issues:

1\. Increasing the pool of qualified candidates by recruiting
nontraditional candidates into teaching;

2\. Bringing flexibility into the teacher preparation system by
encouraging the creation and expansion of alternative routes or pathways
to teacher certification and lowering barriers of time and cost of
preparation, while raising standards and program rigor; and

3\. Improving the retention rate of new teachers by supporting strong
mentoring programs and induction and including a three‑year commitment
to teach in high‑need schools in high‑need LEAs as part of the program
requirements.

As of February 2006, a total of 120 TTT grantees, located in 37 states,
were participating in the federal program. (An additional four states
were served by current regional grants.) This group included 89 grantees
who had received continuation grants and 32 grantees who had received
new grant awards in fiscal year FY 2004 (one of these was terminated in
year 1). Of these 120 grants, 62 were administered by IHEs, 33 by local
school districts, 16 by SEAs and nine by nonprofit organizations. In
FY 2006, a new competition produced 31 new awards. The FY 2002 cohort
that is the subject of this evaluation report began with 95 awards and
was financed with \$35 million. Ninety‑four of these awards were
continued in FY 2003, and 92[^5] grantees within this cohort are the
focus of this evaluation.[^6]

This chapter provides an overview of FY 2002 TTT grantees, using
descriptive data to illustrate the ways grantees varied by type of
recipient, scope, participating LEAs and other partners, and budget,
which parallels the variation found in alternate routes more broadly
(Feistritzer, 2006). This discussion situates TTT in the overall
landscape of alternate routes for teacher preparation, providing a basis
to examine participant experiences, project features and outcomes in
later chapters. The chapter draws upon four resources: the Annual
Performance Report (APR) for the third project year administered online,
interim evaluations submitted by FY 2002 grantees in 2005, the TTT
Teacher Survey, and descriptions from eight case studies conducted in
2004--05.[^7]

## The TTT Project and Its Components

TTT grants are awarded to a range of entities (as specified in the
authorizing legislation above). Brief descriptions of the ways in which
a few of the FY 2002 grantees work illustrate the partnering
arrangements they have initiated and their focused objectives: (1) an
IHE seeks a coordinated effort among three western states, developing an
online preparation program aligned with state standards and recruiting
broadly for openings in high‑need LEAs; (2) an urban school district
reaches out to paraprofessionals within its staff, facilitating their
degree completion and hiring them as teachers of record; (3) a state
department of education working with an IHE develops tutorial modules,
assisting individuals as they assemble portfolios for review by an
alternative licensing board.

TTT project objectives speak to the hiring needs of their schools and
districts and to the preparation needs of their participants seeking
certification as teachers, as shown in this graphic (see Exhibit 6). All
TTT projects recruit and select participants. The activity in these
other components differs across projects, depending on the individuals
and their education and backgrounds: these characteristics influence
what participants need from the program. Each component is described
briefly below.

6.  []{#__RefHeading___Toc161119179 .anchor}Grantee Component Framework:
    Addressing Participant Needs

**TTT Project Components**

\*Certification component: timing to certification may vary according to
state requirements and individual candidate's fulfillment of
requirements.

**Framework reads**: TTT project activities begin with recruitment and
selection of participants from a wide range of applicants. Some projects
provide training and support for certification prior to hiring, while
others support participants as soon as they are hired and placed in
schools at levels and subjects corresponding to their specialization.
Projects support teachers of record and participants through
orientation, field experience, internships, and focused course work.
Some projects provide mentoring and others facilitate it through
existing sources. If a project achieves its goals for participants,
satisfaction is expressed through retention for three years,
certification, and recommendations by "word of mouth" to other
prospective applicants.

The TTT projects begin by designating a target population (midcareer
professionals, recent college graduates, or paraprofessionals) and
setting goals for their recruitment. Many projects recruit from more
than one of these populations, sometimes expanding their recruitment
goals over the first few years to include multiple groups, changing
scope with ED approval. Some projects have multiple cohorts
participating each project year, but many recruit in the spring so
participants can begin preparation in the summer, and begin teaching in
the fall.

TTT projects have selection processes articulated with district and
school policies. In some projects, individuals became participants when
they have been officially hired by a school district and they begin
teaching immediately; while in others, participating organizations
collaborate on the selection, participants take part in orientation and
other classes, and hiring takes place at a later time, after preparation
is completed or partially completed. Another unique aspect of the TTT
projects is that in a given year, there may be one or more cohorts of
participants being recruited and hired. Thus the number of TTT
participants is fluid over a project year.

The training or preparation of TTT participants is one area in which
flexibility and innovative practices are frequently demonstrated. Some
TTT grantees provide the preparation through courses or seminars; in
others, participants enroll in a partnering IHE where they fulfill
academic requirements for certification. In still other grantees, for
example, some state‑administered grantees, a system of preparation
modules has been devised for all participants or participants compile a
portfolio which is reviewed for the acquisition of competencies
required.

Every TTT participant who is teaching is seeking certification. Some
participants achieve certification in their field earlier because of
their qualifications or specialization. Because many participants begin
teaching immediately after joining a TTT project, they may have a
provisional certificate until they have completed further requirements.
TTT projects offer a variety of types of assistance to participants as
they progress through the certification process.

When individuals "enroll" in a TTT project, many already have a contract
to teach. In other TTT projects, individuals are placed as interns with
the expectation that schools will hire them. Still others do not
guarantee a position, but facilitate hiring through participating LEAs.

Many TTT projects focus on developing mentoring and other support
opportunities for their participants to help them succeed in teaching.
It is also frequently the case that TTT participants, once hired in a
district, qualify for a district‑ or statewide mandated mentoring
program and take advantage of this source of support.

TTT projects are able to offer monetary incentives up to \$5,000 for
participants who commit to teach for three years in high‑need schools in
high‑need LEAs (all are asked to commit to teaching for three years).
This incentive, combined with training, support, and certification
assistance is a unique feature of the federal program compared to many
other alternate route options available throughout the country.

TTT projects attract many more applicants than are found eligible and
sometimes they are unable to place every one of their participants.
Still few participants leave on an annual basis. TTT teachers express
their satisfaction by recommending the project to others and by
completing the project requirements successfully. While some
participants leave due to personal reasons and others due to
dissatisfaction with project components or school conditions, generally
speaking, TTT one‑and two-year retention rates have been within the
retention ranges reported nationally.

The rest of this chapter highlights the variation within the FY 2002 TTT
cohort in terms of their objectives, grant type, scope, size, budget,
and participating organizations. Later chapters will focus in on the
distinctive project components and elaborate on the challenges projects
have faced.

Unique characteristics and goals of the TTT cohort participating in this
evaluation are further illustrated in Appendix C by snapshots of the
eight sites visited. These snapshots were taken during the third year of
the FY 2002 grant periods to correspond roughly with the data being
collected for the APRs. Because projects are making key adjustments in
line with the TTT program requirements and the needs of their school and
district constituencies, some features presented in the appendix may
have since changed.

## Type of Grant Recipient 

The FY 2002 cohort of TTT grantees was the largest in number in the
history of the program thus far. This cohort is a microcosm of the
larger population of alternate approaches to teacher certification
across the country: grantee types range from universities to a regional
education center (nonprofit); scope from local school districts to a
regional and even national recruitment, and size from small annual
cohorts (60 or less) to large cohorts (500 or more over five years).[^8]

The grant recipient is the entity with overall project responsibility
and fiscal control: the recipient is held accountable for several
aspects of TTT, including progress reports to the U.S. Department of
Education, managing financial matters, ensuring that participants meet
program obligations and maintaining productive relationships with and
among program partners.

Half of the 92 grantees in FY 2002 were IHEs, 25 percent were LEAs, 17
percent were SEAs, 7 percent were nonprofit organizations. These
percentages parallel the sponsorship of other alternate routes across
the United States; about half of all alternate routes were administered
by colleges and universities (IHEs), about 20 percent by school
districts and smaller numbers by community colleges, regional service
centers, State departments of education, partnerships and other
organizations (Feistritzer, 2006). Exhibit 7 depicts the FY 2002 TTT
grantees by recipient type.

7.  []{#__RefHeading___Toc161119180 .anchor}Percentage of FY 2002 TTT
    Grantees,\
    by Grant Recipient

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  ![](media/image5.png){width="4.006944444444445in"
  height="2.3430555555555554in"}

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

> Exhibit reads: Twenty‑five percent of FY 2002 TTT grantees are LEAs.
>
> Source: Transition to Teaching Annual Performance Report, 2004--05.

The 92 grantees whose data were reported in the 2004--05 online APR were
located in 37 states and the District of Columbia. While they represent
numerous states, their geographic scope, in terms of the schools and
districts served, ranged from a single district to multiple states.[^9]
Most grantees (60 percent) had a local scope. Thirty percent had a
state‑level scope and 10 percent had a regional or national scope (see
Exhibit 8).

8.  []{#__RefHeading___Toc161119181 .anchor}Percentage of FY 2002 TTT
    Grantees,\
    by Scope

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  ![](media/image6.png){width="3.9381944444444446in"
  height="2.220833333333333in"}

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

> Exhibit reads: Sixty percent of the FY 2002 TTT grantees described
> themselves as local in scope.
>
> Source: Transition to Teaching Annual Performance Report, 2004--05.

IHEs were the grant recipients of 53 percent of TTT projects with a
local scope, while LEA grantees administered 38 percent of these locally
oriented projects. This relationship makes sense considering the
tradition of the IHE and LEA partnership around placement of interns and
hiring of new teachers from traditional programs. Similarly, some of the
earliest alternate route programs were begun in districts, where local
hiring needs were the primary focus.

As Mayer et al. have reported (2003), in the universe of alternative
certification programs, multiple approaches to sponsorship are typical.
Unfortunately, the literature on alternative certification programs
provides no guidance on which type of sponsorship is most effective, nor
does it identify the problems associated with each. In the TTT
evaluation, site visits to grantees of various types highlighted that
different perspectives are taken according to sponsorship; however, the
interim evaluations and APR responses did not indicate strong
differences in outcomes according to sponsorship. Still, the existence
of some differences indicates additional exploration of this
relationship might be worthwhile.

As grantees, SEAs tend to have a broad view; they have the authority to
bring overall flexibility to the certification eligibility process,
within the context of state standards for teachers. State‑based
alternate routes may also have the kind of leverage to both tap the
provider interests of IHEs and to use state mentoring programs in
support of alternative certification participants. They can set the
standards for course content, training requirements, and license
eligibility.

Two examples of state grantees are South Carolina's Program of
Alternative Certification for Educators (PACE) and the TTT grant managed
by the Maryland State Department of Education, the Maryland Alternative
Routes to Certification Options (MARCO). These two also highlight the
diversity among SEA grantees: PACE recruits and trains statewide; MARCO
is focused on one large school district. The location of PACE in the
SCSDE permits the preparation and certification of candidates to be
centrally administered. The SCSDE draws on the expertise of national
board teachers throughout the state to develop and deliver a single body
of content through modules at university and school sites in the state.
MARCO builds on an existing alternative certification program: the
Resident Teacher Certificate program. The new TTT grant is designed to
infuse more resources into the recruitment process and create the type
of links within a centralized system that permit the coordination of the
additional professional development and certification processes that
teachers need.

School district‑sponsored projects---such as Orange County (Florida)
Public Schools (OCPS), Baldwin Park (California) Unified School District
(BPUSD), and Newport News (Virginia) Public Schools (NNPS)---tend to
have a local reach. These district‑initiated projects focus specifically
on (a) midcareer or recent college graduates, helping them become
credentialed teachers who will remain in the district and (b)
paraprofessionals, who already work in its schools, and need support to
move into credentialed status.

Some IHE‑based projects (such as Montana State University) and nonprofit
entities that work with universities (including Green River Regional
Education Cooperative with Western Kentucky University \[GRREC‑WKU\] and
the Intercultural Development Research Association \[IDRA\]) focus on
regional needs and draw on the experience of IHEs' traditional programs.

Montana's Northern Plains Transition to Teaching (NPTT) project
developed an online program to facilitate a regional partnership among
Montana, Wyoming, and South Dakota and brought each state department of
education together around a common goal.

GRREC, a regional service center for school districts, involves a
collaborative and longstanding relationship with WKU. WKU's model of
teacher preparation serves as the source for preparing all GRREC's TTT
participants.

IDRA, which administers the Texas‑Teacher Excellence for All Students
(T‑TExAS) and administered Project BECA (Bilingual Education
Collaborating Alliance) from 2001 to 2004, is a nonprofit organization
with a record of experience preparing teachers for bilingual education
and English as a Second Language (ESL). While serving as the primary
fiscal agent that provides general leadership and program oversight,
IDRA relies on school districts to place candidates and on individual
IHEs to prepare participants with the course delivery system of their
choice.

## Participating LEAs

The primary goal of TTT projects is to realize the hiring and placement
and certification of participants as teachers of record in high‑need
schools in approved high‑need LEAs that have agreed to work with TTT
grantees. Because they are in approved alternate route projects, TTT
participants are considered highly qualified under *NCLB,* thus
assisting high‑need schools in high‑need LEAs to meet the federal goal
for placing a highly qualified teacher in every classroom.

In their grant applications, prospective projects indicate those
high‑need LEAs with which they will partner or, if an LEA, show how they
qualify. In total, grantees reported the involvement of 939 LEAs that
hired TTT participants in their third project year. While the
number of LEAs involved with a single project varied, 74 percent of
grantees reported placements of participants in 10 or fewer LEAs and
involvement with just one LEA was reported by 27 percent of grantees.
Fifty‑nine percent of all grantees reported five or fewer LEA partners
and another 15 percent of grantees worked with between six and 10 LEAs
(see Exhibit 9). Some grantees were working with one large urban
district; others were addressing the needs of multiple, small rural
districts.

9.  []{#__RefHeading___Toc161119182 .anchor}Percentage of FY 2002 TTT
    Grantees Reporting\
    Number of Participating LEAs

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  ![](media/image7.png){width="3.566666666666667in"
  height="2.629861111111111in"}

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

> Note: Some grantees are LEAs.
>
> Exhibit reads: Seventy‑four percent of FY 2002 TTT grantees reported
> working with between 0 and 10 participating LEAs.
>
> Source: Transition to Teaching Annual Performance Report, 2004--05.

A relatively small proportion of all LEAs working with FY 2002 TTT
grantees were urban (26 percent); 69 percent were described as rural
(see Exhibit 10). Nationally, about 50 percent of districts are
rural.[^10] This represented a concerted effort by grantees to address
what has been noted as a concern in states with rural districts: the
relative lack of teacher applicants who are highly qualified in all
academic subjects they teach.

10. []{#__RefHeading___Toc161119183 .anchor}Percentage of Participating
    LEAs by Type of LEA

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  ![](media/image8.png){width="3.172222222222222in" height="2.25625in"}

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

> Exhibit reads: Twenty‑six percent of LEAs working with FY 2002 TTT
> grantees were identified as urban by grantees.
>
> Source: Transition to Teaching Annual Performance Report, 2004--05.

Meeting the recruiting and hiring goals of partner districts, according
to TTT projects, required substantial resources and key participating
organizations that played important and often multiple roles. Projects
reported that almost three‑quarters (71 percent) of participating
organizations assisted with recruitment, and nearly as many provided
assistance with training and course work (64 percent) and advice and
governance through service on an advisory board (50 percent). About half
of the organizations were reported to be supporting the retention goals
of the grantee (52 percent) and mentoring and induction (50 percent),
and 42 percent were occupied with candidate placement; 23 percent were
reported to assist with a range of other responsibilities (see Exhibit
11).

11. []{#__RefHeading___Toc161119184 .anchor}Percentage of Participating
    Organizations with TTT Responsibilities

![](media/image9.wmf)

> Note: Advisory/governance refers to participation on advisory boards
> created by the grantees.\
> Exhibit reads: Seventy‑one percent of participating organizations
> assisted the TTT project with recruitment activities.\
> Source: Transition to Teaching Annual Performance Report, 2004--05.

Project directors reported that grantees benefited most when
participating organizations contributed community knowledge, skill and
experience, and the wisdom required to negotiate state and district
regulations. In addition, TTT projects reported that the accomplishments
that could be made by their relatively small staffs were augmented when
these organizations shouldered their commitment and assigned staff to
fulfill these commitments.

## 

## 

## 

## Project Budget Resources

TTT project annual budgets over the five years range from just under
\$100,000 to nearly \$800,000 (two grantees reported larger budgets for
specific project years of between \$1 million and \$2 million). In the
third project year, the FY 2002 cohort budgets ranged from a relatively
small contribution or no new funds for the year (due to unexpended funds
from the previous year) to a maximum grant of \$724,300. As illustrated
by Exhibit 12, the majority of TTT grantee budgets (63 percent) approved
for the third project year might be characterized as "medium‑sized"
(relative to all 2002 grants) within the range of \$250,000--\$499,999.
In addition, the budgets for 23 percent of grantees were less than
\$249,999 and 14 percent were \$500,000 or more. The total investment in
grant awards in 2002 was \$35 million.

12. []{#__RefHeading___Toc161119185 .anchor}Percentage of FY 2002 TTT
    Grantees Reporting\
    Third Year Budgets, by Size of Budget

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  ![](media/image10.png){width="4.279861111111111in"
  height="2.4069444444444446in"}

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

> Exhibit reads: Twenty‑three percent of FY 2002 TTT grantees received
> approved allocations for the third project year under \$249,999.
>
> Source: Transition to Teaching Annual Performance Report and Interim
> Evaluations, 2004--05.

Forty‑two percent of grantees who provided responses in the APR survey
indicated they were not finished expending their funds for the current
year (see Exhibit 13).[^11] The program office can approve a roll‑over
of unexpended funds, which is common for multiyear grantees. Some of the
reasons for unexpended funds highlighted the challenges of operating
alternate routes.

Unexpended funds resulted when projects overestimated the costs of the
program (20 percent), or had fewer than expected qualified participants
applying for the grant (29 percent). Nearly 17 percent had carryover
funds because their project started behind schedule. One project
director explained why the project had purposely reserved money from
previous years, "Purposefully, we have rolled over funds from project
years 1 and 2 in order to be able to support the tuition scholarships
introduced during project year 2 and afforded to cohorts 2, 3, 4 and 5
and mentoring costs (due to increased numbers) during projects years
3--5." Only one grantee responded to the survey stating that he did not
have any unexpended funds.

13. []{#__RefHeading___Toc161119186 .anchor}Status of Unexpended Funds

  ------------------------------------------------ ----------------------
                                                   

  Comment                                          Percentage of grantees
                                                   who gave category
                                                   response

  Not finished expending budget\*                  42

  Fewer than expected enrolled participants\*\*    29

  General costs were lower than expected           20

  Project started behind schedule/after funding    17
  started                                          

  Other                                            12

  N/A                                              6

  Fewer than expected LEAs applying for grant      2

  Did not have unexpended funds                    1

  Budget period changed                            1
  ------------------------------------------------ ----------------------

> \*Still using the funding---fiscal budget year did not correspond with
> school year. Contracts, invoices, scholarships etc. still to be paid.
> Will expend or nearly expend all funds.
>
> \*\*Either fewer participants were recruited or hired, or they dropped
> out. This also affected the budget by decreasing the number of
> stipends and scholarships that were provided.
>
> Exhibit reads: Nearly 42 percent of grantees who responded to the
> question about unexpended funds reported they had not finished
> expending their budget for that year.
>
> Source: Transition to Teaching Annual Performance Report, 2004--05.

More than a third (39 percent) of grantees wrote that they would spend
unexpended funds on general project activities, administrative purposes,
and working toward the project objectives. More specific plans included
recruitment (24 percent), improving the mentoring program (19 percent),
professional development (20 percent), supplies and materials for
participants (10 percent), more staff hires and raises (15 percent), and
more scholarships and incentives to participants (23 percent). These
activities are all approved within the scope of the TTT program. Three
grantees (4 percent) wrote that they were anticipating more participants
the following year and they were planning on using the money to
accommodate and support them (see Exhibit 14).

14. []{#__RefHeading___Toc161119187 .anchor}Plans for Use of Unexpended
    Funds

  ------------------------------------------------ ----------------------
  Plan to use the unexpended funds over the next   
  year                                             

  Comment                                          Percentage of grantees
                                                   who gave category
                                                   response

  Other general project activities/working towards 39
  goal/administration and operation of grant       

  Recruitment                                      24

  Provide more scholarships/incentives             23

  Professional development                         20

  Mentoring program                                19

  Staff raises/hires                               15

  Supplies/materials for participants              10

  Continue paying this year's costs                9

  Anticipate more participants next year           4
  ------------------------------------------------ ----------------------

> Exhibit reads: Of those grantees who reported unexpended funds, 39
> percent indicated plans to use unexpended funds for general project
> activities.
>
> Source: Transition to Teaching Annual Performance Report, 2004--05.

## Project Objectives: Progress and Challenges Over Three Years

At the end of Year 3, grantees submitted both the year 3 APRs and
interim evaluations in which they described progress over three years
toward the objectives set forth in their grant applications. TTT
grantees proposed objectives that were integral to (1) the needs of
their participating school districts (or their own needs if the grantee
was a school district) and (2) met the overall TTT program goals.

In both of these progress reports, TTT grantees reported undertaking
refinements for recruitment and selection processes, for training
approaches and content, and for mentoring activities. Changes were made
only with the approval of the ED project officer and in keeping with the
scope and objectives of the original application. In many projects,
changes were informed by outside evaluations and were evidence of a
process of continuous assessment.

In their APR year 3 reports, 39 percent of the grantees reported success
in meeting their objectives for the third project year; 2 percent stated
that they had not met their objectives. Remaining responses encompassed
a range of goal achievement, including grantees that exceeded their
goals (6 percent), completed most of their goals (13 percent), completed
some of their goals (7 percent) and did not meet most of their goals (1
percent) (see Exhibit 15).

Some of the grantees (6 percent) responded that it was too early to be
definitive, but they expected to meet their goals by the end of the
reporting year (see Exhibit 15).

15. []{#__RefHeading___Toc161119188 .anchor}Progress in Meeting\
    Project‑Established Objectives in Year 3

  --------------------------------------------- -------------------------
  To what extent has your project met its       
  objectives this reporting year?               

  Category                                      Percentage of grantees
                                                who gave category
                                                response

  Met goal(s)                                   39

  Response focuses progress made, but does not  14
  refer to the actual project goals (unable to  
  tell if they are fulfilled)                   

  Met most of goals                             13

  Met some goals                                7

  Exceeded goal(s)                              6

  Projected that they will meet goals by end of 6
  year                                          

  Goals are partially met                       3

  Only mentioned one goal (met)                 3

  Only mentioned one goal (partially met)       3

  Did not meet goal(s)                          2

  Did not specify goals                         2

  Most goals not met                            1

  Only mentioned one goal (exceeded)            1

  Other                                         1
  --------------------------------------------- -------------------------

> Exhibit reads: Thirty‑nine percent of grantees indicated that project
> goals were met.
>
> Source: Transition to Teaching Annual Performance Report, 2004--05.

In their interim evaluations, also, grantees elaborated on issues and
changes that had occurred within the project as well as the external
factors that had influenced these. The most frequently reported issues
were related to the sites and positions into which participants were
placed (indicated by 42 percent) and the applicant or candidate pool
(indicated by 41 percent). In addition, 34 percent reported issues with
recruitment methods, 30 percent with the organization or structure of
the project, and 29 percent with project personnel. The nature of the
issues and changes for these four categories are detailed in the table
below (see Exhibit 16).

16. []{#__RefHeading___Toc161119189 .anchor}Issues and Changes Made to
    Meet\
    Project‑Established Objectives

+-----------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| Type of issue or      | Nature of issue or change                    |
| change                |                                              |
+-----------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| Sites/positions       | Positions expanded by:                       |
|                       |                                              |
|                       | -   Adding new LEAs                          |
|                       |                                              |
|                       | -   Working with LEAs to identify vacancies  |
|                       |     sooner                                   |
|                       |                                              |
|                       | Positions limited by:                        |
|                       |                                              |
|                       | -   Failure to meet LEA qualifying           |
|                       |     definition                               |
|                       |                                              |
|                       | -   Budget cuts                              |
|                       |                                              |
|                       | -   Decreased student enrollment             |
|                       |                                              |
|                       | -   Location or organization                 |
|                       |                                              |
|                       | -   Low demand for participants' areas of    |
|                       |     certification                            |
|                       |                                              |
|                       | -   Participants seeking out positions in    |
|                       |     non‑qualifying LEAs                      |
+-----------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| Applicant or          | Pool expanded by:                            |
| candidate pool        |                                              |
|                       | -   Seeking other target groups              |
|                       |                                              |
|                       | -   Using online recruitment and application |
|                       |     methods                                  |
|                       |                                              |
|                       | -   Offering additional grade levels or      |
|                       |     subject areas                            |
|                       |                                              |
|                       | Pool limited by:                             |
|                       |                                              |
|                       | -   Military deployment                      |
|                       |                                              |
|                       | -   Few paraprofessionals meeting            |
|                       |     prerequisites                            |
|                       |                                              |
|                       | -   Few candidates meeting prerequisites     |
|                       |                                              |
|                       | -   Uncertainty about LEAs (see sites and    |
|                       |     positions, above)                        |
|                       |                                              |
|                       | -   Competition with other alternate routes  |
|                       |     or districts                             |
+-----------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| Recruitment methods   | Effective recruitment methods include:       |
|                       |                                              |
|                       | -   Web‑based tools (e.g., enhanced Web      |
|                       |     sites, online applications,              |
|                       |     advertisements)                          |
|                       |                                              |
|                       | -   Face‑to‑face interaction (e.g., job      |
|                       |     fairs, informational sessions)           |
|                       |                                              |
|                       | Recruitment challenged by:                   |
|                       |                                              |
|                       | -   Project organization (e.g., small staff, |
|                       |     relocation)                              |
|                       |                                              |
|                       | -   Uncertainty about LEAs (see sites and    |
|                       |     positions, above)                        |
+-----------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| O                     | Changes to improve organization by:          |
| rganization/structure |                                              |
|                       | -   New partners (LEAs, IHEs)                |
|                       |                                              |
|                       | -   Development of committees to evaluate    |
|                       |     and advise                               |
|                       |                                              |
|                       | -   New/expanded project location            |
|                       |                                              |
|                       | Changes to improve structure by:             |
|                       |                                              |
|                       | -   New grade level or subject area focus    |
+-----------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| Personnel             | New or proposed personnel as:                |
|                       |                                              |
|                       | -   Coordinators for recruitment,            |
|                       |     certification, and mentoring             |
|                       |                                              |
|                       | -   Project directors                        |
|                       |                                              |
|                       | -   Support staff                            |
|                       |                                              |
|                       | -   Academic advisers                        |
|                       |                                              |
|                       | Loss of personnel through:                   |
|                       |                                              |
|                       | -   Resignation by individuals               |
|                       |                                              |
|                       | -   Eliminated positions                     |
+-----------------------+----------------------------------------------+

Note: The number of instances was based on 90 interim evaluations with
details on issues and changes.

Source: Grantee Interim Evaluations, 2005.

Grantees responded to the challenges they faced in meeting their
objectives in many different ways; however, three key methods mentioned
in 60 percent of grantee responses to this survey question on the APR
were confirmed in the interim reports: (1) networking and collaborating
with LEA partners, education and community agencies, other alternate
route projects and schools; (2) providing more or improving professional
development; and (3) increasing recruitment efforts.

About 39 percent of grantees reported that they had worked on networking
and collaborating with LEAs, SEAs, partnering agencies and other
projects, schools, and teachers. These efforts increased communication
and understanding; personal contacts proved to be invaluable resources
for problem solving and were especially helpful in hiring and
recruitment.

Some grantees reported receiving assistance with more specific problems
from persons who were not participating in day‑to‑day decisions about
the project. For example, after the most recent restructuring of one
public school district, a grantee there contacted school principals to
make sure that paraprofessionals in the TTT project would be able to
keep their jobs while they worked toward certification.

Grantees worked to make the program experience more successful for
participants by improving professional development opportunities and
offering more support. To accommodate the inflexible nature of teachers'
schedules and participants living and working in rural areas, grantees
adapted courses for accessibility. Many of these projects offered
options such as online courses, night classes, summer courses, and
internships. Grantees also worked to improve their mentoring component
by spending more time and money on recruiting and training mentors for
the project. One grantee reflected, "Our most effective strategy has
been to increase the mentorship provided through the use of mentor
consultants. These mentors coach, model, observe, and provide feedback
\[to participants\] on a consistent, ongoing basis." This improvement in
training helped provide the support participants needed to stay with the
project and become successful.

Grantees addressed the issue of participant dropout in part by
clarifying and reiterating the program's requirements and financial
obligations: "The TTT participants have been involved in trainings
throughout the year. Participants now have a more comprehensive
understanding of their responsibilities for meeting the guidelines of
the grant requirements," said one project director. By maintaining an
understanding of what is involved in completing the project requirements
and being more aware of what was involved in financial planning for
their expenses during their TTT involvement, grantees found that
participants were more likely to remain and were more prepared for the
demands of training and the career ahead of them.

Overall, grantees reported in their APRs that they experienced varying
degrees of success with addressing challenges: three stated outright
that their efforts had not been effective, some reported continuing
efforts to confront issues, and a few acknowledged that they did not
know how to tackle the problems that confronted them (see Exhibit 17).

17. []{#__RefHeading___Toc161119190 .anchor}Approaches to Resolving
    Difficulties or Barriers

  ------------------------------------------------ ----------------------
  How are these difficulties or barriers being     
  addressed?                                       

  Category                                         Percentage of grantees
                                                   who gave category
                                                   response

  Networked/collaborated with other/current LEAs,  39
  agencies, projects, schools, teachers, etc.      

  Increased professional development and           36
  opportunities\*                                  

  Increased recruitment efforts\*\*                25

  Other                                            16

  Improved communication                           11

  Reduced program cost, provided incentives and/or 9
  stipends                                         

  Made staff adjustments                           8

  Clarified requirements                           7

  Incorporated more high‑need districts as LEA     7
  partners                                         

  Refined selection process                        5

  Expanded capacity to include more candidates     2

  Situation has changed so the initial challenge   1
  is no longer an issue                            
  ------------------------------------------------ ----------------------

> \*Including recruiting and training mentors and improving the mentor
> program, providing more flexible courses for participants (e.g.,
> summer or Internet‑based)
>
> \*\*Such as interest sessions, encouraging current participants to
> recruit, developing the Web site, expanding geographical location,
> attempting to reach more types of participants not originally targeted
> (e.g., nonmilitary participants)
>
> Exhibit reads: Thirty‑nine percent of grantees indicated they relied
> on networking or collaborating with LEAs and other entities to resolve
> difficulties or barriers.
>
> Source: Transition to Teaching Annual Performance Report, 2004--05.

## TTT Teachers

This evaluation gathered information about TTT participants who became
new teachers from two sources: the APR submitted by grantees described
the participants in the third project year and a few questions sought
data on new teachers of record, for example, the number hired each year;
the TTT teacher surveys were administered to teachers who had been hired
since 2002 and up to 2004. In this survey, teachers reported on their
own backgrounds and experiences. This section provides data from both
sources regarding the participants who became teachers.

The literature provides some support for the premise that alternate
routes tend to attract greater percentages of minority candidates
(Allen, 2003; Clewell and Villegas, 2001; Lutz and Hutton, 1989; Shen,
1997). Further, for 2005, the National Center for Education Information
(NCEI) reported 32 percent of new teachers from alternate routes as
non‑white, compared to just 11 percent of the total teacher workforce in
that year. However, Humphrey and Wechsler (2005) suggest that in terms
of race and ethnicity, participants in alternate route programs
generally reflect the demographic composition of the local labor
markets.

Grantees reported about half of participants in the third project year
were white and half represented other categories: 27 percent black, 13
percent Hispanic and 9 percent in several other categories. Little
difference was reported when these data were broken down by target group
for midcareer professionals and recent college graduates. In both
groups, more than half of the participants were white and close to 30
percent were black. The race and ethnicity reports for
paraprofessionals, however, indicate that more paraprofessionals were
Hispanic than among other participant groups. This was likely due to the
concentration of paraprofessionals in TTT projects located in districts
with a large proportion of Hispanic residents.

As a group, TTT teachers hired between 2002 and 2004 confirmed the
grantee reports that they were racially and ethnically more diverse than
teachers in the workforce with three or fewer years of experience; for
example, 30 percent of TTT teachers reported they were black, compared
with 19 percent of teachers in the general workforce coming through
alternate routes and 9 percent of teachers in the workforce trained in
traditional routes (SASS, 2003--04). In addition, 62 percent of TTT
teachers described themselves as white (compared with 77 percent of
teachers who came through alternate routes generally and 89 percent of
teachers trained in traditional routes); 12 percent reported that they
are Hispanic compared to 6 percent of teachers in the workforce trained
in traditional programs (see Exhibit 18).

18. []{#__RefHeading___Toc161119191 .anchor}Percentage of TTT Teachers,
    by Ethnicity and Race

+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
| > ![](media/image11.png        | ![](media/image                     |
| ){width="3.2291666666666665in" | 12.png){width="3.888888888888889in" |
| >                              | height="2.3743055555555554in"}      |
|  height="2.251388888888889in"} |                                     |
+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
| > Exhibit reads: Twelve        | > Exhibit reads: Sixty‑two percent  |
| > percent of TTT teachers are  | > of TTT teachers are white.        |
| > Hispanic.                    | >                                   |
| >                              | > Source: Transition to Teaching    |
| > Source: Transition to        | > TTT teacher survey,\              |
| > Teaching TTT teacher survey, | > 2005--06.                         |
| > 2005--06.                    |                                     |
+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+

TTT teachers differed notably as to their ethnicity when examined by
target group: 18 percent of paraprofessionals reported their ethnicity
as Hispanic, compared to 12 percent of the total participant sample (see
Exhibit 19).

19. []{#__RefHeading___Toc161119192 .anchor}Percentage of TTT Teachers
    Who Are Hispanic,\
    by Target Group

![](media/image13.wmf)

> Exhibit reads: Eighteen percent of TTT teachers who were
> paraprofessionals described their ethnicity as Hispanic.
>
> Source: Transition to Teaching TTT teacher survey, 2005--06.

When TTT teachers identified themselves according to target group for
the TTT teacher survey, the smallest percentage reported they were
paraprofessionals (13 percent) and the largest percentage reported they
were midcareer professionals (50 percent) (see Exhibit 20).

20. []{#__RefHeading___Toc161119193 .anchor}Percentage of TTT Teachers,
    by Target Group

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  ![](media/image14.png){width="4.740277777777778in"
  height="2.5236111111111112in"}

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

> Exhibit reads: Thirteen percent of TTT teachers in FY 2002 grantees
> described themselves as paraprofessionals.
>
> Source: Transition to Teaching TTT teacher survey, 2005--06.

Although some alternate routes focus on recruiting individuals from
specific occupations related to educational backgrounds in mathematics,
science, and technology, studies of alternate routes have found
relatively limited occupational diversity among participants as a whole.
These studies indicate that many participants have backgrounds as
students or other school‑related areas, or in other fields, rather than
the anticipated professional backgrounds (Humphrey and Wechsler, 2005;
Shen, 1997; Zientek, Capraro, and Capraro, 2006). Among the participants
in the third project year of the FY 2002 grantees, prior occupations
ranged from professional to service: 29 percent of participants worked
in professional occupations, 22 percent worked as K--12 school staff
(including paraprofessionals) (see Exhibit 21).

21. []{#__RefHeading___Toc161119194 .anchor}Percentage of 2004--05\
    Participants by Occupation Prior to TTT[^12]

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  ![](media/image15.png){width="4.570138888888889in"
  height="2.573611111111111in"}

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

> Exhibit reads: The prior occupation of 11 percent of participants in
> the third project year of FY 2002 grantees was reported as "other."
> See footnote below for details of category development.
>
> Source: Transition to Teaching Annual Performance Report, 2004--05.

# Recruitment and Selection of TTT PARTICIPANTS

## Highlights

-   Recruitment is a particularly important component of TTT projects
    because the targeted groups are nontraditional entrants into
    teaching, including individuals who may have had some teaching
    experience but had not considered seeking certification. Experience
    reported by grantees over their first three years indicated that
    "word of mouth" dissemination about TTT projects leads to the
    recruitment of more eligible candidates. In turn, participants in
    current TTT projects confirm that this is, by far, the most
    effective and informative strategy that was used in their particular
    case.

-   In the third project year, TTT grantees set targets to recruit and
    train 3,696 new teachers. The applications for these positions far
    exceeded the slots: for recent college graduates, the ratio of
    eligible applicants to slots was 3.4 to 1. Between 64 and 75 percent
    of applicants were determined, through the selection process, to be
    eligible, according to their category (midcareer professionals,
    paraprofessionals, and recent college graduates). TTT projects tend
    to target more than one group of participants.

-   TTT projects have instituted entry standards for the selection of
    participants, with particular emphasis on their subject area
    background. Few projects report using standards for entry that are
    different or more selective than those of traditional programs. This
    cohort of projects has, however, provided some lessons about how to
    work collaboratively with school districts in the screening process.
    Some TTT projects require participants to be hired officially by a
    high‑need school district before being enrolled in their TTT
    project.

## Recruitment {#recruitment .unnumbered}

Recruitment refers to the ways by which TTT grantees represent and
provide information about the teacher preparation route for the purpose
of attracting applicants who have an interest in teaching in high‑need
schools in high‑need LEAs. The data reported in this section elaborate
on the recruitment strategies used by grantees and the value of those
strategies to participants.

To understand why recruitment is such a critical aspect of a TTT project
it is important to consider the place of alternate routes within the
larger community of teacher preparation programs. With more than 1,300
traditional teacher preparation programs existing across the country in
IHEs, most individuals who wish to enter the teaching profession are
likely to find an IHE‑based program in their city or region, reasonably
close by. It is conventional wisdom that those preparing to be teachers
select an IHE within 50 miles of their home because they are expecting
to begin their teaching career in the area where they grew up or where
they wish to live. TTT grantees confirmed that this was also the
preference of their applicants, many of whom were established in their
communities. Individuals who choose the traditional route, through an
undergraduate degree, to qualify for teaching, whether or not they seek
a teaching job immediately following school, know where to look for a
program: they have confidence that within their IHE they will find the
information needed to pursue their career goal and that the program will
guide them to fulfill certification requirements.

However, many IHE graduates who prepared for teaching or considered
teaching while in undergraduate school do not work in the area of their
undergraduate major right after completing their studies. Longitudinal
analyses of data on the outcomes of the college graduating class of\
1992--93 indicate that 36 percent of this class had applied for a
teaching job, become certified to teach, or considered teaching within
four years of receiving a bachelor's degree (Loeb and Reininger, 2004).
In addition, analyses of career trajectories of graduates of
undergraduate teacher preparation programs point to a large drop‑off of
individuals who are trained as teachers at the undergraduate level once
they have graduated and that less than 60 percent actually become
teachers (Hull, 2004).

There are also many in the workforce who decide, after 5, 10, 15 or more
years to change their careers. One appeal of developing multiple
alternate routes is to provide these individuals with options,
especially if they have been turned off by the "traditional approach"
because of regulations and requirements, confusing information, lack of
funds to pursue extended study, or other reasons.

### Recruitment Strategies in TTT Projects {#recruitment-strategies-in-ttt-projects .unnumbered}

Marketing and recruitment strategies are critical to the success of an
alternate route. TTT projects begin with an assessment of the teacher
need (the knowledge that there are shortages in specific fields within
the neediest districts), then gather information about the potential
market for participants. With this information, projects undertake
marketing activities and shape a program of study and support that will
facilitate entry into the profession and retention.

In their proposals, grantees indicated one or more of three specific
target groups---midcareer professionals, recent college graduates, or
paraprofessionals---that they planned to recruit to teach in high‑need
schools in high‑need LEAs. In fact, most TTT projects targeted multiple
groups. Of the 92 FY 2002 grantees, 80 targeted multiple groups, seven
targeted midcareer professionals only, one targeted recent college
graduates only, and four targeted paraprofessionals only.

In their various data reports submitted in 2005, grantees provided
lessons learned about the strategies they used. In general, they
commented on things such as the creation of a Web site, which was deemed
important because of its flexibility: content could be changed and
updated; full details could be provided; and links could be made to
sites of origin directly related to participants, that is, where they
would be most likely to begin their job search. Recognizing participants
needed a great deal of information "before committing to this life
change" one grantee reported developing a CD‑ROM with information about
the panoply of alternate route programs available in their area,
including interviews with project directors. Use of other media for
announcements and advertising received split reviews: many grantees said
that advertising was the most costly alternative and that sometimes
newspaper articles attracted unqualified candidates. Others reported
that radio and public announcements were effective because they brought
in candidates who were not involved in schools. Project administrators
presented information at job fairs and career fairs, which they
considered two different approaches for traditional and nontraditional
candidates. Community college fairs were recommended to attract
individuals who were going back to school for specific training.

Accomplishing recruitment goals requires using multiple strategies and
making effective use of community resources and resources of
participating organizations. Assessing the needs of participating
high‑need districts was an essential first step in identifying a target
group, however, projects experienced varying degrees of success in the
hiring of recruited participants due to changes in staffing needs in
partner schools; occasionally they were faced with a system in which
hiring preferences led to choosing individuals from other preparation
programs. Having a pool of individuals with strong incentives to take
advantage of the TTT project was advantageous to projects in meeting
these goals. Some projects with a wide reach had to work harder with
their recruitment efforts to call attention to unique preparation
approaches or to recruit individuals in specific subject areas or
because they were recruiting for schools in high‑need school districts.

Grantees suggested that targeting specific groups of candidates was
essential, especially to attract minority students (use of ethnic news
media). Thus the TTT projects reported crafting specific types of
advertising materials and using specific media for each group:
midcareer, recent college graduates, and paraprofessionals.

Identifying the top three (successful) methods by which they recruited
TTT participants, 70 percent of grantees named "word of mouth." Other
often‑used methods included developing Web sites (56 percent),
advertising at local schools (47 percent) and advertising at IHEs (31
percent). The use of media---either as purchased advertising or by news
coverage---ranked at the lower end of use by grantees, as did
cooperation with a state employment office and use of e‑mail or mail
distribution lists (see Exhibit 22).

Confirming the importance of disseminating information by word of mouth,
TTT teachers reported about the ways they learned about the TTT projects
in their area and they overwhelmingly (90 percent) reported word of
mouth as their most important source for learning about TTT, while
42 percent referred to Web sites and 29 percent learned about TTT
through advertising at local schools (see Exhibit 23).

22. []{#__RefHeading___Toc161119195 .anchor}Percentage of FY 2002 TTT
    *Grantees* Who Ranked Each Recruitment Method as One of Their Top
    Three Recruitment Methods

![](media/image16.wmf)

> Exhibit reads: Seventy percent of FY 2002 grantees ranked "word of
> mouth" as one of their top three recruitment methods.
>
> Source: Transition to Teaching Annual Performance Report, 2004--05.

23. []{#__RefHeading___Toc161119196 .anchor}Percentage of TTT
    *Teachers*\
    Reporting the Importance of Sources for Learning About TTT

![](media/image17.wmf)

> Exhibit reads: Ninety percent of TTT teachers reported that "word of
> mouth" was an important source for learning about TTT.
>
> Source: Transition to Teaching TTT teacher survey, 2005--06.

### Recruitment Challenges Identified {#recruitment-challenges-identified .unnumbered}

Recruitment was identified by the grantees as being the most critical
challenge they faced as a project, but when they reported on recruitment
they were including the requirements of TTT, the issue of identifying
high‑need school districts, and the eligibility of applicants. As one
grantee explained, "The eligibility requirements for our TTT program
\[refers to the project itself not the federal TTT program\] limit the
pool of applicants. We had difficulty finding individuals with at least
five years of work experience, a math or science background, *and* a
desire to become an urban teacher. This was compounded by a constrained
recruiting budget and an improved economy in the local area meaning more
options with greater pay for those with the background necessary for our
program." Competing employment opportunities were mentioned, as were
decreasing employment opportunities in the schools due to decreased
school budgets. Many grantees mentioned the difficulty in attracting
participants to teach in the high‑need LEAs.

Other recruitment challenges were reported to be related to a range of
external factors at the state or district level. For example, some
grantees targeting individuals in the military found that a large
proportion of the military in their area was being deployed to serve
overseas. Natural disasters also changed priorities. Some southern
states affected by the 2005 destructive hurricanes had difficulty
recruiting because community members were too busy trying to reclaim
their lives and possessions to consider transitioning into a new career.
One project in a popular tourist destination found that the tourist
industry presented significant competition, making it difficult to
persuade people to consider switching to a career in education.

One quarter of the grantees cited problems meeting the TTT program
constraints regarding the definition of high‑need LEA and requirement to
teach in high‑need LEAs for three years to benefit from incentive funds.
Another problem often noted by project directors was identifying which
LEAs were certified as "high‑need" under the federal grant
specifications. One grantee commented, "The primary barrier is the
delayed U.S. Census data available to determine designated high‑need
LEAs." Some grantees complained that specific LEAs needed teachers, but
were not eligible under the grant or had missed the cutoff for
qualifying as high‑need by less than 1 percent. Those schools needed
teachers and the TTT projects needed teaching jobs, but the grantees
could not place participants in them under the stipulations of the TTT
grant. When recruitment was successful, project directors reported that
they were able to place many more participants but could not count them
in the APR data because they were in unqualified LEAs. A number of
grantees reported that otherwise eligible participants were unhappy with
the working conditions in high‑need schools, and still others lost their
interest in a commitment to the TTT project when they understood the
working conditions. TTT projects worked with many rural school districts
and some of their prospective participants reported that these LEAs were
simply harder to access, while project directors also reported
difficulty providing support in rural LEAs. Still other grantees
indicated prospective participants expressed the desire to work in
districts closer to home.

Grantees employed several methods to increase recruitment yield,
including offering more information sessions, conducting career fairs,
recruiting more participant types (for example, a project targeting
members of the military expanded to recruit nonmilitary participants),
improving Web sites and other outreach approaches, and encouraging
current participants to spread the word about the program. This strategy
for success was shared by one of the grantees:

*To address these \[recruitment\] barriers, we came back after our
winter break with a new recruitment campaign, which included holding an
information session at the community college one evening and presenting
at the principals' meeting. Both of these were quite effective.
Attendance was good at the session (about 50 attended), and the
principals asked questions and made positive comments about the
program.*

In recognition of the recruiting challenges faced, grantees took steps
toward improving incentives, working conditions, and opportunities for
their participants, such as (a) providing more stipend and grant
opportunities; (b) acquiring more technology, to enhance dissemination
such as computers and video equipment; (c) engaging more high‑need LEAs;
(d) making staff adjustments, such as hiring a recruitment manager; and
(e) adjusting the budget. They also extolled close working relationships
with their LEAs. Two grantees commented that the TTT grant had expanded
to include candidates teaching different subjects at different grade
levels, which allowed them to recruit more participants. As one grantee
wrote:

*We have learned that recruitment and marketing is never
done---candidates and schools may have access to information, but until
they are in a position to need the information it will likely not be
retained. Because of the LEA restrictions \[in the TTT program
requirements\] we have found our best strategy is to be in close
communication with the schools.*

One of the attractive recruitment features TTT projects have to offer is
the availability of monetary incentives to participants making a
commitment to teach in high‑need schools in high‑need LEAs for three
years: the limit is \$5,000 per participant for the entire grant. For
many grantees, recruitment efforts included the offer of various
incentives---such as scholarships, stipends, or bonuses---to draw
applicants to the project. In the third project year nearly half of
grantees provided one incentive to participants, and 34 percent offered
two incentives. Interestingly, 9 percent of grantees reported offering
no incentives to participants (see Exhibit 24). One of these projects
explained that by keeping the cost of participation very low (no charge
for tuition or fees) they did not need to offer an incentive.

24. []{#__RefHeading___Toc161119197 .anchor}Percentage of FY 2002 TTT
    Grantees Reporting\
    Incentives Offered to Participants

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  ![](media/image18.png){width="3.9298611111111112in"
  height="2.1430555555555557in"}

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

> Note: The number of incentives may vary per year due to project
> features and participants' requests.
>
> Exhibit reads: Nine percent of FY 2002 grantees reported offering no
> incentives.
>
> Source: Transition to Teaching Annual Performance Report, 2004--05.

Tuition scholarships were given as an incentive by more grantees than
any other incentive (70 percent). This is reasonable, considering the
approved use of funds for individuals teaching in high‑need schools in
high‑need LEAs. Grantees also reported offering stipends (34 percent)
and other types of incentives (36 percent), and a few offered loan
repayment or bonuses. The total dollar amount spent on tuition
scholarships was nearly five times the amount that was spent on
stipends; grantees reported that 3,285 participants received these
scholarships, more than the combined totals of those receiving stipends
and other incentives (see Exhibit 25).

25. []{#__RefHeading___Toc161119198 .anchor}Percentage of Grantees
    Offering Incentive, Average Amount of Incentive Provided and Number
    of Participants Receiving Incentive, as Reported by FY 2002 TTT
    Grantees for the Third Project Year,\
    by Type of Incentive

+--------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Type of      | Percentage of   | Number of       | Average Amount  |
| Incentive    | Grantees        | Participants    | of Incentive    |
|              | Offering        | Receiving       | Provided in     |
|              | Incentive       | Incentive       | Third Project   |
|              |                 |                 | Year            |
+--------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Tuition      | > 70            | 3,285           | \$1,716.61      |
| scholarships |                 |                 |                 |
+--------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Stipends     | > 34            | 1,091           | \$1,467.42      |
+--------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Other        | > 36            | 1,189           | \$824.20        |
+--------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Loan         | > 3.3           | 160             | \$199.92        |
| repayment    |                 |                 |                 |
+--------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Bonus        | > 0.02          | 98              | \$71.94         |
+--------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+

Exhibit reads: Seventy percent of grantees reported offering tuition
scholarships; the number of participants receiving this incentive was
reported to be 3,285; the average amount provided in the third project
year was \$1,716.61. The average amount per participant is dependent on
when reimbursement is requested per year.

Source: Transition to Teaching Annual Performance Report, 2004--05.

Many TTT participants enroll in their project and begin their teaching
assignment simultaneously; therefore, they are being paid a salary,
although some are being paid at a reduced level set by their district.
Even with the \$5,000 tuition reimbursement they may earn by their
school placement, they still incur costs for their project participation
and academic or professional development requirements. If the project
duration extends past a year, the \$5,000 amount is unlikely to meet the
financial needs of many participants. The typical one‑year cost of
participation in a TTT project varied according to the type of grantee
and partners providing the preparation component. Individual
participants' qualifications varied as did their needs in terms of
academic course work. Participation could also be more expensive if a
participant chose to attend higher‑cost IHEs to complete their academic
requirements. At the same time, some TTT projects offered online courses
and modules, which decreased the per‑course cost to each participant.

The APR data provide an average out‑of‑pocket cost for participants
after receiving incentives, across all types of grantees. The average
costs to first‑year TTT participants for miscellaneous expenses was
\$345, for books \$403, and for tuition \$3,775, with an average total
cost of \$4,495, as shown in Exhibit 26.

26. []{#__RefHeading___Toc161119199 .anchor}Average Out‑of‑Pocket
    Expenses for\
    TTT Participants in Their First Year

![](media/image19.wmf)

> Exhibit reads: The average cost of miscellaneous expenses for a
> typical first‑year TTT participant across all types of grantees was
> reported to be \$345, after receiving the typical incentive.
>
> Source: Transition to Teaching Annual Performance Report, 2004--05.

The average out‑of‑pocket cost to participate in TTT projects differed
by type of grant recipient, with state‑administered projects reporting
the lowest (\$1,957). The average total cost to participants in
IHE‑based grantees (\$5,275) and in those administered by nonprofit
entities (\$6,705) were reported to be the highest. The difference is
likely explained by the fact that in IHE and nonprofit grantees,
participants were matriculating in public and private universities and
facing increased tuition and fees. In some of the state grantees, costs
were kept at a minimum because participants were engaged in seminars or
professional development seminars for which they paid little if
anything. Exhibit 27 summarizes the cost to participants by grantee
type.

27. []{#__RefHeading___Toc161119200 .anchor}Average Out‑of‑Pocket
    Expenses Reported by\
    TTT Grantees for a Typical Participation Year,\
    by Grantee Recipient Type

![](media/image20.wmf)

> Exhibit reads: The total average out‑of‑pocket cost to TTT
> participants in their initial year in a TTT project administered by
> nonprofit entities was reported to be \$6,705 by FY 2002 TTT grantees.
>
> Source: Transition to Teaching Annual Performance Report, 2004--05.

These recruitment incentives, together with other project features,
served to attract TTT participants during the recruitment and
application stage. Of all features that attracted prospective
participants, incentives were identified by the largest percentage of
grantees (77 percent) as being among the top three most attractive,
still, grantees reported that total costs for some participants far
exceeded the benefit of the tuition reimbursement allowed by the TTT
federal grant (\$5,000).

The provision of certain supports while teaching was reported as an
attractive element by 43 percent of grantees, and 41 percent indicated
that methods of providing preparation---for example, through online
courses, evening classes or summer workshops---also were attractive to
participants. Fewer grantees indicated that the location of the project
itself (25 percent) and the high‑need characteristic of the hiring
school (10 percent) served as attractive elements during the recruitment
process (see Exhibit 28).

28. []{#__RefHeading___Toc161119201 .anchor}Percentage of FY 2002 TTT
    Grantees Indicating Each Element Was One of the Top Three Most
    Attractive Elements to Participants

> ![](media/image21.wmf)
>
> Exhibit reads: Seventy‑seven percent of FY 2002 TTT grantees
> identified incentives as one of their top three most attractive
> elements to participants.
>
> Source: Transition to Teaching Annual Performance Report, 2004--05.

TTT teachers also commented on the appeal of these project features and
their resulting decision to participate in TTT. Forty‑eight percent of
participants indicated that the incentives offered by the TTT project
(such as tuition scholarships or bonuses) were among the top
three influences; in addition, nearly half (42 percent) indicated that
the guarantee of employment was a major influence, and approximately 40
percent were influenced by project‑provided support both toward
attaining certification and while teaching (see Exhibit 29).

29. []{#__RefHeading___Toc161119202 .anchor}Percentage of TTT Teachers
    Reporting\
    Influences on Decision to Participate in TTT

![](media/image22.wmf)

> Exhibit reads: Forty‑eight percent of TTT teachers reported that
> incentives were one of the top three features that influenced their
> decision to participate.
>
> Source: Transition to Teaching TTT teacher survey, 2005--06.

Regardless of their prior experience or occupation, TTT teachers
generally agreed to a large extent on the importance of these
influences; paraprofessionals especially valued the incentives available
(61 percent). All three target groups listed incentives and support
while obtaining certification and teaching as top influences. Placement
in a high‑need school was in the bottom of the list of influences, along
with reputation of the program and a general set of "other" reasons;
this varied from the view of grantees that establishing a reputation as
a strong project was a key to the success of using recruitment
strategies such as word of mouth.

### Recruitment Results {#recruitment-results .unnumbered}

In three years, projects learned a number of lessons from their
recruitment efforts. As a result, the overall rate of return improved.
For example, in the first project report provided directly to the TTT
program, 84 of the FY 2002 grantees reported expecting to recruit 4,347
individuals and obtained commitments from 4,587 individuals. In the
third project year, the 2002 cohort of TTT grantees said they expected
to recruit 3,696 individuals but they actually signed up 6,643.

Eighty‑seven percent of FY 2002 grantees targeting midcareer
professionals in the third project year, sought a total of
2,022 participants in this category, which formed the largest target
group. Grantees reported receiving 8,513 midcareer professional
applicants of which 5,467 were eligible candidates. Projects sought 893
participants from the category of recent college graduates. Of the 4,075
who applied, 3,062 (or 75 percent) were deemed eligible TTT candidates.
About half of the grantees (52 percent) targeted paraprofessionals in
their recruitment efforts, seeking 781 participants. Of the 1,642
paraprofessionals who applied, the percentage deemed eligible was
relatively similar to the other two groups (see Exhibit 30).

30. []{#__RefHeading___Toc161119203 .anchor}Number of Participants
    Targeted, Total Applications Received, and Total Applicants
    Determined as Eligible as Reported by FY 2002 TTT Grantees for the
    Third Project Year, by Target Group

  ------------------- -------------- -------------- ------------ ------------ --------------
  Target Group of     Goal (Number   Number of      Number of    Percentage   Ratio of
  Grantees            of             Applications   Applicants   of           Eligible
                      Participants   Received       Determined   Applicants   Applications
                      to Recruit)                   as Eligible  Determined   per Slot
                                                                 as Eligible  

  Midcareer           2,022          8,513          5,467        64           2.7 to 1
  professionals                                                               

  Paraprofessionals   781            1,642          1,068        65           1.4 to 1

  Recent college      893            4,075          3,062        75           3.4 to 1
  graduates                                                                   
  ------------------- -------------- -------------- ------------ ------------ --------------

> Exhibit reads: Across all FY 2002 grantees, the total number of
> individuals from this target group sought was 2,022; 8,513
> applications were received; 5,467 applicants (64 percent of the total
> applications received) were determined to be eligible through the
> selection and screening process. The ratio of eligible applications
> per slot was 2.7 to 1.
>
> Source: Transition to Teaching Annual Performance Report, 2004--05.

TTT projects with a local scope reported the largest number of
participants in the third project year. Exhibit 31 illustrates that most
TTT projects recruited from more than one target group and that
midcareer professionals was the largest group recruited.

31. []{#__RefHeading___Toc161119204 .anchor}Percentage of Grantees
    Reporting Target Groups and\
    Percentage of Year 3 Participants From Each Target Group

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  Target Group of         Percentage of Grantees  Percentage of Total\
  Grantees                Targeting This Group    Year 3 Participants
                                                  From Each Target Group

  Midcareer professionals 87                      59

  Paraprofessionals       52                      14

  Recent college          79                      27
  graduates                                       
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

> Note: Most grantees targeted more than one group. Only 4 percent
> targeted paraprofessionals exclusively.
>
> Exhibit reads: Eighty‑seven percent of FY 2002 grantees targeted
> midcareer professionals; fifty‑nine percent of participants were
> midcareer professionals.
>
> Source: Transition to Teaching Annual Performance Report, 2004--05.

## Selection Processes

During the past 20 years, entrance to teacher education programs, in
general, has become more selective. Selectivity is defined not solely by
the entrance requirements but also by the process used to establish the
requirements, recruit and review applications, and make selection
decisions. Rigorous eligibility requirements and performance standards
are believed to effectively screen out candidates who may not succeed in
the programs. The value of this selectivity has not been conclusively
studied and its relationship to teacher effectiveness or student
achievement proven. However, researchers have reviewed studies examining
the relationship of other factors to teacher quality and effectiveness,
such as selectivity of undergraduate institution, verbal scores on tests
of admission (SAT), depth and amount of content studies, and pedagogy
studies. In these analyses and reviews, researchers have been able to
show that some factors have a positive effect (selectivity of
institution and verbal scores); while for others there is limited
effect, indicating mixed value for policy making regarding selection of
candidates (Rice, 2003; Allen, 2003).

In general, research has shown that less selective programs have no
requirement for GPA and require a simple application and interview and
submission of state assessment passing scores. The most selective
programs require a relatively high GPA (3.0 or greater), fulfillment or
validation of course content, and an extensive interview process that
includes the program administrator, representatives from the district
human resource division, and the school principal who is, in effect,
hiring the teacher (Mayer et al., 2003). For teacher preparation in
general, few empirically tested selection instruments predict the
success of candidates in the program and in teaching. Some TTT projects
and alternative certification programs, in general, are attracted to the
Haberman Star Teachers instrument,[^13] but most teacher education
programs use a variety of selection techniques, such as interviews with
groups of faculty and recommendations.

Alternative certification programs have adopted some of these selection
standards and practices, especially those that are IHE based. Still,
there is more variation in selectivity in alternative certification
programs than in traditional programs (Mayer et al., 2003). Across all
TTT projects, some selection factors were common, such as passing a
criminal background check (required in most if not all states) and a
required grade point average (GPA) between 2.5 and 3. In addition,
because TTT projects have a narrow focus based on the subjects defined
as high need, they sometimes have to turn away or counsel out
individuals who apply and are not interested in specified subject areas.
Finally, it is important to remember that TTT participants have already
met some selectivity standards in their undergraduate or graduate
programs. Thus, TTT projects are screening different kinds of candidates
than traditional undergraduate programs and the fact that they may have
relied on different indicators to screen candidates makes sense for
their objectives.

The eight sites visited for the evaluation's case studies provided more
details than the APRs or the interim evaluations about how selection
worked. In most of the sites visited, candidates were found to be
selected and admitted into programs primarily based on reviews by
selection committees or panels. This is a hallmark of being more
selective. At some sites, the selection and placement committee is also
actively involved in planning the project's recruitment strategies. For
example, at the Baldwin Park Unified School District (BPUSD) TTT project
selection processes were managed by the project coordinator and the
credentials specialist within the district office who assumed primary
responsibility for reviewing applications and selecting eligible
candidates to participate. In addition, principals were interviewed to
learn about paraprofessional performance at their schools. This
selection method may work best for this project because it focuses on
recruiting currently employed district paraprofessionals.

In addition to academic requirements, the majority of TTT sites seek
explicit evidence of maturity and long‑term commitments to teaching from
applicants. TTT administrators, program partners, and school‑district
personnel believe, for example, that long‑term teacher retention can be
increased by recruiting midcareer professionals who bring relevant and
successful life experience (e.g., volunteering) and prior work history
and who are certain about their choice of teaching as a career.

All eight sites visited for this evaluation appeared to have developed
filtering and selection criteria that reflect the highly qualified
teacher and paraprofessional requirements of *NCLB*. BPUSD, for example,
requires paraprofessionals to have at least 60 completed credit hours of
postsecondary course units with a cumulative GPA of 2.5. Orange County
Public Schools (OCPS) requires that its paraprofessional candidates
already hold an associate's degree or equivalent college credits and
submit a portfolio. Eligibility requirements for other sites include a
minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific content area; a 2.5 GPA or
higher; and passing PRAXIS I and II exams, with qualifying scores that
will allow participants to secure employment as a teacher of record in a
partnering school district.

When grantees are working with multiple training organizations and LEAs,
the selection process may be in the hands of either the participating
schools or the training providers. BPUSD's TTT project is unique in that
one of the training institutions had exceptionally high criteria.

Green River Regional Education Cooperative's (GRREC) TTT project uses an
extensive selection and placement process. Participating superintendents
and education faculty from WKU meet to plan the process for each cohort
of participants. The selection and placement committee is led by the
project coordinator. The administrators involved with this process
believe that it effectively screens out candidates who would not meet
expectations. (For more details, see snapshot, below.)

Some grantees reported receiving applications from individuals who were
not adequately qualified and found it necessary to refine the
participant selection process. One grantee explained:

*In order to begin to gather evidence and better refine the selection
process for Transition to Teaching candidates, as well as for the
alternative licensure portfolio route, we plan to begin requiring that
candidates take the Haberman Star Teacher On‑Line Pre‑Screener and
submit the results as part of their application. At first, we will use
this information to gather data and to set a baseline for candidates who
want to participate in our Transition to Teaching program and perhaps,
eventually, who want to earn their license through the portfolio
pathway.*[^14]

By taking steps to be more selective and setting higher standards for
entry, the grantees established a reputation as instituting a selective
program, which, in their views, most likely facilitated both recruitment
and hiring.

In the APRs, grantees indicated the importance of various factors in
selecting applicants for admission. Among those factors described as
"very important" by high percentages of grantees were criminal
background checks (82 percent), academic course record (66 percent),
grade point average (62 percent), interviews (55 percent) and oral (57
percent) and written (53 percent) skills. Those factors deemed not at
all important by high percentages of grantees were gender (81 percent),
cultural background (56 percent) and SAT or ACT scores (80 percent).
Grantees' responses for the full range of selection factors are depicted
in Exhibit 32.

32. []{#__RefHeading___Toc161119205 .anchor}Percentage of FY2002
    Grantees Indicating the Importance of Various Factors in Selecting
    Applicants for Admission

+------------------+------------+-------------+------------+---------+
| Selection        | Very       | Moderately  | Somewhat   | Not at  |
| Factors          | Important  | Important   | Important  | all     |
|                  |            |             |            | Im      |
|                  | (Percent)  | (Percent)   | (Percent)  | portant |
|                  |            |             |            |         |
|                  |            |             |            | (P      |
|                  |            |             |            | ercent) |
+------------------+------------+-------------+------------+---------+
| Criminal         | 82         | 7           | 1          | 10      |
| background       |            |             |            |         |
+------------------+------------+-------------+------------+---------+
| Academic course  | 66         | 26          | 6          | 2       |
| record           |            |             |            |         |
+------------------+------------+-------------+------------+---------+
| GPA              | 62         | 30          | 5          | 3       |
+------------------+------------+-------------+------------+---------+
| Oral skills      | 57         | 31          | 7          | 5       |
+------------------+------------+-------------+------------+---------+
| Interview        | 55         | 22          | 11         | 12      |
+------------------+------------+-------------+------------+---------+
| Written skills   | 53         | 34          | 9          | 4       |
+------------------+------------+-------------+------------+---------+
| Prior            | 48         | 25          | 21         | 6       |
| major/field      |            |             |            |         |
+------------------+------------+-------------+------------+---------+
| Praxis II        | 35         | 7           | 7          | 51      |
+------------------+------------+-------------+------------+---------+
| Recommendations  | 35         | 42          | 14         | 9       |
+------------------+------------+-------------+------------+---------+
| Other            | 33         | 1           | 1          | 65      |
+------------------+------------+-------------+------------+---------+
| Praxis I         | 32         | 9           | 6          | 53      |
+------------------+------------+-------------+------------+---------+
| Geographic       | 25         | 12          | 22         | 41      |
| location         |            |             |            |         |
| interest         |            |             |            |         |
+------------------+------------+-------------+------------+---------+
| Work experience  | 24         | 39          | 25         | 12      |
+------------------+------------+-------------+------------+---------+
| Selectivity of   | 10         | 28          | 35         | 27      |
| institution      |            |             |            |         |
| granting         |            |             |            |         |
| applicant's      |            |             |            |         |
| degree           |            |             |            |         |
+------------------+------------+-------------+------------+---------+
| SAT scores       | 4          | 6           | 10         | 80      |
+------------------+------------+-------------+------------+---------+
| ACT scores       | 4          | 6           | 10         | 80      |
+------------------+------------+-------------+------------+---------+
| Cultural         | 3          | 19          | 22         | 56      |
| background       |            |             |            |         |
+------------------+------------+-------------+------------+---------+
| Gender           | 1          | 6           | 12         | 81      |
+------------------+------------+-------------+------------+---------+

Exhibit reads: Eighty‑two percent of grantees reported that criminal
background was "very important" in selecting applicants for admission.

Source: Transition to Teaching Annual Performance Report, 2004--05.

Using the data reported by the grantees on "very important" factors as
well as previous research on alternate route selectivity (Seftor and
Mayer, 2003), six factors were identified as most important for
candidate selection: academic course record, GPA, oral skills,
interview, written skills and prior major or field. When the responses
of grantees on these six factors were calculated, the results show that
very few grantees (seven) utilize all six factors identified in the
research. Most grantees considered more than one factor in making
selection decisions about TTT applicants; 21 grantees indicated use of
three selection factors, 19 grantees considered four factors, 18 drew on
five factors in the selection process (see Exhibit 33).

33. []{#__RefHeading___Toc161119206 .anchor}**Number of FY2002 TTT
    Grantees Using Multiple Selection Factors**[^15]

![](media/image23.wmf)

> Exhibit reads: Seven FY 2002 TTT grantees reported that all six of the
> top reported factors were "very important" in their selection process.
>
> Source: Transition to Teaching Annual Performance Report, 2004--05.

# Preparation and Certification

## Highlights

-   Most TTT grantees offer face‑to‑face programs that cover the
    foundations, learning theory, and pedagogy addressed in traditional
    teacher preparation. However, these programs of study may be
    delivered as courses, as seminars, and as modules, and an earned
    degree is not always the goal of participation. About 10 grantees
    reported details about their planned use of electronic resources to
    hold classes, conduct e‑mentoring, or support placement of
    participants. Grantees reported they frequently used evening or
    Saturday classes for participants.

-   About half of TTT teachers indicated their studies in methods of
    teaching and discipline and management were very useful for their
    performance in the classroom and less than 20 percent indicated
    their student teaching was very useful. About 40 percent of TTT
    teachers engaged in a student teaching experience during their
    program.

-   A small percentage of TTT teachers become certified, in the year
    they first "enroll;" most are teaching under a provisional
    certificate as they complete their state requirements and progress
    towards full certification. TTT teachers are considered highly
    qualified while participating in the TTT project.

## Preparation in TTT Projects

Preparation (or training) refers to the practices by which projects
prepare TTT participants for teaching and support their objective to
attain certification; these include both course work (whether through
traditional classes, online tutorials, professional development
sessions, or other means) and fieldwork that takes place in K--12
classrooms. TTT projects offer multiple ways of earning credit or
demonstrating a level of expected competence commensurate with being
considered a highly qualified teacher. In fact, 40 percent of TTT
grantees expected participants to earn academic credit in required
course work and 22 percent required some kind of professional
development, such as completing prepared modules delivered at specific
times during the TTT experience. In addition, 67 percent of grantees
required participants to complete a field experience (other than student
teaching) as part of course or professional development requirements,
such as observing in classrooms during summer school and 63 percent
required student teaching or an organized internship that was sometimes
concurrent with becoming a teacher of record (see Exhibit 34).

34. []{#__RefHeading___Toc161119207 .anchor}Percentage of FY 2002 TTT
    Grantees Requiring Components of Teacher Preparation, by Component

![](media/image24.wmf)

> Exhibit reads: Sixty‑seven percent of grantees required participants
> to participate in some kind of early field experience.
>
> Source: Transition to Teaching Annual Performance Report, 2004--05.

Mayer et al. (2003) and Seftor and Mayer (2003) note that the required
curriculum in alternative certification programs generally tends to
track the standard content and pedagogy studies for all new teachers,
which can roughly be categorized into pedagogy, child development, and
classroom management. Loeb and Reininger (2004) cite an *Education Week*
annual survey indicating 24 states and the District of Columbia have
"structured" alternate route programs that include both preservice and
mentoring components. The same survey found that in twelve states and
the District of Columbia, some classroom training before class
assignment occurs, which is most like the sequence of a traditional
program. TTT training seems to balance study of educational theory and
practical knowledge in the areas of classroom management, lesson
planning, and curriculum design. In some TTT projects, participants earn
a graduate degree after fulfilling the basic requirements.

TTT grantees were asked to indicate the approach they used (either
academic courses or delivery of seminars or professional development
modules) to convey required content of preparation and most said they
followed the approach of a typical teacher preparation curriculum: 60
percent or more of grantees required participants to earn academic
credit hours in topics such as development and diversity (e.g., working
with students with disabilities or English language learners), teaching
methods, assessment, classroom management, reading and writing and
teaching theory. In other grantees, between 31 percent and 39 percent
reported these same areas of focus were covered in required professional
development events (see Exhibit 35). Thus a typical TTT teacher has
studied many of the same topics covered in traditional preparation
programs, confirming the research cited above.

35. []{#__RefHeading___Toc161119208 .anchor}Percentage of FY 2002 TTT
    Grantees Who Reported Requiring Course Credit or Professional
    Development Hours, by Topic

+---------------------------------+-------------+---------------------+
| Topic                           | Course      | Professional        |
|                                 | Credit      | Development Hours   |
|                                 | Hours       |                     |
|                                 |             | (Percent)           |
|                                 | (Percent)   |                     |
+---------------------------------+-------------+---------------------+
| Development/diversity           | 67          | 37                  |
+---------------------------------+-------------+---------------------+
| Teaching methods                | 67          | 31                  |
+---------------------------------+-------------+---------------------+
| Assessment                      | 63          | 38                  |
+---------------------------------+-------------+---------------------+
| Classroom management            | 62          | 39                  |
+---------------------------------+-------------+---------------------+
| Reading/writing                 | 61          | 32                  |
+---------------------------------+-------------+---------------------+
| Teaching theory                 | 60          | 34                  |
+---------------------------------+-------------+---------------------+
| Technology                      | 56          | 35                  |
+---------------------------------+-------------+---------------------+
| Other                           | 56          | 38                  |
+---------------------------------+-------------+---------------------+
| Community/parental involvement  | 42          | 34                  |
+---------------------------------+-------------+---------------------+
| Organizational and              | 40          | 34                  |
| collaborative strategies        |             |                     |
+---------------------------------+-------------+---------------------+
| Research methods                | 29          | 12                  |
+---------------------------------+-------------+---------------------+
| Educational foundations         | 61          | 23                  |
+---------------------------------+-------------+---------------------+

> Note: Educational foundations is the study of the history of education
> and the development of the educational systems in this country and in
> others.
>
> Exhibit reads: Sixty‑seven percent of FY2002 TTT grantees reported
> their participants were required to take courses for credit in the
> topic of development or diversity; 37 percent reported they required
> participants to earn credit through accumulating professional
> development hours in the topic.
>
> Source: Transition to Teaching Annual Performance Report, 2004--05.

TTT teachers largely agreed that their preparation through TTT addressed
teaching methods, student assessment, classroom discipline and
management, state and local standards, and the use of computers in
instruction (see Exhibit 36 for the relatively small percentages of
teachers reporting these are not part of their preparation). Twenty
percent of TTT teachers indicated that their preparation included no
study of content. There could be two explanations for the lack of
content study: (1) projects may have focused on classroom management and
administrative tasks to meet participants' needs and (2) participants
may have already earned the credits in their content area needed for
certification or passed assessments validating their content area
knowledge prior to entry.

Forty‑two percent of TTT teachers reported they had no student teaching
experience, which, as described above, is a less common component for
alternate route programs. Still, many project directors reported
developing a component of field experience (observation in classrooms),
internship in summer school classrooms, or long‑term (one full year) of
an internship under the direction of a classroom teacher.

36. []{#__RefHeading___Toc161119209 .anchor}Percentage of TTT Teachers
    Reporting Activities\
    and Areas of Study NOT Part of Their Program

![](media/image25.wmf)

> Exhibit reads: Forty‑two percent of TTT teachers said that student
> teaching was not a part of their program.
>
> Source: Transition to Teaching TTT teacher survey, 2005--06.

Through field experiences connected to academic courses and through an
extended period of student teaching (six months or more), it is expected
that teacher candidates will have opportunities to observe and engage in
teaching guided by an experienced cooperating teacher, which will
prepare them to work independently and effectively as classroom
teachers. About 40 percent of TTT teachers from all target groups
reported they engaged in a student teaching experience. Slightly more
paraprofessionals than recent college graduates and midcareer
professionals had this kind of preparation, which is an acknowledgement
of their need for additional support prior to assuming responsibility
for instruction in a content area (see Exhibit 37).

37. []{#__RefHeading___Toc161119210 .anchor}Percentage of TTT Teachers
    Reporting Their\
    Program Included a Student Teaching Experience

![](media/image26.wmf)

> Exhibit reads: Forty‑two percent of TTT teachers who described
> themselves as paraprofessionals reported they participated in a
> student teaching activity.
>
> Source: Transition to Teaching TTT teacher survey, 2005--06.

A large majority of TTT teachers reported all areas of study that were
part of their preparation experience as moderately or very useful, with
the exception of student teaching (see Exhibit 38). Fifty‑five percent
of TTT teachers indicated that the study of teaching methods was very
useful, and 50 percent reported the study of classroom discipline and
management as very useful. These views on the value of preparation
components make sense when considered in context: all TTT participants
did not participate in student teaching, for example, and others already
had experience with computers for teaching and learning. TTT project
developers recognized over time that their participants valued applied
content to manage the immediate demands of their responsibility as
teacher of record. The effort by some projects to incorporate what is
similar to a student internship came from seeing that participants
desired a transition period and some needed more help than others before
taking on full responsibility of the classroom.

Among different target groups, the percentages of TTT teachers reporting
their perceptions of utility differ only slightly, with one notable
exception: 46 percent of former paraprofessionals found content area
study very useful, compared to 30 percent of recent college graduates
and 35 percent of midcareer professionals. The difference in view is
likely due to the process of catching up that most paraprofessionals are
doing: those who do not have a bachelor's degree are pursuing the
content study that would have been accomplished by recent college
graduates or midcareer professionals.

38. []{#__RefHeading___Toc161119211 .anchor}Percentage of TTT Teachers
    Reporting Utility of\
    Areas of Study

+----------------------+-----------+------------------+---------------+
| Areas of Study       | Very      | Som              | Not at all    |
|                      | useful    | ewhat/Moderately | useful        |
|                      |           | useful           |               |
|                      | (Percent) |                  | (Percent)     |
|                      |           | (Percent)        |               |
+----------------------+-----------+------------------+---------------+
| Methods of Teaching  | 55        | 37               | 4             |
+----------------------+-----------+------------------+---------------+
| Discipline and       | 50        | 38               | 8             |
| Management           |           |                  |               |
+----------------------+-----------+------------------+---------------+
| Student Assessment   | 43        | 48               | 4             |
+----------------------+-----------+------------------+---------------+
| State/Local          | 41        | 41               | 10            |
| Standards            |           |                  |               |
+----------------------+-----------+------------------+---------------+
| Study of Content     | 36        | 35               | 9             |
+----------------------+-----------+------------------+---------------+
| Computers for        | 26        | 48               | 15            |
| Instruction          |           |                  |               |
+----------------------+-----------+------------------+---------------+
| Student Teaching     | 17        | 26               | 15            |
+----------------------+-----------+------------------+---------------+

> Note: A small percentage of teachers did not report on the utility of
> each area of study.
>
> Exhibit reads: Fifty‑five percent of TTT Teachers reported that
> "methods of teaching" was a "very useful" area of study in their
> preparation for classroom teaching
>
> Source: Transition to Teaching TTT teacher survey, 2005--06.

Project components were offered and required at different points in
different TTT projects. Often, they differed by target group as well.
For example, in the GRREC project, participants enter the project during
the summer semester and begin teaching in the fall at the school where
they are recruited and hired. During the fall semester participants from
the summer cohort take approximately six credit hours in the Western
Kentucky University's gradate program, including at least one online
course. Additional course credits are taken in the next semester and in
the fall. One of the required courses involves a supervised teacher
internship, led by professors. This project is academically based,
however, it has undergone fine‑tuning to allow participants flexibility
to extend their studies over a slightly longer period of time and
additional support through a survival skills toolkit and professional
development sessions focusing on applied skills and classroom management
techniques.

Prior to participants gaining teacher of record status as a new hire,
most grantees required all participants to attend orientation sessions.
Nearly half of the grantees required summer institutes for midcareer
professionals and recent college graduates and 37 percent of grantees
reported this as a requirement for paraprofessionals as well. Between 58
and 69 percent of grantees required all target groups to engage in
observations of teaching and attend cohort meetings. More grantees
reported a requirement to earn bachelors' degrees for paraprofessionals
(61 percent) than for midcareer professionals (29 percent) and recent
college graduates (23 percent), which is a reflection of the percentage
of paraprofessionals who enter TTT projects without a degree or with an
associate degree. Grantees reported they frequently used evening or
Saturday classes for participants. Illustrated in Exhibit 39 are the
variety of approaches used in TTT projects to ensure that, whether
before, during, or after becoming hired, most participants engage in
these typical program elements.

39. []{#__RefHeading___Toc161119212 .anchor}Percentage of FY 2002 TTT
    Grantees Reporting Required Program Elements Before and After
    Attaining Teacher of Record (TOR) Status, by Target Group and
    Program Element

+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Required Program  | Pa    |       | Midc  |       | R     |       |
| Element           | rapro |       | areer |       | ecent |       |
|                   | fessi |       | Pro   |       | Co    |       |
|                   | onals |       | fessi |       | llege |       |
|                   |       |       | onals |       | Grad  |       |
|                   |       |       |       |       | uates |       |
+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                   | B     | After | B     | After | B     | After |
|                   | efore | atta  | efore | atta  | efore | atta  |
|                   | atta  | ining | atta  | ining | atta  | ining |
|                   | ining |       | ining |       | ining |       |
|                   | TOR   | TOR   |       | TOR   |       | TOR   |
|                   | s     | s     | TOR   | s     | TOR   | s     |
|                   | tatus | tatus | s     | tatus | s     | tatus |
|                   |       |       | tatus |       | tatus |       |
|                   | (Per  | (Per  |       | (Per  |       | (Per  |
|                   | cent) | cent) | (Per  | cent) | (Per  | cent) |
|                   |       |       | cent) |       | cent) |       |
+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Orientation       | 92    | ---   | 91    | ---   | 88    | ---   |
| session           |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Summer institute  | 37    | 13    | 48    | 16    | 49    | 14    |
+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Observations of   | 69    | 62    | 59    | 72    | 62    | 75    |
| teaching          |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Regular cohort    | 65    | 54    | 58    | 77    | 59    | 74    |
| meetings          |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Courses to earn   | 61    | ---   | 29    | 13    | 23    | 12    |
| bachelor's degree |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| credit            |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Evening or        | 55    | 46    | 47    | 67    | 51    | 70    |
| Saturday classes  |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Mentoring         | ---   | 83    | ---   | 92    | ---   | 94    |
| activity          |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Early field       | 69    | ---   | 55    | ---   | 55    | ---   |
| experience        |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Practice or       | 60    | ---   | 40    | ---   | 43    | ---   |
| student teaching  |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Other             | 31    | 43    | 50    | 49    | 50    | 51    |
+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+

Exhibit reads: Ninety‑two percent of grantees reported that
paraprofessional participants were required to participate in an
orientation session before becoming teachers of record.

Source: Transition to Teaching Annual Performance Report, 2004--05.

### Program Delivery Approaches and Challenges {#program-delivery-approaches-and-challenges .unnumbered}

Through the site visits and narrative responses to the APR, TTT projects
reported that when they are based in IHEs, which in turn prepare
candidates, they generally rely on the IHEs' teacher training curricula
as the foundation of the preparation. In these projects, participants
complete similar course work as full‑time students, with only minor
variations in the number of courses and course sequencing to accommodate
their work schedules or to provide more applied and survival‑skills
courses prior to, or in some cases during, early teaching stages.
Because many of the projects require participants to begin teaching
while they are still completing course requirements, courses covering
such topics as classroom management, multiple learning styles,
collaborative teaching, curriculum development and planning, and other
applied courses are given a higher priority than courses that focus on
educational theory to increase candidates' chances of success in the
classroom. Paraprofessional candidates must fulfill their degree
requirements and their pedagogy and administrative training. Thus, their
program can be extended by as much as two years.

Because TTT projects exist within a larger context of accountability for
teacher certification, they must also ensure that the content is aligned
with state and national standards. TTT sites reportedly designed or
supported curricula that ensured that candidates would receive adequate
training and course work to prepare them to pass all state certification
exams. Several project directors and coordinators, in fact, described
planning their curriculum by sitting down with the state standards in
front of them.

The training delivery formats selected by TTT projects appear to provide
a certain flexibility to accommodate the unique or specific needs of
particular sites and participant groups. For example, Montana's
tri‑state project, a rural and regional program, selected an online
delivery format that allowed NPTT to reach a large number of candidates
in sparsely populated areas throughout the tri‑state region.
Implementing an in‑person, face‑to‑face content delivery format would
have placed significant travel demands on most participants, and
realistically, the majority of the program's current participants would
not have been able to participate in the program. This delivery format
could certainly be considered feasible for similar rural or regional
programs that are attempting to meet the needs of schools and districts
in large regional or densely populated areas. Maryland's online program
was offered by the UMUC---a campus well‑known in the state for
specializing in the delivery of online degree programs. Many projects
(10 at least) incorporated online delivery mechanisms and a few were
developing portfolio systems.

Flexibility in sequencing is not easy to achieve. If the content is
being delivered by university faculty in traditional university
surroundings and with traditional resources, then faculty must agree to
teach in the evening and on weekends and work together to carefully
match program philosophy and standards to the needs of participants.
Furthermore, when participants seek to specialize in such areas as
bilingual education or special education, they cannot forgo the more
technical content that teachers in those subject areas need. One way to
address the course sequencing issue is to create modules and allow
participants to control their own pathways through content studies, with
an advisor who monitors their progress. Another approach is to divide
the course sequence into portions that reflect the needs of new teachers
and to carry the cohort together through the same sequence.

For the most part, however, TTT projects use the traditional in‑class,
face‑to‑face method for delivering the curriculum. This format was
favored by school districts and community‑based organizations and
cooperatives that relied on partnerships with IHEs to prepare candidates
academically. The cohort approach was embraced by most sites to promote
support in both the project courses and seminars and in school among
colleagues. Sites that implemented traditional, face‑to‑face delivery
formats varied the scheduling options to accommodate participants (e.g.,
greater use of Saturday and summer sessions, regional hubs).

Regardless of grant recipient type, in alternate routes where
individuals select their own training sites, there is much variation in
the quality control exerted over content delivered. Some entities
attempt to ensure that curricular content and pedagogy studies are
aligned with state standards. Others provide professional development
seminars offered on‑site to participants to make up for differences in
content and sequence in IHEs. A further implication of this flexibility
is pressure on the mentoring component to sustain new teachers and to
identify areas in which participants may need different kinds of
professional development and support. TTT projects have approached these
challenges in different ways: by standardizing the content and
delivering the same content at different sites; by adding professional
development sessions; and by adding mentors to an existing mentorship
system supported by district or State. More about mentoring and supports
in TTT projects is found in Chapter V.

## Certification 

TTT projects sought to fulfill the legislative mandate of simplifying
the participant experience of certification procedures, and flexible
arrangements helped accomplish this goal. Generally, these arrangements
included ensuring that credits were earned in project‑provided courses
delivered at a university or community college, online, or by other
means; reviewing transcripts to determine whether participants had met
standards or competencies required for certification eligibility;
providing professional development seminars and workshops that lead to a
"credit equivalent" or a "competency equivalent" but no credit hours; or
some combination of these approaches.

Many participants experienced some combination of transcript review,
course work, and professional development by the project to determine
their eligibility for teacher certification. Almost no grantees reported
relying solely on transcript review or professional development to
determine eligibility, which provides some indication of the value
placed by TTT grantees on course work (whether classroom‑based or
online) as part of teacher preparation. Seventy‑five percent of grantees
targeting paraprofessionals relied on courses for credit as the sole
means of determining participants' eligibility. In addition, 29 percent
of grantees targeting midcareer professionals and 32 percent of grantees
targeting multiple groups reported a primary focus on course credit to
ensure participants' preparation for teacher of record status (see
Exhibit 40).

40. []{#__RefHeading___Toc161119213 .anchor}Most Commonly Used Practices
    of FY 2002 TTT Grantees for Determining Eligibility for
    Certification Status, by Target Group

+-----------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Target Group    | Review  | Courses | Profe   | Comb    | None    |
|                 | Tran    | for     | ssional | ination |         |
|                 | scripts | Credit  | Deve    |         | (P      |
|                 | Only    | Only    | lopment | (P      | ercent) |
|                 |         |         | Only    | ercent) |         |
|                 | (P      | (P      |         |         |         |
|                 | ercent) | ercent) | (P      |         |         |
|                 |         |         | ercent) |         |         |
+-----------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Midcareer       | 0       | 29      | 0       | 57      | 14      |
| professionals   |         |         |         |         |         |
| only            |         |         |         |         |         |
+-----------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Pa              | 0       | 75      | 0       | 25      | 0       |
| raprofessionals |         |         |         |         |         |
| only            |         |         |         |         |         |
+-----------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Recent college  | 0       | 0       | 0       | 100     | 0       |
| graduates only  |         |         |         |         |         |
+-----------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Multiple target | 3       | 32      | 5       | 52      | 8       |
| groups          |         |         |         |         |         |
+-----------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+

Exhibit reads: No 2002 TTT grantees reported they relied upon the review
of transcripts alone as a practice for determining the eligibility of
midcareer professionals for certification.

Source: Transition to Teaching Annual Performance Report, 2004--05.

More than a quarter of the grantees reported challenges with navigating
the certification regulations in their states. Some of these issues
involved changes made at the state level that were out of the grantees'
control. For example, one grantee stated that a "major difficulty has
been the added requirements to the credential programs in California.
Our project participants have to pass more required examinations despite
the fact that they had completed waiver programs. Additional
examinations translate into additional time, resources, and preparation
to study and pass them---which in turn put additional time and budget
constraints on our project." Several grantees faced similar problems
with unexpected state‑level certification changes, which required
rethinking training and testing for participants and increased the
expenditure of time, money and resources.

If a project focused on recruiting and placing teachers in a particular
subject, changes in certification requirements could be quite
problematic. For example, because of changes in state certification
requirements, a project in New York City experienced problems when
candidates seeking certification as teachers of speech with the
bilingual extension could no longer participate. Added to this was the
limitation that the grantee's partner, an IHE, did not have a
state‑approved program in this certification area.

Project directors commented that some applicants did not fully
understand the certification requirements. On occasion, it was reported
that applicants lost interest in the program once they realized what was
involved in the certification process. Some participants who did persist
in pursuing certification had struggled to pass certification tests.

Overall, among TTT teachers, 87 percent of those certified reported
holding certification relevant to the discipline of their main teaching
assignment. Among these, 91 percent of recent college graduates and 88
percent of midcareer professionals held teaching certification that
matched the subject of their main teaching assignment, compared to 86
percent of paraprofessionals (see Exhibit 41).

41. []{#__RefHeading___Toc161119214 .anchor}Percentage of TTT Teachers
    with Certification Matching\
    Their Main Teaching Assignment, by Target Group

![](media/image27.wmf)

> Exhibit reads: Ninety‑one percent of TTT teachers who were recent
> college graduates held a state teaching certificate in the field of
> their main teaching assignment.
>
> Source: Transition to Teaching TTT teacher survey, 2005--06.

Depending on the state‑level requirements, participants may hold
different types of certification while they are teachers of record.
Among those who reported holding a teaching certificate, 66 percent
reported a probationary, temporary, or provisional certificate, while 32
percent had regular certification. Those who began teaching with a
temporary certificate were expected to achieve full certification by the
end of the three‑year program. It is important to note again that all
teachers hired and participating in TTT projects are considered highly
qualified because the approved program meets *NCLB* standards for
alternate routes.

## 

# Hiring and Placement Of New Teachers 

## Highlights

-   TTT projects, at the three‑year mark, seemed to be facilitating the
    hiring and placement of teachers as befitted the needs specified by
    participating LEAs. Over three years, more TTT participants were
    hired as new teachers of record by high schools and more
    participants were hired to teach special education students, with
    mathematics and science placements following.

-   Most TTT teachers who have bachelor's degrees are teaching full
    time. Most are assigned to teach in their subject area and matching
    their certification fields, but about 20 percent of TTT teachers in
    all subjects are also teaching subjects outside of their field.
    Foreign language and English specialists were more likely to be
    teaching subjects outside their fields, in addition to their main
    assignment.

## Hiring and Placement

As indicated earlier, participants in TTT projects begin their teaching
roles at different points in their TTT participation and in many
projects there are rolling admissions and multiple cohorts. Still
project directors reported making progress matching the needs of their
participating LEAs, and most projects reported recruiting and
facilitating the hiring of a small number of participants per year and
others reported the hiring of up to 50 or more participants in a single
year.

Grantees reported the greatest demand for teachers within their
participating LEAs existed at the high school (90 percent) and middle
school (84 percent) levels (see Exhibit 42). In addition, approximately
60 percent of grantees reported needs at the elementary and at the
elementary and middle levels and 64 percent also reported general K--12
needs as designated by participating LEAs. In terms of subjects, nearly
all grantees reported their partner LEAs had designated science
(96 percent) and mathematics (95 percent) as high‑need areas. Special
education was also frequently reported, as indicated by 87 percent of
grantees (see Exhibit 42).

42. []{#__RefHeading___Toc161119215 .anchor}Percentage of FY 2002 TTT
    Grantees Reporting Various Assignment Areas as Being Identified as
    High‑Need in Participating LEAs, by Grade Level and Subject Area

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  ![](media/image28.wmf)

  ![](media/image29.wmf)
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

> Exhibit reads: Fifty‑nine percent of grantees reported that Elementary
> (Pre‑K--5) was identified by partner school districts as a high‑need
> grade level.
>
> Source: Transition to Teaching Annual Performance Report, 2004--05.

TTT projects, at the three‑year mark, seemed to be recruiting and
placing teachers as befitted the needs specified by participating LEAs.
Grantees reported the number of hired TTT teachers of record within
given subject areas and levels for the first three years of the grant,
as indicated in Exhibit 43. The number hired was notably smaller in 2002
than in subsequent years. Given the start‑up factors associated with the
first year of implementation, this finding is reasonable. In 2002,
1,297 participants were new teachers of record, compared to 3,072 in
2003 and 3,562 in 2004. In all three years, high school teachers tended
to outnumber those hired at other levels, followed by teachers at the
elementary level.

By subject area, special education had the greatest number of new
teachers of record, with 2,143 teachers of record over the three‑year
period, including 903 new teachers in 2004 and 881 in 2003. Mathematics
teachers formed the next largest group with 1,325 teachers over three
years; 505 of these were new in 2004 and 612 in 2003. New foreign
language teachers of record formed the smallest group, totaling just 143
over three years. Altogether over 7,000 new teachers of record were
hired over three years for all levels of K--12 schools.[^16]

43. []{#__RefHeading___Toc161119216 .anchor}Number of TTT Participants
    Who Were New Teachers of Record in High‑Need Schools in High‑Need
    LEAs, by Grade Level and Year and Subject Area in 2002, 2003 and
    2004

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  ![](media/image30.wmf)

  ![](media/image31.wmf)
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

> Exhibit reads: In 2004, 1,125 new teachers of record were hired in
> participating LEAs for high school placements.
>
> Source: Transition to Teaching Annual Performance Report, 2004--05.

The vast majority of TTT teachers reported they were placed currently in
full‑time teaching positions; however, these percentages varied across
target groups. Eighty‑eight percent of paraprofessionals reported they
had full‑time teaching positions, compared to 95 percent of midcareer
professionals and 99 percent of recent college graduates. These results
were consistent with (1) the more lengthy preparation of content
knowledge and internship experiences in which paraprofessionals
participated, due to their lack of bachelor's degrees and (2) the
variability in time to teacher of record in some TTT projects. Some TTT
projects used an internship period to transition new teachers into
full‑time teacher of record status.

When TTT teachers reported on the level of their main teaching
assignment, their reports closely tracked the overall need statistics
filed by project directors. Thirty‑eight percent of TTT teachers
indicated they were hired at the high school level, with 29 percent
working in middle schools, 27 percent in elementary schools, and another
3 percent in combined elementary and middle schools (see Exhibit 44).

44. []{#__RefHeading___Toc161119217 .anchor}Percentage of TTT Teachers
    Reporting\
    Main Teaching Level

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  ![](media/image32.png){width="4.416666666666667in"
  height="2.7868055555555555in"}

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

> Exhibit reads: Two percent of TTT teachers reported they were assigned
> to teach at the prekindergarten level.
>
> Source: Transition to Teaching TTT teacher survey, 2005--06.

Participants also reported on their subject area assignments (see
Exhibit 45). The largest percentage of grantee teachers reported they
were assigned and teaching mathematics (21 percent) and special
education students (21 percent), and the smallest percentages of
teachers indicated they were assigned to and teaching foreign languages
and social studies.

45. []{#__RefHeading___Toc161119218 .anchor}Percentage of TTT Teachers
    by Subject\
    Area Assignment

![](media/image33.wmf)

> Exhibit reads: Twenty‑one percent of TTT teachers reported they were
> assigned to teach mathematics.
>
> Source: Transition to Teaching TTT teacher survey, 2005--06.

Twelve percent of former paraprofessionals were assigned to teach
mathematics, compared with 25 percent of recent college graduates and 25
percent of midcareer professionals. This was most likely related to some
projects concerted efforts to recruit individuals with strong content
backgrounds in mathematics and the lack of earned content degrees in
this field among recruited paraprofessionals. Interesting, though, in
the field of special education, 30 percent of TTT teachers who were
paraprofessionals were teachers of record, compared with 15 percent from
the recent college graduate category and 23 percent who described
themselves as midcareer professionals. In addition, more teachers of
record assigned to K--5 classrooms were former paraprofessionals (20
percent) than recent college graduates (13 percent) or midcareer
professionals (9 percent) (see Exhibit 46). This finding is consistent
with knowledge gathered from surveys of paraprofessionals describing
their work, which tends to be in elementary school classrooms alongside
teachers where they assist teachers by tutoring students or working with
small groups of students in the subject areas of reading and
mathematics. Paraprofessionals may also have had the opportunity to aid
regular teachers in classrooms with more special education students and
thus have been somewhat inclined to prepare for teaching students with
special learning needs.

46. []{#__RefHeading___Toc161119219 .anchor}Percentage of TTT Teachers
    Reporting Main Teaching Assignment Field, by Target Group

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 14%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 11%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Target Group</td>
<td><p>English Language Arts</p>
<p>(Percent)</p></td>
<td>Mathematics (Percent)</td>
<td>Science (Percent)</td>
<td>Social Studies (Percent)</td>
<td>Foreign Language (Percent)</td>
<td>ESL/ Bilingual (Percent)</td>
<td>Special Education (Percent)</td>
<td><p>General</p>
<p>K–5 (Percent)</p></td>
<td><p>Other</p>
<p>(Percent)</p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Paraprofessionals</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>12</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>5</td>
<td>30</td>
<td>20</td>
<td>15</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Recent college graduates</td>
<td>7</td>
<td>25</td>
<td>13</td>
<td>4</td>
<td>7</td>
<td>5</td>
<td>15</td>
<td>13</td>
<td>11</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Midcareer professionals</td>
<td>6</td>
<td>25</td>
<td>12</td>
<td>4</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>23</td>
<td>9</td>
<td>17</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Other</td>
<td>15</td>
<td>9</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>6</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>15</td>
<td>18</td>
<td>25</td>
<td>10</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

Note: "Other target group" refers to TTT teachers who did not provide
information that would permit their grouping by target group.

Exhibit reads: Three percent of former paraprofessionals now
participating as teachers of record were assigned to teach English
language arts.

Source: Transition to Teaching Evaluation TTT teacher survey, 2005--06.

A number of TTT teachers reported being assigned to teach subjects
outside of and in addition to their main assignment field: 26 percent
who were recent college graduates, 20 percent who were midcareer
professionals, and 12 percent who were paraprofessionals (see Exhibit
47). These teachers were most likely working in secondary and middle
schools where there were not enough highly qualified teachers for each
subject area. When these assignments were further analyzed by subject
area, the data indicated that the teachers most likely to be taking on
additional assignments were teachers of foreign languages and English;
mathematics was third on the list (see Exhibit 48).

47. []{#__RefHeading___Toc161119220 .anchor}Percentage of TTT Teachers
    Reporting Teaching\
    Assignments Outside of Main Teaching Field, by Target Groups

![](media/image34.wmf)

> Exhibit reads: Twenty‑six percent of TTT teachers who were recent
> college graduates were assigned to teach classes in other subjects
> outside of and in addition to their main teaching assignment field.
>
> Source: Transition to Teaching TTT teacher survey, 2005--06.

48. []{#__RefHeading___Toc161119221 .anchor}Percentage of TTT Teachers
    Who Teach a Subject\
    Outside of Their Primary Assignment Subject,\
    by Primary Teaching Subject

![](media/image35.wmf)

> Exhibit reads: Thirty‑two percent of TTT teachers whose primary
> assignment was teaching Foreign Language classes reported they also
> teach subjects outside their assigned area.
>
> Source: Transition to Teaching TTT teacher survey, 2005--06.

# Mentoring and Other Supports for Newly Hired Teachers

## Highlights

-   Forty‑six percent of TTT teachers reported they received some kind
    of support from the TTT project before they became teachers of
    record in the classroom. Thirty‑seven percent said the TTT support
    began concurrently with assuming their responsibilities as teachers.
    About 17 percent reported the project began its support some time
    after they became teachers of record.

-   Sixty‑three percent of TTT teachers reported having a mentor in
    2005--06 (the year in which they were surveyed). This is slightly
    lower than reported by teachers in the workforce. Survey
    participants could have been hired between 2002 and 2004, they may
    have had mentors in one of those beginning teaching years but not in
    the one in which they were surveyed.

-   At the three‑year mark, TTT projects reported relatively high
    one-year retention rates (87-94 percent) and a two-year rate of 74
    percent among newly hired teachers. These retention rates are
    consistent generally with the most recent studies of beginning
    teacher mobility (Smith and Ingersoll, 2004; Marvel, et al., 2006).
    They are also notable because these teachers are in the schools with
    the greatest needs. While attrition in TTT projects was reported to
    be low in a given project year, it did occur and was due to a
    variety of concerns, not all directly related to the project
    components, placement or requirements. Participants did indicate,
    when asked, that working conditions in schools would be most likely
    to cause them to consider giving up teaching.

## TTT Project Support for TTT Participants

Support, in its broadest sense, refers to the range of programmatic
means by which TTT projects offer assistance and encouragement to
participants, both before and after they attain teacher‑of‑record
status. TTT projects provide various kinds of support to participants at
each step of their journey to realize full certification. Since
participants begin teaching at different points in their project
experience, and the length of projects vary, it is helpful to be more
descriptive about this support. Forty‑six percent of TTT teachers
reported they received some kind of support from the TTT project before
they became teachers of record in the classroom. Thirty‑seven percent
said the TTT support began concurrently with assuming their
responsibilities as teachers. About 17 percent reported the project
began its support some time after they became teachers of record.

Once their participants are hired and teaching, TTT projects provide
support to newly hired teachers who are participating in the project or
by facilitating support through participating organizations. Nearly all
projects reported they offered some degree of site‑based mentoring and
62 percent offered mentoring once a week or more often. Most projects
(89 percent) provided support through organized meetings with groups of
participants, ranging in frequency from once or twice a semester (23
percent) to once or twice a month (37 percent) and once or twice a week
(24 percent). In addition, 77 percent of grantees provided supervision
to teachers, with 39 percent providing this once or twice a month. Also,
most projects (89 percent) organized workshops or classes for
participants (see Exhibit 49).

49. []{#__RefHeading___Toc161119222 .anchor}Percentage of FY 2002 TTT
    Grantees Reporting Frequency and Type of Support Offered

  ---------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
  Type of Support        Once or     Once or     Once or     Almost      Not
                         Twice a     Twice a     Twice a     Daily       Provided
                         Semester    Month       Week        (Percent)   (Percent)
                         (Percent)   (Percent)   (Percent)               

  Site‑based mentoring   11          21          38          24          6

  Meetings with other    23          37          24          4           11
  participants                                                           

  Project‑provided       17          39          13          8           23
  supervisors                                                            

  Workshops/classes      30          28          30          1           11
  focused on teaching                                                    

  Other                  23          5           7           8           57
  ---------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

Exhibit reads: Eleven percent of FY 2002 grantees reported offering
site‑based mentoring once or twice a semester.

Source: Transition to Teaching Annual Performance Report, 2004--05.

The duration of the support offered to TTT participants varied from one
to three years; in other words, grantees provided different levels of
support to participants as they progressed toward fulfilling the
three‑year retention goal. Mentoring, the type of support most widely
provided, was offered for one year by 36 percent of grantees, two years
by 41 percent and three years by 23 percent. For both cohort meetings
and workshops or classes, similar percentages of grantees reported
offering these supports for one, two, and three years. More grantees (41
percent) provided project supervisory support in participants' first
year as teacher of record than in the second and third years of teaching
(see Exhibit 50). It is important to keep in mind that some types of
support were provided by participating organizations, others by
collaboration with the grantee, and still others by the grantee itself.

50. []{#__RefHeading___Toc161119223 .anchor}Percentage of FY 2002 TTT
    Grantees\
    Offering Support, by Number of Years

![](media/image36.wmf)

> Exhibit reads: FY 2002 grantees provided a range of other kinds of
> support to participants: 32 percent did so for one year; 12 percent
> for two years; and 56 percent for three years.
>
> Source: Transition to Teaching Annual Performance Report, 2004--05.

As has been reported, approximately 40 percent of participants indicated
that the promise of support---both during teaching and as they worked
toward teacher certification---was important in their decision to
participate in TTT. Elaborating on the types of support actually
received, high numbers of project teachers of record from all three
target groups reported experiencing beginning teacher support and
attending seminars for beginning teachers, while small percentages
reported reduced teaching schedules or reduced preparations (see Exhibit
51). Sixty‑six percent of paraprofessionals reported having common
planning time, compared to recent college graduates and midcareer
professionals at 44 percent and 41 percent respectively, and more than
half of participants across target groups reported regular supportive
communication with their school administrators. TTT projects reported a
variety of relationships with schools and districts regarding this
support. Some projects instituted mentoring programs, including the
training of mentors. Others relied on existing programs and supplemented
them with focused seminars. Supports such as reduced schedule, fewer
class preparations (for example, teaching four rather than five unique
classes in a subject), and common planning time were the purview of the
school and its administrator and may also be related to teacher
contracts.

51. []{#__RefHeading___Toc161119224 .anchor}Percentage of TTT Teachers
    Reporting\
    Types of Support Experienced During TTT Participation,\
    by Target Group

+---------------------------+----------------+------------+-----------+
|                           | Par            | Recent     | Midcareer |
|                           | aprofessionals | College    | Prof      |
|                           |                | Graduates  | essionals |
|                           | (Percent)      |            |           |
|                           |                | (Percent)  | (Percent) |
+---------------------------+----------------+------------+-----------+
| Beginning teacher support | 80             | 88         | 80        |
+---------------------------+----------------+------------+-----------+
| Reduced schedule          | 5              | 5          | 2         |
+---------------------------+----------------+------------+-----------+
| Reduced preparations      | 7              | 12         | 8         |
+---------------------------+----------------+------------+-----------+
| Common planning time      | 66             | 44         | 41        |
+---------------------------+----------------+------------+-----------+
| Seminars for beginning    | 79             | 78         | 80        |
| teachers                  |                |            |           |
+---------------------------+----------------+------------+-----------+
| Extra classroom           | 34             | 31         | 30        |
| assistance                |                |            |           |
+---------------------------+----------------+------------+-----------+
| Regular communication     | 73             | 63         | 66        |
| with administrators       |                |            |           |
+---------------------------+----------------+------------+-----------+

> Exhibit reads: Eighty percent of TTT teachers who were
> paraprofessionals reported benefiting from a beginning teacher support
> program while participating in their TTT projects.
>
> Source: Transition to Teaching TTT teacher survey, 2005--06.

## Mentoring in TTT Projects

A literature review by Ingersoll and Kralik (2004) notes that mentoring
is such a key component of induction programs for new teachers that the
terms have become synonymous; further, an analysis of data of the
Schools and Staffing Survey by Smith and Ingersoll (2004) suggests that
teachers' experiences with some kind of support while in their first
three years of teaching have increased greatly from 1990--2000 and that
the likelihood of teacher turnover decreases when mentoring is combined
with other supports, such as common planning time, collaboration, and
time to network. While not required to create and offer a mentorship
component, the TTT projects recognize the importance of supporting
participants in meeting this requirement and have explored a variety of
options toward meeting the needs of participants, including providing a
mentoring component and facilitating one with a participating district.

Among TTT participants, 63 percent reported having a mentor during the
year they were surveyed. By comparison, 73 percent of teachers in the
workforce who came into teaching through alternative programs and 71
percent of teachers who came through traditional routes reported having
a mentor in the year they were surveyed (see Exhibit 52). The
differences reported by TTT teachers and other groups of teachers, while
seeming substantial, may actually be due to the variation within TTT
projects as to when participants begin teaching and when and for how
long mentoring is provided through the TTT or other existing programs.
Also, the surveyed teachers for this evaluation could have been hired
and teaching at any time from 2002--04; during any one of those years, a
higher percentage may have worked with a mentor than in the year during
which they were surveyed on this support.

52. []{#__RefHeading___Toc161119225 .anchor}Percentage of Teachers
    Reporting Having\
    a Mentor This Year\*

![](media/image37.wmf)

> \*Note: "This year" refers to the survey year. For TTT teachers,
> 2005--06; for teachers surveyed by SASS, 2003--04.
>
> Exhibit reads: Seventy‑one percent of traditional route teachers in
> the workforce reported having a mentor in the 2003--04 year.
>
> Source: Transition to Teaching TTT teacher survey, 2005--06; Schools
> and Staffing Public School Teacher Survey, 2003--04.

There was some variation in mentoring reported also according to the
type of grant recipient. For example, 70 percent of TTT teachers in
nonprofit grantees reported they had a mentor, 58 percent of TTT
teachers participating through district grantees had mentors, and
teachers of record in grantees administered by IHEs and state grantees
reported having a mentor at about the same level\
(64 percent--68 percent).

Largely, participants reported that mentoring was provided by the school
districts in which they were placed (54 percent) or the TTT project (35
percent) (see Exhibit 53). In a few projects, participants are supported
with mentors from two sources, the school district and the TTT project.
Usually, the TTT project planned for this, instituting a complementary
induction program to that existing in the district. However, sometimes,
the TTT project added seminars and other supports when participants were
not satisfied or assisted in existing mentor programs. Although the
source of support could have been confusing for them, most participants
reported they knew the source.

53. []{#__RefHeading___Toc161119226 .anchor}Percentage of TTT Teachers\
    Reporting Entities Providing Mentoring

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  ![](media/image38.png){width="4.240277777777778in"
  height="2.5930555555555554in"}

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

> Exhibit reads: Five percent of TTT teachers reported they did not know
> who provided a mentor for them.
>
> Source: Transition to Teaching TTT teacher survey, 2005--06.

Participants who received mentoring support had varying degrees of
interaction with their mentors (see Exhibit 54). These reports were
consistent with what grantees reported (see Exhibit 49).

54. []{#__RefHeading___Toc161119227 .anchor}Percentage of TTT Teachers
    Reporting\
    Frequency of Mentor Meetings

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  ![](media/image39.png){width="3.8152777777777778in" height="2.3375in"}

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

> Exhibit reads: Thirty‑two percent of TTT teachers reported their
> mentors met with them once or twice a week.
>
> Source: Transition to Teaching TTT teacher survey, 2005--06.

### Implementing Mentoring Approaches and Challenges {#implementing-mentoring-approaches-and-challenges .unnumbered}

As with other components of alternative certification programs, a
valuable literature base exists that describes the elements of
mentoring, but little scientific research indicates its effectiveness.
Per Mayer et al. (2003) and confirmed through the TTT evaluation site
visits, mentoring is the alternative certification component implemented
with the least consistency. One reason is that it can be managed in
multiple ways: participants may avail themselves of a mentoring
initiative in their home school or through the TTT sponsor, or
university partners may provide mentors. The frequency of mentoring
activity may also be "beyond the control" of an alternative
certification program. Mentors may be full‑ or part‑time; paid or
volunteer; classroom teachers, retired school personnel, or education
faculty; or may even be the project director.

In a review of program literature, features of induction programs were
identified that were commonly referenced by experts in the field,
including the use of veteran teachers and training that includes how to
work with adults, how to conduct classroom observations, how to give
feedback, and how to help teachers create professional development plans
(U.S. Department of Education, 2004). Experts agreed, according to the
review, that mentors should be compensated, and they also recommended
frequent interactions with mentees but didn't provide any benchmarks in
terms of frequency. Other kinds of support were also recommended for new
teachers. For example, assistance with assessment was considered to be a
central role for a mentor. Finally, the experts in this analysis agreed
that mentoring benefits are most likely to reach students when the
mentoring process focuses on instructional practice.

There are a number of examples illustrating the variation in mentoring
arrangements and services for participants in TTT projects that emerged
from site visits and TTT project interim reports, where project
directors listed their objectives and progress made, as well as
challenges.

The District of Columbia Public Schools project stated an objective to
"develop a mentoring capacity within DCPS" as an outgrowth of the TTT
project. DCPS and American University jointly developed a mentoring
manual that is used throughout the two‑year mentor course that prepares
mentor teachers. Still, training of mentors has proved a challenge: the
late assignment of candidates to schools (in fall rather than summer)
has delayed recruitment of school‑based mentors and resulted in their
not receiving full training until well into the school year. DCPS and
American University worked with principals in the placement schools to
ensure that mentor recruitment coincides with participant recruitment.

The University of Kansas Center for Research planned to offer "a
two‑year induction and mentoring program that supplements the curriculum
modules and strengthens the growth of these teachers." To accomplish
this objective, the project developed a triad structure for mentoring
that included an in‑house assigned mentor, a KU faculty member, and a
TTT staff member. However, consistency proved difficult: according to
the interim report, some participants reported feeling "over mentored"
while others reported that they did not receive needed support.
According to the report, plans to restructure the mentoring component
were underway.

When GRREC‑WKU participants are teachers of record, they become eligible
for a statewide mentoring program that includes a one‑hour professional
development course that is held four times during the semester and a
three‑hour content course. Participants must complete the mentoring
program to earn their permanent certificates. The GRREC project
underwrites and augments the mentoring time supported by the state
funding, and a TTT mentor continues to work with program participants
for an additional 12 semester hours after they receive their master of
arts degrees.

Because many state departments of education mandate that induction
programs be provided for first‑year teachers, some TTT grantees "hand
off" participants to local schools and districts where these programs
are to be realized. Unfortunately, both content and quality of induction
programs in schools vary dramatically. Some participants reported that
their district's programs felt more like a "checklist," whereas others
described their induction programs as simply an assigned time to learn
district policies and procedures. Because districts have some
flexibility in planning programs, some are designed to meet once a week
and others may be designed to meet once a month. Consequently, for TTT
participants enrolled in state or regional programs or in programs that
serve multiple districts, it is much more difficult to ensure that they
receive adequate amounts of support at the district and school levels.

Site visitors to the eight TTT projects found a surprising lack of
understanding in some districts about the content of preparation that is
delivered to TTT participants, such that some participants reported that
they are required to sit through the same classes, seminars, or
presentations during induction that have already been offered through
their TTT training. At several of the sites, participants also reported
that information or practices taught in their induction sessions
contradicted what was taught in their TTT training. As a result, these
participants described being torn between the philosophy of their TTT
training and that offered by the mentoring program.

## Retention Outcomes

TTT projects focus their recruitment efforts toward the hiring
exigencies of high‑need schools in high‑need districts and attempt to
retain participants in the teaching profession for three years in those
schools, attracting them with tuition reimbursements and other support
incentives. Participants receiving financial support or incentives were
asked to remain in high‑need schools in high‑need LEAs for this period;
otherwise, they were subject to forfeiting their scholarship funds.
While success relative to this objective cannot be fully determined at
this early stage, and we could not follow individual teachers tracking
their retention rates, grantees did report on their retention rates over
three project years of the grant (see Exhibit 55). One-year retention
rates were strong. Two-year rates were not affected by either size of
grantee or features such as the amount and duration of mentoring
activities offered (see Exhibit 56).

55. []{#__RefHeading___Toc161119228 .anchor}Percentage of Participants
    Who Became Teachers\
    of Record in 2002 and 2003 and Their Retention Status,\
    by Year Entering the TTT Project (2002 and 2003)

![](media/image40.wmf)

> Note: TTT projects may enroll more than one cohort of participants in
> a given project year.
>
> Exhibit reads: Ninety‑four percent of participants who entered the TTT
> project in 2002 and became teachers of record in 2002 were reported to
> still be teaching in 2003.
>
> Source: Transition to Teaching Annual Performance Report, 2004--05.

56. []{#__RefHeading___Toc161119229 .anchor}Percentage of Teachers Who
    Became Teachers of\
    Record in 2002 and Were Still Teaching in 2004 by the\
    Duration of Site‑Based Mentoring Offered by FY 2002\
    TTT Grantees

![](media/image41.wmf)

> Exhibit reads: The percentage of teachers who were hired in 2002 and
> still teaching in 2004 and who received mentoring support for three
> years from the TTT project was 87 percent.
>
> Source: Transition to Teaching Annual Performance Report, 2004--05.

On the APR, almost three‑quarters of grantees (72 percent) indicated
that the support they provided to participants, such as mentoring or
induction programs, enhanced participant retention. Incentives, in the
form of scholarships, stipends, or bonuses, were also important for
retention, as reported by 57 percent of grantees. Methods of
preparation, including online course work or evening classes, were
indicated as important to participant retention by 41 percent of
grantees. Few grantees indicated that features related to location---of
the school placement, including its high‑need status, or of the TTT
project itself---were among the top three methods used for retention of
participants by the project (see Exhibit 57). This was consistent with
grantees reports, noted earlier, about attractive features of their
projects, when they highlighted both incentives and support.

57. []{#__RefHeading___Toc161119230 .anchor}Percentage of FY 2002 TTT
    Grantees\
    Ranking Retention Methods Among Top Three Used

![](media/image42.wmf)

> Exhibit reads: Seventy‑two percent of grantees ranked the teaching
> support provided through their project as one of the top three
> retention methods used.
>
> Source: Transition to Teaching Annual Performance Report, 2004--05.

As has been reported, some grantees indicated there were participants
who found the high‑need school environment too demanding and, for their
part, some participants indicated they were unhappy in their schools due
to poor administration and lack of support. Still, when asked to assess
whether they agreed that the TTT projects fulfilled their expectations,
TTT teachers, regardless of target group, tended to agree and even
strongly agree, that they received the incentives expected; that the
project enabled them to obtain immediate employment; that they obtained
placement at a level and subject area they were prepared to teach; and
that they were receiving adequate support from the TTT project.

Grantees reported that participants leave the project for various
reasons ranging from school site‑specific factors (e.g., issues with
administration, students, working conditions) to conditions that may
affect the teacher workforce more broadly (e.g., concerns about salary
or advancement opportunities). Grantees also indicated that a
predominant reason given by participants was something other than
project experience or working conditions and had more to do with
personal issues. TTT teachers indicated some administrative
misassignments and lack of mentoring consistency were important reasons
for becoming disenchanted with their schools and the TTT project.
Exhibit 58 summarizes the number of times grantees cited these reasons
for participants' decisions to leave TTT and teaching.

58. []{#__RefHeading___Toc161119231 .anchor}Frequency with which
    Grantees Reported\
    Participants' Top Reasons for Not Completing Their\
    Teaching Assignments and Leaving the Project

![](media/image43.wmf)

> Exhibit reads: "Administrative issues" was cited 28 times by grantees
> as a reason given by TTT participants who left the project.
>
> Source: Transition to Teaching Annual Performance Report, 2004--05.

With the incentives offered by the TTT grantees, and the relatively good
fit for level and subject assignment they are able to afford, there were
reportedly few project dropouts in a typical year. For example, for
participants who enrolled in the TTT projects in 2003 and became
teachers of record in 2003, grantees reported a total of 536
participants left between the second and third years of the project out
of a total estimated 6,700 participants. This represents 8 percent of
the total number of participants in the third project year, as reported
by the grantees. IHE grantees and local grantees reported the largest
number of "leavers" which seems proportionate to the larger number of
grantees represented in both of these categories (see Exhibit 59).

59. []{#__RefHeading___Toc161119232 .anchor}Percentage of FY 2002 TTT
    Grantees\
    Reporting Range of Participants Who Left the\
    Project After 1 Year (2003--04)

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  ![](media/image44.png){width="3.779861111111111in"
  height="2.5833333333333335in"}

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

> Exhibit reads: Sixty‑six percent of FY2002 grantees reported having up
> to three participants leave who enrolled in the TTT project in 2003
> and became teachers of record in 2003 and then dropped out in 2004.
>
> Source: Transition to Teaching Annual Performance Report, 2004--05.

# Teacher Satisfaction and Future Plans

## Highlights

-   If pressed to choose a pathway other than TTT, 33 percent of TTT
    teachers reported that they would have pursued a traditional teacher
    education route, and 33 percent said they would seek another
    alternative teacher preparation program. Without TTT, 20 percent of
    participants would not have entered teaching at all.

-   When presented with a set of areas related to the demands and
    responsibilities of a teacher, 66 percent of TTT teachers reported
    that they felt well or very well prepared to teach their subject
    matter.

-   TTT teachers identified workload management as the most challenging
    aspect of teaching that they encountered in the first three months
    of teaching.

Individuals have a greater variety of options when they choose to enter
teaching than ever before. TTT‑sponsored alternate routes coexist in
districts and in states with other approaches to recruit various
targeted groups into teaching, such as military service members. As data
from annual surveys indicate, 48 states and the District of Columbia
have some kind of approved alternate route program (Feistritzer, 2006).
Teacher education programs in private, public, and for profit IHEs offer
many options for those who want to be teachers. Further, in some states,
such as Florida, a legislative mandate to offer an alternate route in
each school district is currently in place. Therefore, it is of some
interest to explore why some individuals choose a TTT project and
whether they would select another option or would give up the idea of
becoming a teacher if TTT did not exist.

If pressed to choose a pathway other than TTT, 33 percent of TTT
teachers reported that they would have pursued a traditional teacher
education route, and 33 percent said they would seek another alternative
teacher preparation program (see Exhibit 60). Without TTT, 20 percent of
participants would not have entered teaching at all. These choices, when
examined by teacher characteristics such as age, subject area, and
target group show some interesting differences.

Paraprofessionals, among targeted groups, were least likely to say they
would not have taught without the TTT alternative (14 percent) compared
with recent college graduates (22 percent) and midcareer professionals
(24 percent). Teachers who were born in the 1980s were much more likely
to say they would have simply not taught if TTT was not available,
indicating that those still in their 20s believe they have time to
pursue other options. Finally, teachers of social studies and foreign
languages reported they were least likely to have expected to find
another route and most likely to have simply not taught.

60. []{#__RefHeading___Toc161119233 .anchor}TTT Teachers' Choice of\
    Preparation Pathway Without TTT

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  ![](media/image1.png){width="4.303472222222222in"
  height="2.6166666666666667in"}

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

> Exhibit reads: Thirty‑three percent of TTT teachers reported they
> would have participated in a traditional teacher preparation program
> if the TTT project had not been available.
>
> Source: Transition to Teaching TTT teacher survey, 2005--06.

## Interest in Teaching and Perspective on Preparedness

To better understand possible influences on retaining teachers who enter
through alternate routes to teaching, TTT participants were asked a
series of questions about their reasons for entering teaching and their
sense of preparedness for teaching. At the top of the list of
participants' reported reasons for becoming a teacher was the desire to
work with young people, and the "value" that society places on teaching
(see Exhibit 61). Notably, the "only field ever considered" reason was
ranked last. This reasoning is implicit in the population that TTT is
trying to reach, but it is still important to note that the participants
recruited and teaching through the efforts of TTT grantees are
individuals who have not always seen themselves as fitting the "teacher"
profile. Rather, they have made a specific decision at a point in time
to enter the profession.

61. []{#__RefHeading___Toc161119234 .anchor}Percentage of TTT Teachers
    Reporting the Extent to Which Specific Reasons Influenced Their
    Becoming a Teacher

+-------------------------------+-----------+-------------+------------+
| **Reason**                    | Extent    |             |            |
+-------------------------------+-----------+-------------+------------+
|                               | To a      | To a        | Not at all |
|                               | great     | mod         |            |
|                               | extent    | erate/small | (Percent)  |
|                               |           | extent      |            |
|                               | (Percent) |             |            |
|                               |           | (Percent)   |            |
+-------------------------------+-----------+-------------+------------+
| Working with young people     | 64        | 35          | 1          |
+-------------------------------+-----------+-------------+------------+
| Value to society              | 54        | 43          | 3          |
+-------------------------------+-----------+-------------+------------+
| Subject‑matter interest       | 49        | 45          | 6          |
+-------------------------------+-----------+-------------+------------+
| Job security                  | 29        | 51          | 20         |
+-------------------------------+-----------+-------------+------------+
| Teacher in elementary or      | 29        | 49          | 22         |
| secondary school              |           |             |            |
+-------------------------------+-----------+-------------+------------+
| Long summer vacation          | 27        | 58          | 15         |
+-------------------------------+-----------+-------------+------------+
| Family                        | 24        | 46          | 30         |
+-------------------------------+-----------+-------------+------------+
| Work schedule                 | 21        | 65          | 14         |
+-------------------------------+-----------+-------------+------------+
| Employment mobility           | 16        | 49          | 35         |
+-------------------------------+-----------+-------------+------------+
| College professor/advisor     | 13        | 43          | 44         |
+-------------------------------+-----------+-------------+------------+
| Salary/benefits               | 10        | 61          | 29         |
+-------------------------------+-----------+-------------+------------+
| Preparation program in        | 9         | 30          | 61         |
| college                       |           |             |            |
+-------------------------------+-----------+-------------+------------+
| Only field ever considered    | 3         | 19          | 78         |
+-------------------------------+-----------+-------------+------------+

> Exhibit reads: Sixty‑four percent of TTT teachers reported that
> "working with young people" influenced their decision to become a
> teacher "to a great extent."
>
> Source: Transition to Teaching TTT teacher survey, 2005--06.

Teacher self‑efficacy is an area that has been examined in a number of
studies of alternate route teachers (Zientek et al., 2006). Of primary
concern is whether one's preparation and content knowledge expertise are
commensurate with the demands of the classroom and the school
environment. In TTT projects participants experience different sequences
and delivery modes, but most are required to demonstrate their content
knowledge through teacher assessments. When presented with a set of
areas related to the demands and responsibilities of a teacher, 66
percent of TTT teachers reported that they felt well or very well
prepared to teach their subject matter (see Exhibit 62). A similar set
of challenges was presented to teachers in the most recent SASS, and
there appeared to be some differences in the views among these groups of
teachers. TTT teachers and teachers entering the profession from
alternate routes in the workforce responded very similarly in terms of
their perceptions of preparedness. However, teachers prepared in
traditional routes already in the workforce reported they felt much
better prepared to face these challenges than did TTT teachers. Some
challenges for which TTT teachers did not feel as well prepared were
"selecting and adapting curriculum materials," "assessing students," and
"classroom management and discipline."

62. []{#__RefHeading___Toc161119235 .anchor}TTT Teachers' Perceived
    Level of Preparation to\
    Face Challenges in Their First Year of Teaching

+-------------------------+-----------------+------------+------------+
|                         | Extent of Being |            |            |
|                         | Prepared        |            |            |
+-------------------------+-----------------+------------+------------+
| Challenges              | Well or very    | Somewhat   | Not at all |
|                         | well prepared   | prepared   | prepared   |
|                         |                 |            |            |
|                         | (Percent)       | (Percent)  | (Percent)  |
+-------------------------+-----------------+------------+------------+
| Collaborate with other  | 67              | 26         | 7          |
| teachers                |                 |            |            |
+-------------------------+-----------------+------------+------------+
| Teach subject matter    | 66              | 27         | 7          |
+-------------------------+-----------------+------------+------------+
| Meet state/local        | 57              | 32         | 11         |
| standards               |                 |            |            |
+-------------------------+-----------------+------------+------------+
| Communicate with        | 55              | 32         | 13         |
| parents                 |                 |            |            |
+-------------------------+-----------------+------------+------------+
| Instructional methods   | 51              | 39         | 10         |
+-------------------------+-----------------+------------+------------+
| Lesson planning         | 51              | 40         | 9          |
+-------------------------+-----------------+------------+------------+
| Use of computers        | 50              | 31         | 19         |
+-------------------------+-----------------+------------+------------+
| Non‑teaching duties     | 50              | 32         | 18         |
+-------------------------+-----------------+------------+------------+
| Select and adapt        | 47              | 39         | 14         |
| curriculum/materials    |                 |            |            |
+-------------------------+-----------------+------------+------------+
| Assess students         | 45              | 44         | 11         |
+-------------------------+-----------------+------------+------------+
| Classroom               | 44              | 44         | 12         |
| management/discipline   |                 |            |            |
+-------------------------+-----------------+------------+------------+
| Other                   | 19              | 9          | 72         |
+-------------------------+-----------------+------------+------------+

> Note: Respondents did not specify "other" in the survey; they
> responded to more than one challenge. In other places in the survey,
> respondents did provide some comments related to level of preparation,
> indicating that a mismatch of expectations regarding their teaching
> environment was a likely reasons for feeling unprepared.
>
> Exhibit reads: Sixty‑seven percent of TTT teachers felt "well or very
> well prepared" to "collaborate with other teachers" in their first
> year of teaching.
>
> Source: Transition to Teaching TTT teacher survey, 2005--06.

Based on the type of grant recipient in which TTT teachers were
participating, some differences in feelings of preparedness regarding
the teaching of subject matter were reported. Nearly three‑quarters (74
percent) of TTT teachers participating in IHE grantees' projects
reported feeling well or very well prepared to teach their subject
matter in the first year of teaching. The percentage reporting this
sense of preparedness declined to about two thirds for other grantee
types, but the differences were not significant (see Exhibit 63).

63. []{#__RefHeading___Toc161119236 .anchor}Percentage of TTT Teachers
    Reporting Their Feelings of Preparedness for Teaching Their Subject,
    by Type of Grant Recipient

![](media/image45.wmf)

> Exhibit reads: Seventy‑four percent of TTT teachers from IHE‑based TTT
> grants reported being "well prepared" or "very well prepared" to teach
> their subject during their first year of teaching.
>
> Source: Transition to Teaching Annual Performance Report and TTT
> teacher survey, 2004--05 and 2005--06.

In addition to describing their sense of preparedness to take on
challenges, TTT teachers identified workload as the most challenging
aspect of teaching that they encountered in the first three months of
teaching (see Exhibit 64).

64. []{#__RefHeading___Toc161119237 .anchor}Percentage of TTT Teachers
    Reporting\
    Extent of Challenges in the First Three Months of Teaching

+-------------------------+------------+-----------------+------------+
| Teaching Challenges     | Extent of  |                 |            |
|                         | Challenge  |                 |            |
|                         | E          |                 |            |
|                         | xperienced |                 |            |
|                         | in the     |                 |            |
|                         | First      |                 |            |
|                         | Three      |                 |            |
|                         | Months     |                 |            |
+-------------------------+------------+-----------------+------------+
|                         | Very       | Some            | Not at all |
|                         | c          | what/moderately | c          |
|                         | hallenging | challenging     | hallenging |
|                         |            |                 |            |
|                         | (Percent)  | (Percent)       | (Percent)  |
+-------------------------+------------+-----------------+------------+
| Managing the workload   | 38         | 56              | 6          |
+-------------------------+------------+-----------------+------------+
| Controlling classroom   | 37         | 49              | 14         |
| behavior                |            |                 |            |
+-------------------------+------------+-----------------+------------+
| Scheduling your time    | 35         | 59              | 6          |
+-------------------------+------------+-----------------+------------+
| Planning lessons        | 25         | 64              | 11         |
+-------------------------+------------+-----------------+------------+
| Meeting curriculum      | 24         | 68              | 8          |
| goals                   |            |                 |            |
+-------------------------+------------+-----------------+------------+
| Using technology        | 22         | 48              | 30         |
+-------------------------+------------+-----------------+------------+
| Student nonacademic     | 18         | 61              | 21         |
| problems                |            |                 |            |
+-------------------------+------------+-----------------+------------+
| Applying methods of     | 14         | 73              | 13         |
| teaching                |            |                 |            |
+-------------------------+------------+-----------------+------------+
| Communicating with      | 13         | 59              | 28         |
| parents                 |            |                 |            |
+-------------------------+------------+-----------------+------------+
| Teacher peer            | 12         | 45              | 43         |
| relationships           |            |                 |            |
+-------------------------+------------+-----------------+------------+
| Meeting state/local     | 12         | 69              | 19         |
| standards               |            |                 |            |
+-------------------------+------------+-----------------+------------+
| Assessing student       | 10         | 76              | 14         |
| achievement             |            |                 |            |
+-------------------------+------------+-----------------+------------+
| Other                   | 10         | 4               | 86         |
+-------------------------+------------+-----------------+------------+

> Exhibit reads: Thirty‑eight percent of TTT teachers reported that
> "managing the workload" was "very challenging" during their first
> three months of teaching.
>
> Source: Transition to Teaching TTT teacher survey, 2005--06.

## Future Plans

When considering a series of factors that would cause them to leave
teaching related to working conditions, salary and support systems, TTT
teachers rated factors similarly regarding their possible impact on such
a decision (see Exhibit 65). TTT teachers found moderately challenging
the many responsibilities, including general working conditions, they
faced in the classroom.

65. []{#__RefHeading___Toc161119238 .anchor}Percentage of TTT Teachers
    Reporting\
    Extent to Which Factors Would Cause Them to Leave Teaching

+---------------------------+------------+--------------+-------------+
| Factors                   | Extent     |              |             |
+---------------------------+------------+--------------+-------------+
|                           | To a great | To a         | Not at all  |
|                           | extent     | moderate or  |             |
|                           |            | small extent | (Percent)   |
|                           | (Percent)  |              |             |
|                           |            | (Percent)    |             |
+---------------------------+------------+--------------+-------------+
| Other                     | 29         | 6            | 65          |
+---------------------------+------------+--------------+-------------+
| Low Salary                | 25         | 59           | 16          |
+---------------------------+------------+--------------+-------------+
| Working Conditions        | 24         | 61           | 15          |
+---------------------------+------------+--------------+-------------+
| Administration‑related    | 21         | 64           | 15          |
| issues                    |            |              |             |
+---------------------------+------------+--------------+-------------+
| Poor support systems      | 21         | 60           | 19          |
+---------------------------+------------+--------------+-------------+
| Lack of opportunity for   | 14         | 55           | 31          |
| advancement               |            |              |             |
+---------------------------+------------+--------------+-------------+
| Student‑related issues    | 9          | 58           | 33          |
+---------------------------+------------+--------------+-------------+
| Physical condition of     | 9          | 57           | 34          |
| school building           |            |              |             |
+---------------------------+------------+--------------+-------------+
| Parent/teacher            | 5          | 55           | 40          |
| relationship issues       |            |              |             |
+---------------------------+------------+--------------+-------------+
| Lack of prestige          | 3          | 39           | 58          |
+---------------------------+------------+--------------+-------------+
| Colleague‑related issues  | 3          | 46           | 51          |
+---------------------------+------------+--------------+-------------+

> Exhibit reads: Twenty‑nine percent of TTT teachers reported that
> "other factors" (e.g., personal issues and mismatch of assignments)
> would influence them "to a great extent" in making a decision to leave
> teaching.
>
> Source: Transition to Teaching TTT teacher survey, 2005--06.

When asked about long‑term plans for remaining in teaching, nearly 50
percent of TTT teachers reported they would stay as long as they were
able; clearly, this implies different amounts of time depending on the
age of the participant, but it is similar to other teachers in the
workforce. Twenty percent of TTT teachers reported that they were
undecided, which was significantly different from the 14 percent of
teachers in the workforce trained in traditional programs (see Exhibit
66). This response by TTT teachers may reflect a "wait‑and‑see"
attitude, especially for those in their first year of teaching. The
difference between the percentage of TTT teachers (15 percent) and
traditionally trained teachers in the workforce (24 percent) who planned
on staying until retirement was also significantly different.

66. []{#__RefHeading___Toc161119239 .anchor}Percentage of TTT Teachers
    Reporting the Amount of Time They Plan to Remain in Teaching, in
    Comparison With SASS Data on Alternative Route Teachers and
    Traditional Route Teachers

![](media/image46.wmf)

> Exhibit reads: Forty‑nine percent of teachers trained in traditional
> programs reported they planned to stay in teaching "as long as I am
> able."
>
> Source: Transition to Teaching TTT teacher survey, 2005--06; SASS
> Public School Teacher Survey, 2003--04.

# CONCLUSION

This report has described the progress made by the first cohort of
five‑year TTT grantee (FY 2002) projects in the first three years of the
grant period. It has provided general characteristics of the projects
and described the unique approaches taken in response to the challenge
of recruiting and selecting nontraditional populations for teaching
positions in high‑need schools located in high‑need LEAs to fill
positions in high‑need subject areas.

In this concluding chapter, based on the data reported by grantees and
participants, we describe the dynamic nature of the TTT project. With a
broader perspective on the context in which TTT projects exist, the
resources they need to meet their objectives, and the changes they have
made based on feedback and assessment, implications for further research
and recommendations related to the TTT program can be generated. The
chapter highlights some additional areas for investigation that have
emerged, but were out of the scope of this evaluation. Finally, actions
that might be taken on behalf of the program to strengthen its reach and
success in bringing nontraditional participants into teaching in
high‑need schools in high‑need LEAs are recommended.

## The TTT Project: A Complex System

In Chapter I, a framework was introduced that illustrated the areas
addressed by TTT projects with respect to their participants' needs. In
general, TTT projects are actively involved in each of these components
shown below. The framework also illustrates the importance of
participant characteristics to each component.

67. []{#__RefHeading___Toc161119240 .anchor}Grantee Component Framework:
    Addressing Participant Needs

**TTT Project Components**

\*Certification component: timing to certification may vary according to
state requirements and individual candidate's fulfillment of
requirements.

**Framework reads**: TTT project activities begin with recruitment and
selection of participants from a wide range of applicants. Some projects
provide training and support for certification prior to hiring, while
others support participants as soon as they are hired and placed in
schools at levels and subjects corresponding to their specialization.
Projects support teachers of record and participants through
orientation, field experience, internships, and focused course work.
Some projects provide mentoring and others facilitate it through
existing sources. If a project achieves its goals for participants,
satisfaction is expressed through retention for three years,
certification, and recommendations by "word of mouth" to other
prospective applicants.

What was verified through the evaluation is that there is no one model
of how TTT teachers are prepared, although there are models that share
similar features. TTT projects have a dynamic nature, functioning more
like complex systems (Davis, Luce‑Kapler, and Sumara, 2000). Complex
systems "are self‑organizing, self‑maintaining, dynamic and adaptive"
(Grumet, 2004). Briefly, the following section identifies the areas that
seem to impinge on maintaining TTT projects.

TTT projects operate within a **context** which influences their
development and successes. This context encompasses policies and
practices related to teacher preparation and certification and the labor
market for teachers within a given area. More specifically:

-   Demand for teachers by subject area and grade level, which sometimes
    changed from year to year or differed among high‑need LEAs because
    of changing student populations, district layoffs, an increased
    percentage of teachers considered highly qualified and other
    factors, thus altering the focus of recruitment and preparation for
    the TTT project

-   Hiring policies and practices in schools and LEAs, which facilitated
    or delayed the placement of participants as teachers of record as
    well as the assignment of mentors

-   State policies that support or constrain alternate routes, which
    facilitated or delayed approval of the project itself and thus
    affected the start and completion dates for participants; state
    policies regarding the requirements for specializations, such as
    special education, also affected projects that were seeking to
    facilitate the certification of needed special education teachers

-   Other teacher preparation routes, which competed for qualified
    candidates by offering different program durations, elements, and
    incentives

TTT projects receive federal funding that offers the potential for
enhanced goal achievement, but their **capacity** to accomplish goals is
based on more than the size of the grant received from ED. Instead,
outcomes were reportedly related to 1) the resources that a project
draws upon, and 2) the ways in which human (leaders, providers,
participants), material (funds, technology, facilities), and social
(individual and institutional background and experiences) resources are
actually put to use to address the project's objectives (Cohen and Ball,
1999; Floden et al., 1995; Newmann et al., 2000).

This report has illustrated the ways projects vary, primarily as a
function of four features: **vision or design, grant recipient,
organizational representatives, and participants**.

Projects have a **vision or design** for teacher preparation focused on
specified target groups and high‑need subject areas, schools, and LEAs.
As depicted in the framework of components, this vision manifests in a
design for the project that encompasses cycles of recruitment and
selection, preparation, placement and support, certification, and
retention. This report has elaborated on that framework to include
several more nuanced elements of TTT project vision or design that
emerged from projects' development efforts:

-   Selectivity, including entrance requirements as well as processes
    used to establish the requirements, recruit and review applications,
    and make selection decisions

-   Sequence of preparation, indicating the arrangement, timing, and
    duration of course work, professional development, and fieldwork

-   Eligibility for teaching, determined by requiring courses or
    professional development, reviewing transcripts, or some combination
    of these

-   Specific types of support, including mentoring, induction programs,
    professional development, and online communities

The type of **grant recipient** influences the perspective a project
takes on needs (whether local, statewide, or national), the kind of
authority it has, the types of and relationships with partner
organizations. As illustrated in this report, the grant recipient may be
a state department of education (or a consortium of SEAs), IHE, LEA, or
for profit or nonprofit entity. Grant recipients report progress and
outcomes to the Department, manage financial matters, ensure that
participants meet project obligations, and maintain productive
relationships with and among project partners. The ways grant recipients
exercise authority give them a unique approach to project control (or
responsibility) and accountability. This report has revealed the
implications of the type of grant recipient for:

-   Degree of flexibility, as state‑based projects had greater leverage
    to tap resources and set standards for program requirements than
    IHEs, LEAs, and consortia, which worked within state policy
    constraints while making use of partner and community resources

-   Drawing on experience, as the TTT grant was used in some cases to
    enhance projects that were part of an existing alternate route
    program, and in other cases, to develop a new project that drew on
    individual or institutional experiences with teacher preparation and
    support

Projects encompass numerous **organizations and their representatives**
who carry out the day‑to‑day activities of recruitment and selection,
preparation, placement and support, certification, and retention.
Depending on its objectives and infrastructure, a grantee might seek
assistance with one or more aspects of the project's design. Some
projects used the established partnerships with individuals and entities
within the grantee, which filled the roles of guiding project
development, delivering course work, providing mentoring and other
support, and evaluating progress toward objectives. Maintaining
effective relationships among partners funded by a grant proved a
complex undertaking for some project directors, who managed and
negotiated with participating organizations to ensure that services were
delivered efficiently and effectively.

**Participants** in teacher preparation have certain experiences and
characteristics that they both bring to and gain from teacher
preparation programs. This report has provided descriptive data
regarding participants' demographics and educational and work
backgrounds. While projects enroll midcareer professionals, recent
college graduates, and paraprofessionals, they are otherwise diverse in
terms of participant characteristics. This parallels the participant
diversity reported in other studies, and underscores the idea that the
project itself---its goals and practices---must be considered as context
when describing the "typical" alternate route participant (Allen, 2003;
Clewell et al., 2001; Zeichner, 2005). Additionally, this report has
described participants' goals and plans for teaching and project‑related
perceptions, stating that participants were drawn to TTT projects by the
offer of incentives and found support a strong reason to stay.

As reported by project directors, continuous improvement is a hallmark
of successful and sustainable TTT projects. Continuous improvement
cycles are the ongoing efforts of projects to identify problem areas and
make changes with approval of TTT program staff. This report has
indicated that TTT grantees collect data and seek feedback both
informally and formally; they gather information directly from
participants, partners, and providers as well as through external
evaluations. The report has indicated that the majority of these changes
occurred in several areas:

-   Organization and structure, as projects added new personnel and
    partners in response to the changing demands of policies and LEA and
    participant needs

-   Recruitment, with Web‑based and face‑to‑face strategies proving most
    effective

-   Targeted applicant pool, which projects expanded by seeking target
    groups, using online recruitment and application methods, and
    offering teaching opportunities at additional grade levels and for
    additional subject areas

The outcomes of the interactions among the components described in this\
chapter---encompassing projects' capacities situated in context---in
turn shape the project as it changes its structure or objectives based
on results. For TTT, the outcomes of interest are recruiting
nontraditional candidates, placing participants in high‑need schools in
high‑need LEAs in assignments that match their certification areas, and
helping them attain certification and remain in teaching for three
years. While these results cannot be fully reported until the end of the
grant period, this report indicates that participants largely felt well
prepared and supported and planned to stay in teaching beyond the
three‑year TTT commitment. Additionally, this report has noted
project‑level outcomes, with particular successes related to the
development of infrastructure (partnerships, advisory groups, online
courses) to carry out project activities.

This emerging model of TTT projects as complex systems has illustrated
the issues that are common to projects, while at the same time
indicating that the interactions among these elements within a specific
context account for much of the differences among projects. Each project
works within the guidelines articulated in the *NCLB* legislation to be
responsive to the needs of the context in which it operates. Using this
model as a framework at the outset for future studies may provide a
clearer picture of the resources, activities, actors, and outcomes of
TTT and other alternate routes to teacher certification.

## Areas for Further Investigation

This interim evaluation was limited by its design and by the number of
years of project data that could be gathered given the reporting
timeline. However, the data that were gathered and the case studies
conducted were helpful in surfacing areas for further investigation

-   **Cost of preparing teachers through various delivery models.** An
    abiding question raised by economists studying teacher preparation
    is: how much does it cost to produce a new teacher? When attempting
    to answer this question, researchers typically look to the cost of
    attending traditional teacher preparation programs; however, there
    are more factors to be considered, according to Hull, such as the
    high rate of individuals who complete preparation programs but do
    not immediately become teachers (2004). Alternate routes provide a
    short‑cut to certification in terms of time but may have other
    hidden costs that need to be factored into an estimate of the
    per‑teacher cost. More study is needed to determine if there are
    efficiencies to be found in specific approaches or delivery systems
    modeled in alternate route programs. One specific aspect of this
    investigation also worth pursuing is that of the level of incentive
    that is useful in recruiting and retaining new teachers. Many states
    and districts are offering various incentives, such as a bonus to
    ameliorate the high cost of living in a large urban district, yet
    little research is being done to explore the role of such incentives
    in recruitment and retention.

-   **Factors contributing to the success of participants.** TTT
    projects have demonstrated successful recruitment of participants of
    all ages and backgrounds into teaching. Some participants followed
    the prescribed "program" and were hired and retained, while others
    had less than satisfactory experiences. Further investigation would
    be valuable in understanding why some TTT participants do better
    than others. Recent research that followed participants over three
    years indicated school context was critical to the success of new
    teachers (Humphrey and Wechsler, 2006). More studies exploring this
    factor, as well as the role of particular components of alternate
    route programs in participant success, would be helpful to those who
    are planning and implementing alternate routes.

-   **Sustaining alternate routes.** TTT projects wrote a great deal in
    their APRs and in their interim evaluations about the collaborative
    work with their partnering organizations. Project directors
    emphasized this was essential to their success, indicating the need
    for sufficient resources to implement alternate routes successfully.
    Further investigation is needed to explore how these arrangements
    can be sustained and continued. According to some reports, although
    states have approved alternate routes, some of these do not become
    operational or fade away as programs over time. Does the type of
    sponsor or grant recipient make any difference in sustainability? Is
    there something different about the way that TTT projects are
    developed and operated that will result in their sustainability?

## Recommendations

The Transition to Teaching grant program supports a wide variety of
alternate route approaches that exist within the broader population of
state‑, district‑ and university‑provided options for those wishing to
become teachers. As the data on the third project year activities were
being collected through the APRs, the case studies, and the interim
reports, it became clear that changes were being made to improve on the
approaches. In conjunction with project monitors and through
participation in grantee meetings, project management received support,
particularly in the areas of recruitment and evaluation. Still, some
lessons learned and challenges faced in the first three years of
operations indicate the potential for some changes and new directions
for the TTT program as a whole. Some of these are more appropriately
addressed to the Congress as it plans for reauthorization of *NCLB* and
considers options to strengthen the TTT program within the Office of
Innovation and Improvement (OII).

1\. **In deliberations leading to reauthorization,** **consider giving
the program office (OII) the authority to award shorter planning grants
to prospective entities.** Awarding one‑year planning grants to entities
planning to create new alternate routes would allow them the time to
develop a business plan, pilot effective recruitment approaches, and
obtain formal commitments from participating LEAs. Many FY 2002 projects
indicated that the first year was a start‑up and planning year, in terms
of operations. Recruitment takes time and substantial resources and the
yield is small each year considering the effort made. During this
planning year, TTT projects could be asked to establish more of a
"business plan" and finalize the targeted number of participants based
on numbers of teachers needed. This planning year could also include
project mentoring by program staff to establish the groundwork for
evidence‑based evaluations. There is some precedent for this option. For
example, in the PT3 grant program, initial catalyst grants were awarded.
Many of the IHE programs awarded these used the catalyst grant period to
build strong models planning the integration of technology in teacher
preparation programs and courses.

2\. **Use discretionary funds now available to OII and TTT to invest in
the documentation and dissemination of effective practices for alternate
route projects.** Just as the FY 2002 grants were awarded, ED also
produced a book of promising practices for alternate routes and
established a national clearinghouse to gather annual data and provide
access to policy and research reports. These information dissemination
activities have proved valuable to many in this field. Four years later,
and with the accumulated experience of the more than 100 grantees being
documented, it makes sense to consider maintaining this type of
clearinghouse or establishing a clearinghouse function within the
program's Web site or within the ED's labs and centers that focuses on
effective components of alternate routes. Through such a resource,
alternate route project directors and evaluators would be able to find,
for example, research studies on induction (including the latest data
from the Institute of Education Sciences \[IES\] study on induction
programs) and descriptions of effective induction activities in TTT
projects, along with evidence about their success.

3\. **Encourage OII and TTT grantees to stimulate a dialogue at the
state and district level about policies regarding alternate routes.** In
their interim evaluations and in narrative APR responses about promising
practices and challenges, project directors indicated the importance of
working through policy differences that could affect their program
options, their targeted recruitment, and their success in producing
certified teachers. For example, a number of projects raised the concern
that they might not be able to continue special education options due to
changes in certification requirements in their states. In addition, a
recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on
Troops‑to‑Teachers indicated that additional collaboration among
alternate routes that share recruiting populations might enhance
recruitment success. Finally, in the case studies conducted for this
interim report, we learned that such collaboration might ameliorate the
confusing situation that sometimes faces applicants to teaching when
there are competing routes, for example, regarding requirements to
become highly qualified, regarding costs, and regarding mentoring.
Project directors indicated that when they try to take advantage of
existing mentoring and induction components in their states and
districts, they face challenges in providing a high‑quality program that
is most closely related to the needs of their own project participants
and does not include duplicative components.

4\. **Use discretionary funds now available to OII to conduct a
small‑scale investigation of the importance of the level of incentives
to project participation.** While the incentives provided by TTT are
helpful, they do not ameliorate the high and rising cost of tuition at
public and private colleges where most participants complete their
academic requirements. The program could be enhanced by more information
on what level of incentive is most appealing to participants and what
makes sense given the cost of recruiting and supporting participants
through to certification. Through this study, ED could explore some
options, for example, removing the cap of \$5,000 to allow flexibility
to projects recruiting from different populations with varying financial
needs; investigating the relationship between different levels of
funding and participation**;** and exploring whether professional
development‑type online programs are less expensive to operate and to
participate in. The \$5,000 cap is specified in the authorizing
legislation and any alterations to this would require a change during
the reauthorization process.

5\. **In deliberations preceding reauthorization, reexamine the
definition of high‑need LEAs and high‑need schools.** Project grantees
reported several challenges in this regard, most notably, they were able
in some cases to identify many districts and schools that needed
teachers, but all of them did not meet the narrow definition. Projects
reported many more applications than expected, but some participants did
not want to teach in designated high‑need schools, so they earned
certification through the TTT route but did not make a commitment as to
the school in which they would be teaching. ED could examine the impact
of the current definition on total number of participants hired and
retained and work with a group of experienced project directors to
recommend additional criteria to assist grantees and participants. There
should be a way to develop an approach so that unfilled teaching
positions do not remain so and participants who wish to become highly
qualified through alternate routes are not turned away, without
penalizing the neediest schools.

# References {#references .unnumbered}

Allen, M. (2003). *Eight questions on teacher preparation: What does the
research say?* Denver, Colo.: Education Commission of the States.

Birkeland, S., and Peske, H. (2004). *Literature review on alternative
certification*. Retrieved April 2, 2005, from
http://www.teach‑now.org/NEAFullText.pdf.

Clewell, B. C., and Villegas, A. M. (2001). *Evaluation of the Dewitt
Wallace‑Reader's Digest Fund's pathways to teaching careers program*.
Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute.

Cohen, D., and Ball, D. L. (1999). *Instruction, capacity, and
improvement* (CPRE Research Report No. RR‑043)*.* Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Consortium for Policy Research in Education.

Feistritzer, E. (2005). *Alternative teacher certification: A
state‑by‑state analysis.* Retrieved April 3, 2005, from
http://www.ncei.com.

Feistritzer, E. (2006). *Alternative teacher certification: A
state‑by‑state analysis.* Retrieved March 3, 2006, from
http://www.teach-now.org.

Feistritzer, E. (2006). *Characteristics of alternate routes to
certification.* Presented at the Third Annual Conference of the National
Center for Alternative Certification, San Diego, Calif.

Floden, R., Goertz, M., and O'Day, J. (1995). "Capacity building in
systemic reform." *Phi Delta Kappan,* 77(1), 19--21.

Hull, J. W. (Spring 2004). Filling in the gaps. *Threshold*. Retrieved
Dec. 10, 2004 www.ciconline.org.

Humphrey, D. C., and Wechsler, M. E. (September 2005). "Insights into
alternative certification: Initial findings from a national study."
*Teachers College Record.* Retrieved March 24, 2006, from
http://www.tcrecord.org ID Number 12145.

Ingersoll, R. M., and Kralik, J. M. (2004). *The impact of mentoring on
teacher retention: What the research says.* Denver, Colo.: Education
Commission of the States.

Loeb, S., and Reininger, M. (2004). *Public policy and teacher labor
markets; What we know and why it matters.* East Lansing: The Education
Policy Center, Michigan State University.

Lutz, F. W., and Hutton, J. B. (1989). "Alternative teacher
certification: Its policy implications for classroom and personnel
practice." *Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,*\
11, 237--254.

Marvel, J., Lyter, D. M., Peltola, P., Strizek, G. A., and Morton, B. A.
(2006). *Teacher attrition and mobility.* Results from the 2004--05
Teacher Follow-up Survey (NCES 2007--307). Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

Mayer, D. P., Decker, P. T., Glazerman, S., and Silva, T. W. (2003).
*Identifying alternative certification programs for an impact evaluation
of teacher preparation.* Cambridge, Mass.: Mathematica Policy Research,
Inc.

Newmann, F., King, B., and Youngs, P. (2000). "Professional development
that addresses school capacity: Lessons from urban elementary schools."
*American Journal of Education,* 108, 259‑299*.*

Rice, J. K. (2003). *Teacher* *quality: Understanding the effectiveness
of teacher attributes.* Washington, D.C.: Economic Policy Institute.

Rotherman, A. J. (2005). *Lashing ourselves to the mast: Rethinking
teacher certification and licensure.* Presented at Alternative Teacher
Certification: A Forum for Highlighting Rigorous Research, Washington,
D.C.

Seftor, N. S., and Mayer, D. P. (2003). *The effect of alternative
certification on student achievement: A literature review, final
report*. Cambridge, Mass.: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.

Shen, J. (1997). "Has the alternative certification policy materialized
its promise? A comparison between traditionally and alternatively
certified teachers in public schools." *Educational Evaluation and
Policy Analysis,* 19(3), 276--283.

Smith, T. M., and Ingersoll, R. M. (2004). "What are the effects of
induction and mentoring on beginning teacher turnover?" *American
Educational Research Journal,* 41(3), 681--714.

U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. (2004)
*Identification and description of promising models of teacher
induction.* Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,
Schools and Staffing Survey, 2003--04, Public School Teachers Data File.
Retrieved April 10, 2006, from http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass.

Wilson, S., Floden, R., and Ferrini‑Mundy, J. (2001). *Teacher
preparation research: Current knowledge, gaps, and recommendations*.
Seattle: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of
Washington.

Zeichner, K. (2005). *The characteristics of candidates in alternative
teacher certification programs*. Presented at Alternative Teacher
Certification: A Forum for Highlighting Rigorous Research, Washington,
D.C.

Zientek, L., Capraro, R., and Capraro, M. M. (2006). *Do teachers differ
by certification route? Novice teachers' sense of self‑efficacy,
commitment to teaching, and preparedness to teach.* Presented at the
annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
San Francisco, Calif.

##### DEFINITIONS

**These definitions were used for the APR and the TTT Teacher Survey. As
the federal program has developed, some of the objectives for the
grantees have changed and if we were undertaking the survey today, some
slight changes would be made in the definitions, for example,
"certification" would be used instead of "full certification."**

**Bonus**---a supplementary amount of money provided to the participant
outside of funds provided to fund the cost of participation.

**Certification**---a regular or standard teaching certificate issued by
the state of employment. Full certification excludes those teaching on
waivers or with an emergency or temporary certificate. Teachers in an
approved alternate route program may be considered by their state to be
highly qualified, yet they may still be seeking full certification.

**High‑need local education agency (LEA)**---Section 2103(3). Under this
definition, the term\
"high‑need LEA" means an LEA

(1)(a) that serves not fewer than 10,000 children from families with
incomes below the poverty line; OR

(1)(b) for which not less than 20 percent of the children served by the
agency are from families with incomes below the poverty line: AND

(2)(a) for which there is a high percentage of teachers not teaching in
the subjects or grade levels that the teachers were trained to teach; OR

(2)(b) for which there is a high percentage of teachers with emergency,
provisional or temporary certification or licensing.

**LEA**---Local education agency. The local education agency is
generally the same as a school district.

**Loan repayment**---use of project funds to repay the participant's
academic loans.

**Midcareer professional**---refers to a TTT participant who is
transitioning from a previous career to teaching (including military
retirees and excluding paraprofessionals).

**Paraprofessional**---refers to a TTT participant who is hired as a
paraprofessional and who (a) has had no less than two years previous
experience in the classroom (for example, a teacher's aide) and (b) has
postsecondary education (four semesters) or demonstrated competence in a
field or academic subject for which there is a significant shortage of
qualified teachers.

**Participating LEAs**---Local education agencies that are committed
partners of the project.

**Practice or student teaching**---clinical internship in the classroom
prior to assuming responsibility for a classroom as teacher of record.

**Recent college graduate**---refers to a TTT participant who graduated
from college with a bachelor's degree within the past three years and
whose undergraduate major was in a field other than education.

**Stipend**---an amount of money paid directly to a participant for a
particular purpose pertaining to his or her participation in a project.

**Teacher of record**---an individual who is under contract to fill an
allocated FTE spell‑out and paid on a teacher's salary schedule or a
reduced salary schedule.

**Tuition/scholarship**---an amount of money paid on behalf of the
participant to defray all or partial costs for project course work.

Categories for Reporting on Race or Ethnicity of Participants[^17]

**American Indian or Alaska Native**---A person having origins in any of
the original peoples of North and South America (including Central
America) and maintaining cultural identification through tribal
affiliation or community recognition.

**Asian**---A person having origins in any of the original peoples of
the Far East, Southeast Asia or the Indian subcontinent, including
Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, the Philippine Islands,
Thailand and Vietnam.

**Black or African American**---A person having origins in any of the
black racial groups of Africa. Includes people who indicate their race
as "Black or African Am." or provide written entries such as African
American, Afro‑American, Kenyan, Nigerian or Haitian.

**Hispanics or Latinos** are those people who classified themselves in
one of the specific Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino categories listed on
the Census 2000 questionnaire---"Mexican, Mexican Am., Chicano," "Puerto
Rican", or "Cuban" ‑as well as those who indicate that they are "other
Spanish/Hispanic/Latino." Persons who indicated that they are "other
Spanish/Hispanic/Latino" include those whose origins are from Spain, the
Spanish‑speaking countries of Central or South America, the Dominican
Republic or people identifying themselves generally as Spanish,
Spanish‑American, Hispanic, Hispano, Latino, and so on.

Origin can be viewed as the heritage, nationality group, lineage, or
country of birth of the person or the person's parents or ancestors
before their arrival in the United States.

People who identify their origin as Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino may be
of any race. Thus, the percent Hispanic should not be added to
percentages for racial categories. Tallies that show race categories for
Hispanics and non‑Hispanics separately are available.

**Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander**---A person having origins in any
of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa or other Pacific islands.

**White**---A person having origins in any of the original peoples of
Europe, North Africa or the Middle East.

##### Participant Sample

Prior to developing this sampling plan, the evaluation team conducted a
first review of applications submitted by the 92 grantees to the TTT
program staff. Based on this review, key features for categorizing the
population of grantees were identified. Two of the features---the extent
of preparation provided before becoming a teacher of record and the type
of participant (paraprofessional, recent college graduate, midcareer
professional)---stood out as important. The sampling plan called for a
sample that was stratified to enable comparisons between participants
who differed with respect to those two features.

The first variable, the extent of support provided before becoming a
teacher of record, divided the population into two groups: (1)
participants who became a teacher of record during their first three
months of participation and (2) participants who did not become a
teacher of record until three months or more after beginning to receive
support from TTT. This division was believed to be a potentially
important source of variation in the experiences of TTT participants.
The recent proliferation of alternate routes and the use of alternate
routes by districts to address *NCLB* highly qualified teacher
requirements was expected to have generated programs of varying length
and intensity in terms of preparation. This approach was considered to
clarify how much of the current TTT teacher population was hired and
teaching immediately as compared with the proportion undertaking
preparation that was more similar to traditional programs.

The second variable, the type of participant or participant target
group, distinguishes respondents based on whether they were recruited
from among paraprofessionals, recent college graduates, or midcareer
professionals. We suspected that professional background affects
individual experiences and determined that it would be important to
stratify the sample accordingly to ensure sufficient representation from
which to make comparisons.

TTT project directors were enlisted to assist the evaluation team in
identifying the population of participants from which the sample was to
be drawn. Specifically, project directors were asked to submit rosters
of all participants who were or could have been teachers of record as
of\
Sept. 30, 2004. If grantees started late or did not have any
participants hired in schools as of\
Sept. 30, 2004, they were exempt from the sample. Also exempt were any
grantees whose grants were terminated. According to the rosters, the
population of participants who met these criteria included 5,284
persons.

Using this information, the evaluation team stratified the population of
participants by the two basic variables identified above as essential to
distinguishing the participants in the TTT program: extent of support
provided before becoming a teacher of record and affiliation with one of
the three TTT target groups. The team then drew a sample of 1,339
participants using systematic sampling within each stratum.

Survey administration began in April 2005 and continued through March
2006. During this period, AIR conducted extensive follow‑up efforts to
encourage sample members to complete written surveys, including mail,
telephone, and e‑mail contact. In many cases, TTT project directors
contributed to follow‑up efforts. One limitation was that TTT projects
did not always have complete or up to date contact information,
especially for participants who had recently moved. TTT project
directors also identified a total of 24 sample members who had been
included on project rosters by accident. In December of 2005, a \$10
incentive was mailed to all remaining nonrespondents, which increased
the number of responses significantly.

When survey administration closed in March 2006, a total of 756 TTT
teacher surveys had been received. Analysis of survey responses revealed
that 78 surveys had come from persons who were not eligible to complete
the survey. Some had dropped out of the TTT program and had been
included by mistake. Others completed the preservice components of their
programs but were unable to find positions as teachers of record by
Sept. 30, 2004---the cutoff for eligibility for the TTT teacher survey.
After removing these 78 sample members, the total number of valid
surveys was 678. The number of ineligible responses suggests that the
population of participants who were eligible to complete the survey was
4,980, and not 5,284---the original estimate based on rosters.

The final response rate, after excluding ineligible responses, was 55
percent. Thus, while the TTT teacher survey results contained in this
report are intended to be representative of the population of 4,980 TTT
participants who had become teachers of record through TTT by Sept. 30,
2004, the results must be used cautiously. Respondents and
nonrespondents may have had different experiences with their TTT
projects. Rosters gathered from TTT projects did not include demographic
information about participants, so we were not able to conduct an
analysis of the extent to which respondents and nonrespondents were
similar demographically.

##### Snapshots of the Eight TTT Sites Visited[^18]

+-----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| TTT       | Program Characteristics                                   |
| Grantee   |                                                           |
| Name      |                                                           |
+-----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| Ca        | -   **Partners:** BPUSD, Azusa Pacific University (APU),  |
| lifornia: |     California State University‑Los Angeles, California   |
| Baldwin   |     Polytechnic State University.                         |
| Park      |                                                           |
| Unified   | -   **Participants:** Participants are "classified        |
| School    |     employees" who serve as paraprofessionals within      |
| District  |     schools or who had "emergency credentials" under      |
| (BPUSD)-  |     state of California rules, including recent college   |
| --Project |     graduates that already work as either instructional   |
| ACE       |     aides or long‑term substitute teachers in the         |
| (Acc      |     district.                                             |
| elerating |                                                           |
| Cre       | -   **Recruitment Methods:** Formally presented at        |
| dentialed |     California School Employee Association (CSEA)         |
| E         |     meetings, flyers posted in schools, word of mouth.    |
| ducators) |                                                           |
|           | -   **Recruitment Focus:** Bilingual and special          |
|           |     education were primary focus at the time of the       |
|           |     visit, but participants were also seeking             |
|           |     endorsements in other subjects.                       |
|           |                                                           |
|           | -   **Program Delivery:** Varies by partner delivering    |
|           |     the training.                                         |
|           |                                                           |
|           | -   **Admissions Requirements:** All applicants must have |
|           |     already completed 60 credit hours of postsecondary    |
|           |     course units with a cumulative grade point average    |
|           |     (GPA) of 2.5.                                         |
|           |                                                           |
|           | -   **Program Requirements:** Students age 25 and older   |
|           |     may attend the accelerated 18‑month bachelor of arts  |
|           |     program in Human Development offered at APU. Those    |
|           |     under age 25 complete course work at California       |
|           |     Polytechnic State University or California State      |
|           |     University‑Los Angeles. Upon completion of all course |
|           |     work, participants can serve as teachers of record    |
|           |     (first year as interns). All participants must pass   |
|           |     the California Basic Educational Skills Test (CBEST)  |
|           |     and other credentialing exams by the end of their     |
|           |     second year of teaching.                              |
|           |                                                           |
|           | -   **How to Ensure "Highly Qualified":** All             |
|           |     participants must complete the CBEST in addition to   |
|           |     the content exams. All courses offered at APU and     |
|           |     other participating institutions are designed to      |
|           |     align with the state standards for teacher            |
|           |     certification.                                        |
|           |                                                           |
|           | -   **Placement:** Schools within the BPUSD. Participants |
|           |     apply through normal channels and receive no special  |
|           |     treatment.                                            |
|           |                                                           |
|           | -   **Induction:** APU hires a group of mentors to work   |
|           |     with each cohort of students. Project ACE seeks       |
|           |     mentors from schools.                                 |
+-----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| Florida:  | -   **Partners:** OCPS, NOVA Southeastern University,     |
| Orange    |     University of Central Florida, Barry University.      |
| County    |                                                           |
| Public    | -   **Participants:** Participants may be midcareer       |
| Schools   |     professionals, recent college graduates, or           |
| (O        |     paraprofessionals with experiences assisting          |
| CPS)---Al |     teachers.                                             |
| ternative |                                                           |
| Cert      | -   **Recruitment Methods:** Word of mouth, e‑mail, Web   |
| ification |     site, OCPS teacher recruitment fair, flyers.          |
| Program   |                                                           |
| (ACP)     | -   **Recruitment Focus:** Attract paraprofessionals to   |
|           |     be teachers; attract paid teachers of record in OCPS. |
|           |                                                           |
|           | -   **Program Delivery:** TTT candidates take courses at  |
|           |     participating universities and at OCPS. The courses   |
|           |     are taught by university professors, ACP staff, and   |
|           |     training specialists.                                 |
|           |                                                           |
|           | -   **Admissions Requirements:** Professional teachers of |
|           |     record must hold at least a bachelor's degree to      |
|           |     participate, and paraprofessionals must have at least |
|           |     an associate degree or have taken equivalent college  |
|           |     course work.                                          |
|           |                                                           |
|           | -   **Program Requirements:** Participants are required   |
|           |     to commit to teaching three years in an urban cohort  |
|           |     school or an OCPS Title I school. Participants must   |
|           |     pass the College Level Academic Skills Test or the    |
|           |     Florida Professional Education Exam, and the Florida  |
|           |     Subject Area Exam, as well as meet other requirements |
|           |     as designated by law. In addition, as part of their   |
|           |     certification requirement, TTT paraprofessionals must |
|           |     complete a 16‑week internship or clinical, in which   |
|           |     they are observed by ACP staff and coaches, and in    |
|           |     which they shadow a teacher, gradually taking over    |
|           |     responsibilities. TTT teachers are given three years  |
|           |     to complete the TTT program and can progress through  |
|           |     the program by taking courses at their own pace while |
|           |     teaching. Some participants have completed the        |
|           |     program in less than a year. In addition to taking    |
|           |     the required ACP courses, TTT paraprofessionals must  |
|           |     complete course requirements needed to obtain a       |
|           |     bachelor's degree, a process which can last between   |
|           |     three and four years.                                 |
|           |                                                           |
|           | -   **How to Ensure "Highly Qualified":** Participants    |
|           |     must pass the General Knowledge exam. Participants    |
|           |     are highly qualified because they either have degree  |
|           |     majors with the requisite course content or they have |
|           |     passed the subject area exam.                         |
+-----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| APPENDIX  |                                                           |
| C:        |                                                           |
| SNAPSHOTS |                                                           |
| OF THE    |                                                           |
| EIGHT TTT |                                                           |
| SITES     |                                                           |
| VISITED\  |                                                           |
| (C        |                                                           |
| ONTINUED) |                                                           |
+===========+===========================================================+
| TTT       | Program Characteristics                                   |
| Grantee   |                                                           |
| Name      |                                                           |
+-----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| Florida:  | -   **Placement:** TTT participants are required to       |
| Orange    |     follow the same applicant procedures as other         |
| County    |     teachers in the district. In this case, all of the    |
| Public    |     participants are already placed in schools and most   |
| Schools   |     have been teaching for at least one year, but less    |
| (O        |     than two years, before entering the ACP/TTT program.  |
| CPS)---Al |                                                           |
| ternative | -   **Induction:** Participants are assigned a mentor     |
| Cert      |     provided by the district. Mentors are required to     |
| ification |     visit classrooms nine times over the duration of the  |
| Program   |     program.                                              |
| (ACP)\    |                                                           |
| (C        |                                                           |
| ontinued) |                                                           |
+-----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| Kentucky: | -   **Partners:** GRREC, 18 eligible local school         |
| Green     |     districts, Western Kentucky University (WKU).         |
| River     |                                                           |
| Regional  | -   **Participants:** Participants are recent college     |
| Education |     graduates or midcareer professionals interested in    |
| Co        |     receiving teacher certification and a master of arts  |
| operative |     degree in education (M.Ed.).                          |
| (GRREC)   |                                                           |
| Al        | -   **Recruitment Methods:** District referrals,          |
| ternative |     brochures, word of mouth, personal contact,           |
| Route to  |     newspaper, posters, flyers, TV, Public Service        |
| Cert      |     Announcements, Job Fairs, Office of Employment and    |
| ification |     Training resources, and regional public informational |
|           |     meeting. Program staff provides comprehensive         |
|           |     recruitment materials to participating districts.     |
|           |                                                           |
|           | -   **Recruitment Focus:** Special education, other       |
|           |     high‑need subject areas.                              |
|           |                                                           |
|           | -   **Program Delivery:** Entering as a cohort group,     |
|           |     participants can choose from two different            |
|           |     tracks: (1) middle and high school curriculum and     |
|           |     instruction (CandI) or (2) special education.         |
|           |     Entering participants take summer (or fall) courses   |
|           |     at WKU and begin teaching in the fall at the school   |
|           |     where they were recruited and hired. Participants     |
|           |     take additional courses throughout the year and the   |
|           |     following summer (and fall, if necessary). All        |
|           |     courses are offered on campus, through regional hubs, |
|           |     or online where possible. Special education teachers  |
|           |     take 8 of 10 courses online and CandI teachers take   |
|           |     at least 2 of 10 courses online. The program staff    |
|           |     also offers periodic professional development         |
|           |     sessions for the participants. After completing their |
|           |     comprehensive exams and certification, participants   |
|           |     receive both their certification and an M.Ed.         |
|           |                                                           |
|           | -   **Admissions Requirements:** All content area         |
|           |     certifications require passing the PRAXIS II exam, a  |
|           |     passing GRE score, a bachelor of arts degree in their |
|           |     content area prior to enrollment, and an              |
|           |     undergraduate GPA of at least 2.5.                    |
|           |                                                           |
|           | -   **Program Requirements:** Course requirements are     |
|           |     specific to the WKU M.Ed. pathways. PRAXIS is not     |
|           |     required prior to enrollment for special education    |
|           |     participants but it must be completed before          |
|           |     graduation. Also, applicants are not accepted into    |
|           |     the TTT program until they are guaranteed employment  |
|           |     by a participating district, and commit to at least   |
|           |     three years of teaching.                              |
|           |                                                           |
|           | -   **How to Ensure "Highly Qualified":** Participants    |
|           |     are subject to rigorous screening prior to enrolling  |
|           |     in the program and must successfully complete the WKU |
|           |     M.Ed. program. They are not fully certified until     |
|           |     they successfully pass comprehensive exams, and       |
|           |     complete the Kentucky Teacher Internship Program      |
|           |     (KTIP), the state‑mandated induction and              |
|           |     certification program.                                |
|           |                                                           |
|           | -   **Placement:** A TTT selection and placement          |
|           |     committee from among the participating districts      |
|           |     selects the TTT participants they would like to hire  |
|           |     after the nonqualifying candidates have been          |
|           |     eliminated. Districts select candidates; candidates   |
|           |     rate their choices. Each district is awarded a        |
|           |     position and there are at‑large positions based on    |
|           |     total funded positions.                               |
|           |                                                           |
|           | -   **Induction:** TTT participants are assigned a mentor |
|           |     by their local district or school during the first    |
|           |     semester, who often becomes the state‑designated KTIP |
|           |     mentor for the remainder of the induction period. TTT |
|           |     resources cover the cost of the first semester and    |
|           |     additional hours above the state‑sponsored mentoring. |
|           |     As part of KTIP, TTT teachers take a one‑hour         |
|           |     professional development course four times during the |
|           |     semester and a three‑hour content course. A TTT       |
|           |     mentor continues to work with participants for an     |
|           |     additional 12 semester hours after they receive their |
|           |     master's degree. Only during their third year, after  |
|           |     they sign a letter of commitment, does the TTT        |
|           |     program allow the district to assume more             |
|           |     responsibility for the participants. WKU professors   |
|           |     also provide field‑based mentoring during the first   |
|           |     semester. KTIP has a prescribed set of performance    |
|           |     objectives that all new teachers must meet.           |
+-----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| Maryland: | -   **Partners:** MSDE, University of Maryland‑University |
| Maryland  |     College (UMUC), Prince George's County Public Schools |
| State     |     (PGCPS), Bowie State University.                      |
| D         |                                                           |
| epartment | -   **Participants:** Career changers, both recent        |
| of        |     college graduates and individuals changing careers at |
| Education |     midlife. They may or may not be residents of Prince   |
| (MSDE)--  |     George's County.                                      |
| -Maryland |                                                           |
| Al        | -   **Recruitment Methods:** Internet postings, newspaper |
| ternative |     advertisements, attendance at area job fairs, word of |
| Routes to |     mouth.                                                |
| Cert      |                                                           |
| ification | -   **Recruitment Focus:** Elementary education; science, |
| Options   |     math, and foreign languages at the secondary level.   |
| (MARCO)   |                                                           |
|           | -   **Program Delivery:** Distance education model: all   |
|           |     courses completed online. Although course completion  |
|           |     is self‑paced, MARCO uses the cohort model in which   |
|           |     individuals must start and complete the course series |
|           |     at the same time.                                     |
|           |                                                           |
|           | -   **Admissions Requirements:** Entry into the MARCO     |
|           |     program requires a bachelor's degree with a GPA of    |
|           |     3.0 or higher in the content area in which they seek  |
|           |     certification. Candidates must also pass the Praxis I |
|           |     and II exams prior to admission. Once their           |
|           |     eligibility is verified by PGCPS, candidates must     |
|           |     also complete UMUC's graduate application.            |
|           |                                                           |
|           | -   **Program Requirements:** Participant course work     |
|           |     consists of nine hours of online graduate courses and |
|           |     a four‑week summer internship (Professional           |
|           |     Development School Training) in summer school classes |
|           |     under the supervision of mentors and facilitators.    |
|           |     During the first year of teaching, MARCO teachers,    |
|           |     like all Maryland teachers, are also required to      |
|           |     complete additional course units in reading studies.  |
|           |                                                           |
|           | -   **How to Ensure "Highly Qualified":** All             |
|           |     participants must pass the Praxis I and II exams      |
|           |     prior to admission into the program.                  |
|           |                                                           |
|           | -   **Placement:** Elementary and secondary schools       |
|           |     located in PGCPS. Participants are interviewed by     |
|           |     PGCPS following participation in the summer           |
|           |     internship. They are interviewed and selected by      |
|           |     principals of schools where vacancies exist once they |
|           |     complete all course work and the summer inservice.    |
|           |                                                           |
|           | -   **Induction:** The district assigned mentors in the   |
|           |     first year of the project. Bowie State University     |
|           |     assumed this responsibility and provides trained      |
|           |     mentors to each participant. Mentors work with        |
|           |     participants during their first two years of teaching |
|           |     and are required to meet with mentees at least twice  |
|           |     monthly. Participants are also still assigned an      |
|           |     in‑school mentor by the district during their first   |
|           |     year of teaching.                                     |
+-----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| Montana:  | -   **Partners:** Wyo. Professional Teaching Standards    |
| Montana   |     Board, South Dakota Department of Education and       |
| State     |     cultural affairs, Troops‑to‑Teachers, Mont. Office of |
| Un        |     Public Instruction, Mont. Board of Public Education,  |
| iversity, |     Mont. School Boards Association, Mont. Education      |
| Bozeman-- |     Association‑Mont. Federation of Teachers.             |
| -Northern |                                                           |
| Plains    | -   **Participants:** Midcareer professionals including   |
| T         |     military service members; seeks Native Americans      |
| ransition |     interested in teaching particularly in rural areas.   |
| to        |                                                           |
| Teaching  | -   **Recruitment Methods:** News publicity, aggressive   |
| (NPTT)    |     marketing via local media outlets, NPTT Web site,     |
|           |     attendance at regional conferences, face‑to‑face      |
|           |     meetings, Military News magazine.                     |
|           |                                                           |
|           | -   **Recruitment Focus:** Science, math, English, and    |
|           |     other areas of need in rural schools served.          |
|           |                                                           |
|           | -   **Program Delivery**: Distance education model: all   |
|           |     courses completed online.                             |
|           |                                                           |
|           | -   **Program Requirements:** In total, eight courses, 24 |
|           |     credit hours. Breaks down into 18 credits in course   |
|           |     work (qualifications and internship courses), and six |
|           |     credits of resident teaching internship and six       |
|           |     credit hours of continuing preparation courses.       |
|           |     Participants are eligible for the one‑year mandatory  |
|           |     teaching internship after nine credits are completed. |
|           |                                                           |
|           | -   **How to Ensure "Highly Qualified":** Participants    |
|           |     must pass content test and complete all requirements  |
|           |     for state licensure and certification. NPTT assists   |
|           |     in developing participant's professional portfolio    |
|           |     used to verify eligibility for full licensure.        |
|           |                                                           |
|           | -   **Placement:** NPTT assists by "getting the word out" |
|           |     about eligible cohorts to high need school districts, |
|           |     but ultimately the participants are responsible for   |
|           |     locating vacancies, submitting applications, and      |
|           |     procuring employment.                                 |
+-----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| Montana:  | -   **Induction:** NPTT seeks recommendations from its    |
| Montana   |     partner districts, schools, state departments and the |
| State     |     University Student Teaching Office for master         |
| Un        |     teachers that are fully licensed, have at least five  |
| iversity, |     years of teaching experience, and are familiar with   |
| Bozeman-- |     both the site and subject of participants to act as   |
| -Northern |     mentors. Attempts are made to identify, interview,    |
| Plains    |     and match mentors. However, this is difficult due to  |
| T         |     the small size of the schools and the rural nature of |
| ransition |     the district. Meanwhile, other support is provided    |
| to        |     through online advising. The program is putting in    |
| Teaching  |     place a mentor training component.                    |
| (NPTT)    |                                                           |
| (C        |                                                           |
| ontinued) |                                                           |
+-----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| South     | -   **Partners:** SCSDE, Center for Education             |
| Carolina: |     Recruitment, Retention, and Advancement (CERRA),      |
| South     |     school districts throughout the state of South        |
| Carolina  |     Carolina.                                             |
| State     |                                                           |
| D         | -   **Participants:** Career changers mostly, though      |
| epartment |     recent college graduates may apply if they have at    |
| of        |     least two years of work experience.                   |
| Education |                                                           |
| (SCSDE)   | -   **Recruitment Methods:** Includes information         |
| Program   |     sessions conducted by SCSDE and CERRA in geographic   |
| of        |     areas that have high teacher turnover rates, as well  |
| Al        |     as monthly sessions at the SCSDE; newspaper ads       |
| ternative |     posted in local newspapers in geographic areas that   |
| Cert      |     have high teacher turnover rates; word of mouth;      |
| ification |     SCSDE and CERRA Web site; program brochures;          |
| for       |     partnership with state employment agency.             |
| Educators |                                                           |
| (PACE)    | -   **Recruitment Focus:** Twelve critical subject areas  |
|           |     identified statewide in 2003 and geographic areas     |
|           |     experiencing teacher shortages and high teacher       |
|           |     turnover.                                             |
|           |                                                           |
|           | -   **Program Delivery:** With participants passing       |
|           |     through the program as a cohort, the program content, |
|           |     consisting primarily of SCSDE‑developed instructional |
|           |     modules, is administered simultaneously by SCSDE      |
|           |     instructors at five regional locations throughout the |
|           |     state. The program consists of a preliminary 10‑day   |
|           |     summer (or winter) institute and follow‑up 10‑day     |
|           |     summer institute during the first year and six        |
|           |     Saturday seminars during the first two years. During  |
|           |     the third year, participants also take three graduate |
|           |     courses (pre‑approved by the SCSDE) from any          |
|           |     authorized IHE.                                       |
|           |                                                           |
|           | -   **Admissions Requirements:** PACE is open to any      |
|           |     individual who is seeking to meet South Carolina's    |
|           |     certification requirements and currently holds a      |
|           |     bachelor's degree or above in the content area in     |
|           |     which they wish to teach. They must also have two     |
|           |     years of prior work experience in any field prior to  |
|           |     enrollment.                                           |
|           |                                                           |
|           | -   **Program Requirements:** After application materials |
|           |     are reviewed by certification analysts, applicants    |
|           |     are notified of their PACE qualification area and are |
|           |     then required to pass the appropriate PRAXIS II       |
|           |     content exam. Upon completion of this test,           |
|           |     participants are issued a "statement of eligibility"  |
|           |     which is forwarded to potential school districts, who |
|           |     then hire them after a three‑year commitment is made. |
|           |                                                           |
|           | -   **How to Ensure "Highly Qualified":** Participants    |
|           |     must pass the state exam, Principles of Learning and  |
|           |     Teaching (PLT). They must pass the Praxis II subject  |
|           |     exam before being admitted into the program. All TTT  |
|           |     teachers must complete the regular state evaluation   |
|           |     process (ADEPT) before becoming fully certified.      |
|           |     Assessment is integrated into every phase of PACE     |
|           |     training as participants are tested at each training  |
|           |     session.                                              |
|           |                                                           |
|           | -   **Placement:** To enter the program, participants     |
|           |     must be employed and already placed in a South        |
|           |     Carolina public school district.                      |
|           |                                                           |
|           | -   **Induction:** Induction varies by school district    |
|           |     and is the responsibility of each local district.     |
+-----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| Texas:    | -   **Partners:** University of Texas‑Pan American        |
| Inte      |     (UTPA), Texas State University (TSU), University of   |
| rcultural |     St. Thomas-Houston, University of Texas at            |
| De        |     Brownsville, Austin Independent School District       |
| velopment |     (ISD), Harlingen CISD, Houston ISD, Los Fresnos CISD, |
| Research  |     Brownsville ISD, San Antonio ISD.                     |
| As        |                                                           |
| sociation | -   **Participants:** Midcareer professionals and recent  |
| (IDRA)    |     college graduates, including those with B.A. degrees  |
| Texa      |     from universities outside of the United States.       |
| s‑Teacher |                                                           |
| E         | -   **Recruitment Methods:** Postings on the IDRA Web     |
| xcellence |     site, newspaper announcements, radio and television   |
| for All   |     ads (in both English and Spanish), university         |
| Students  |     recruitment fairs and interest meetings, word of      |
| (T‑TExAS) |     mouth, referrals from Austin and Houston ISD          |
|           |     personnel directors, university faculty advising,     |
|           |     school district recruitment fairs.                    |
|           |                                                           |
|           | -   **Recruitment Focus:** Bilingual and ESL teacher      |
|           |     shortages.                                            |
+-----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| Texas:    | -   **Program Delivery**: Adheres to the "cohort model,"  |
| Inte      |     in which a group of participants enters the program   |
| rcultural |     and completes it together. Course work is completed   |
| De        |     at the IHEs located within the participating school   |
| velopment |     districts, and varies by site.                        |
| Research  |                                                           |
| As        | -   **Admissions Requirements**: Prior to being admitted  |
| sociation |     to the program, applicants must pass the Texas        |
| (IDRA)    |     Academic Skills Program, have satisfactory written    |
| Texa      |     and spoken English and Spanish skills, and have at    |
| s‑Teacher |     least a four‑year college degree. For applicants      |
| E         |     whose degrees were obtained outside the United        |
| xcellence |     States, IDRA reviews all credentials to ensure that   |
| for All   |     they are equivalent to U.S. requirements              |
| Students  |                                                           |
| (T‑TExAS) | -   **Program Requirements:** Applicants must interview   |
| (C        |     with school districts and receive a letter of intent  |
| ontinued) |     to hire prior to starting T‑TExAS training. Actual    |
|           |     course requirements vary by TTT site; however, in     |
|           |     general, program participants must complete the       |
|           |     required course work, professional development        |
|           |     training, platicas (seminars on classroom issues),    |
|           |     required exams, and a mandatory internship teaching   |
|           |     bilingual education or English as a Second Language   |
|           |     (ESL) in high‑need districts.                         |
|           |                                                           |
|           | -   **How to Ensure "Highly Qualified":** All             |
|           |     participants are required to complete course work and |
|           |     must complete the Texas Examination of Educator       |
|           |     Standards, in addition to the content exams.          |
|           |     Spanish‑proficient, foreign‑educated candidates must  |
|           |     pass English‑based exams to be certified.             |
|           |                                                           |
|           | -   **Placement:** Most are hired by districts as part of |
|           |     the IDRA partnership agreement when fully certified,  |
|           |     though placement strategies vary by district.         |
|           |     Candidates are interviewed, hired, and placed through |
|           |     the combined efforts of the school and district, with |
|           |     the district office working to meet the needs of the  |
|           |     principals. While most stay in their internship       |
|           |     schools or districts, some are placed elsewhere.      |
|           |     Across all sites, participants are responsible for    |
|           |     following the school districts' normal hiring         |
|           |     procedures.                                           |
|           |                                                           |
|           | -   **Induction:** Across all sites, support comes from   |
|           |     the university, district, and schools in assisting    |
|           |     first year teachers with mentors. The New Teacher     |
|           |     Support and Mentoring Program, mandated by the state  |
|           |     of Texas, requires districts to provide assistance to |
|           |     all first year teachers. IDRA also offers             |
|           |     supplementary mentors who observe classrooms and      |
|           |     assist with classroom planning or management issues.  |
|           |     IDRA also offers monthly group discussions focused on |
|           |     issues of primary importance to the first year        |
|           |     teachers.                                             |
+-----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| Virginia: | -   **Partners:** Newport News Public Schools (NNPS), Old |
| Newport   |     Dominion University (ODU)                             |
| News      |                                                           |
| Public    | -   **Participants:** Participants in the current TTT     |
| Schools   |     cohorts include career changers, former substitute    |
| (NN       |     teachers, paraprofessionals with classroom            |
| PS)---Old |     experience, recent college graduates, and military    |
| Dominion  |     personnel. The first cohort was certifying in math    |
| U         |     and science; the second cohort was certifying in      |
| niversity |     English, mathematics, social studies, science, and    |
| (ODU)     |     special education and content areas (K--12) with a    |
| Pa        |     master's degree in either literacy or special         |
| rtnership |     education; and the third cohort was certifying in     |
|           |     English, mathematics, social studies, science, and    |
|           |     special education and content areas (pre‑K--12) with  |
|           |     a master's degree in either literacy or special       |
|           |     education.                                            |
|           |                                                           |
|           | -   **Recruitment Methods:** The most successful          |
|           |     recruitment methods used are the Internet and the TTT |
|           |     Web site. Informational flyers are also sent to human |
|           |     resource agencies, state job fairs, NNPS and ODU job  |
|           |     fairs, various other career fairs sponsored by        |
|           |     Troops‑to‑Teachers, and higher education offices      |
|           |     across the state. NNPS and the TTT program also       |
|           |     recruit teachers at the NNPS annual teacher           |
|           |     recruitment fair.                                     |
|           |                                                           |
|           | -   **Recruitment Focus:** High‑need areas (particularly  |
|           |     in math, science, social studies, English, and        |
|           |     special education).                                   |
|           |                                                           |
|           | -   **Program Delivery:** Participants, prior to becoming |
|           |     teachers of record, matriculate through a five‑week   |
|           |     face‑to‑face summer institute.                        |
|           |                                                           |
|           | -   **Admissions Requirements:** Participants must hold a |
|           |     bachelor's degree or higher, have a 2.5 minimum GPA,  |
|           |     and pass the PRAXIS I and II exams.                   |
|           |                                                           |
|           | -   **Program Requirements:** While TTT participants do   |
|           |     not participate in field placements before becoming   |
|           |     teachers of record, they must have a teaching         |
|           |     placement prior to entering the program, and make a   |
|           |     three‑year commitment to NNPS. In the five‑week       |
|           |     summer institute, participants take education course  |
|           |     work in pedagogy, human growth and development,       |
|           |     curriculum and instruction in their content area,     |
|           |     organizing and developing portfolios, and behavior    |
|           |     management techniques for students with disabilities  |
|           |     (for students majoring in special education). TTT     |
|           |     participants then have the option of obtaining a      |
|           |     master's degree in literacy education or a master's   |
|           |     degree in special education.                          |
+-----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| Virginia: | -   **How to Ensure "Highly Qualified":** Participants    |
| Newport   |     must pass the required PRAXIS exams depending on      |
| News      |     their area of specialization. Participants meet with  |
| Public    |     content area specialists during the summer institute. |
| Schools   |     Participants are monitored by the TTT program and     |
| (NN       |     their assigned school‑based and university‑based      |
| PS)---Old |     mentors.                                              |
| Dominion  |                                                           |
| U         | -   **Placement:** Subsequent to completion of the summer |
| niversity |     institute, TTT teachers are required to go through    |
| (ODU)     |     the same placement procedures as other prospective    |
| Pa        |     NNPS teachers. TTT teachers participate in the NNPS   |
| rtnership |     recruitment fair or apply through the human resources |
| (C        |     office. Interested principals call and interview      |
| ontinued) |     teachers they are interested in hiring. TTT teachers  |
|           |     must have a position before they can be admitted to   |
|           |     the TTT program.                                      |
|           |                                                           |
|           | -   **Induction:** First‑year teachers are part of a      |
|           |     mentoring triad with a PathWise mentor (from the      |
|           |     school district) and an ODU university liaison        |
|           |     (partnership coach). TTT participants meet on a       |
|           |     regular basis with content specialists, resource      |
|           |     teachers, and the program coordinator and participate |
|           |     in formal professional development. All three years,  |
|           |     TTT participants have ODU‑TTT support.                |
+-----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+

##### EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

The TTT program evaluation merges data from three main sources to
provide a comprehensive analysis of the TTT program that addresses the
key evaluation topics and describes the elements in the TTT framework:
an online Annual Performance Report, a TTT teacher survey and case
studies of eight TTT grantees. Interim reports submitted by grantees in
2005 were informative regarding project objectives, progress made
through the third project year towards accomplishing these objectives,
and challenges related to each project component.

*Evaluation Topics:* To guide the evaluation, the U.S. Department of
Education (ED) identified two levels of inquiry: the project level and
the participant level. ED initially posed evaluation questions to guide
the evaluation design and data collection; in preparation for this
report and the final analyses of data, AIR, with further guidance and
recommendations from ED, refined the original questions and organized
them within three evaluation topics: (1) the features of TTT projects;
(2) the characteristics and experiences of TTT participants; and (3) the
relationship between participant characteristics and project features.

Annual Performance Report

AIR developed an online performance reporting system for TTT grantees
called the APR that was used by ED to document grantee progress toward
the TTT program's goals of recruiting/selecting,
training/preparing/placing, and supporting/retaining highly qualified
teachers in high‑need LEAs across the country. The APR was focused on
the third project year of the FY 2002 projects and was administered to
and completed by all TTT project directors. Most of the APR items
addressed project characteristics, however, a number of items were
focused on the participants who were engaged in project activities and
those who were teaching in the current project year. Project directors
had an opportunity to enter data online for the full year, completing
and finalizing their entries in October 2005.

Once collected, APR data were analyzed in several ways. APR data were
broken down into groups of grantees as defined by the grant recipient,
the scope, and the three different types of TTT participants
(paraprofessionals, recent college graduates and midcareer
professionals). Qualitative data and lessons learned submitted through
the APR were examined to extract examples and challenges in meeting the
program and grantee goals.

TTT Teacher Survey

The TTT Teacher Survey was the second main data collection instrument
developed for the evaluation. It provided information from the
perspective of the teachers of record placed in high‑need schools in
high‑need districts as a result of participation in a TTT project. The
survey was developed to complement and put into context the data
collected from the APR instrument by exploring the perceptions of TTT
program participants concerning the effectiveness of recruiting efforts,
the adequacy of the preparation they received prior to teaching, the
helpfulness of the support they received after they became teachers of
record, the importance of program retention strategies on their decision
to remain in the field, and their satisfaction with the process of
earning certification. The survey also included questions about teacher
preparation experiences and instructional activities. Finally, the TTT
teacher survey included a limited number of items drawn from the Schools
and Staffing Survey (SASS), a national survey of teachers conducted most
recently during the\
2003--04 school year.

Similar to the development of the APR instrument, the TTT teacher survey
items were designed to link to the evaluation questions and to the
programmatic goals of the TTT program. The survey analysis compared and
contrasted the experiences of participants according to their target
group (paraprofessionals, recent college graduates, or midcareer
professionals) and the extent of support provided prior to their
becoming teachers of record.

Due to the large number of participants who had become teachers of
record through TTT over the first three years (5,284 were originally
documented for us by the FY 2002 grantees) the evaluation team drew a
sample, using a sampling plan that allowed the team to sufficiently
address the evaluation questions while minimizing the burden on
respondents. More detail about the sampling approach, the response rates
by grantee, and the condition of the sample is provided in Appendix B.

Case Studies

Given the complexity of the TTT program, which involves individual TTT
projects that range in scope, geographical reach (single district to
multiple states), design, and organization and that operate within a
variety of local contexts, an evaluation relying solely on
administrative reports and a survey of participant perceptions would be
incomplete. To obtain enhanced views of the organization,
implementation, and outcomes of the alternative approaches to preparing
highly qualified teachers, this evaluation included two‑day site visits
to each of eight TTT projects. The eight sites were selected based on
recommendations from the TTT program office. While on site, AIR
researchers conducted interviews and focus groups with project
directors, representatives from key partners, faculty and participants
using protocols that were developed to address the key evaluation
questions.

AIR visited the following eight TTT grantees in fall 2004 and winter of
2005 during the third year of the grant implementation:

1\. Maryland State Department of Education

2\. Green River Regional Education Cooperative (Kentucky)

3\. Baldwin Park Unified School District (California)

4\. Orange County Public Schools (Florida)

5\. Intercultural Development Research Association (Texas)

6\. South Carolina State Department of Education

7\. Montana State University, Bozeman

8\. Newport News Public Schools‑Old Dominion University (Virginia)

The data collected from these site visits were used as an important
source for refining research questions and informing tabulations of
quantitative data, and they serve as a source of complementary data on
practices in different TTT sites.[^19] An overview of findings from
these eight sites is included in Appendix C.

Interim Reports

The FY 2002 grantees submitted an interim report with accompanying
evaluation reports and budget summaries at the end of the third year of
funding. A standardized form was used to cull grantee objectives from
these reports along with reported progress on each objective, and
challenges identified by grantees in each component of the project.

Schools and Staffing Survey 2003--04

The Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), conducted most recently during
the\
2003--04 school year, is given to a nationwide random sampling of
teachers. It asks a wide range of questions, including questions
relating to teachers' background, teaching experiences, and opinions.
The participants of this survey can be broken down into traditional
route teachers, or those who received a conventional college‑level
teacher's degree, and alternative route teachers, those who became
teachers through different routes.

In this report, we compared four SASS variables to essentially congruent
variables from the Annual Performance Report (APR) and Participant
Survey. Specifically, we compared the racial breakdown of teachers,
preparation for teaching challenges, future career plans, and experience
with mentoring. In all cases where comparisons to SASS were made, we
tested the results of both traditional and alternative route teachers
for significance against our own corresponding survey items. At times we
made thorough comparisons between SASS and our own data, though
sometimes SASS data is merely referenced as being similar to our own.

[^1]: A "high‑need" local education agency (LEA) is defined as an LEA:
    that serves not fewer than 10,000 children from families with
    incomes below the poverty line; for which not less than 20 percent
    of the children served by the agency are from families below the
    poverty line; and for which there is a high percentage of teachers
    not teaching in the academic subjects that the teachers were trained
    to teach; or for which there is a high percentage of teachers with
    emergency, provisional, or temporary certificates or licensing.

    A "high‑need" school is defined as a school which is: located in an
    area in which the percentage of students from families with incomes
    below the poverty line is 30 percent or more; or located in an area
    with a high percentage of out‑of‑field teachers; within the top
    quartile of elementary schools and secondary schools statewide, as
    rated by the number of unfilled, available teacher positions at the
    schools; located in an area in which there is a high teacher
    turnover rate; or located in an area in which there is a high
    percentage of teachers who are not certified. Accessed on Oct. 23,
    2006 from the Web at
    http://www.teach‑now.org/Federal_Section/Transitions‑to‑Teaching/TTT_e.asp.

[^2]: Eligible applicants for TTT awards are: a state education agency
    (SEA); a high‑need LEA; a for‑profit or nonprofit organization that
    has a proven record of effectively recruiting and retaining highly
    qualified teachers, in a partnership with a high‑need LEA or an SEA;
    an institution of higher education (IHE) in a partnership with a
    high‑need LEA or an SEA; a regional consortium of SEAs; or a
    consortium of high‑need LEAs.

[^3]: The Department uses these definitions for projects of different
    scope: national or regional projects that serve eligible high‑need
    LEAs in more than one state; statewide projects that serve eligible
    high‑need LEAs statewide or eligible high‑need LEAs in more than one
    area of a state; and local projects that serve one eligible
    high‑need LEA or two or more eligible high‑need LEAs in a single
    area of a state.

[^4]: A "high‑need" LEA is defined as an LEA that serves not fewer than
    10,000 children from families with incomes below the poverty line;
    for which not less than 20 percent of the children served by the
    agency are from families below the poverty line; and for which there
    is a high percentage of teachers not teaching in the academic
    subjects that the teachers were trained to teach; or for which there
    is a high percentage of teachers with emergency, provisional, or
    temporary certification or licensing.

    A "high‑need" school is defined as a school which is located in an
    area in which the percentage of students from families with incomes
    below the poverty line is 30 percent or more; or located in an area
    with a high percentage of out‑of‑field teachers; within the top
    quartile of elementary schools and secondary schools statewide, as
    rated by the number of unfilled, available teacher positions at the
    schools; located in an area in which there is a high teacher
    turnover rate; or located in an area in which there is a high
    percentage of teachers who are not certified. Accessed on Oct. 23,
    2006 from the Web at
    http://www.teacher‑now.org/Federal_Section/Transitions‑to‑Teaching/TTT_e.asp.

[^5]: When the evaluation began, there were 94 grantees in the survey
    population. However, two grants were removed from the data file
    prior to data analysis when their grant status changed.

[^6]: Appendix D contains a description of the evaluation methodology
    and the evaluation questions.

[^7]: AIR visited the following eight TTT grantees in fall 2004 and
    winter of 2005 during the third year of the grant implementation:

    > 1\. Maryland State Department of Education Project MARCO
    >
    > 2\. Green River Regional Education Cooperative (Kentucky) Project
    > GRREC
    >
    > 3\. Baldwin Park Unified School District (California)
    > BPUSD---Project ACE
    >
    > 4\. Orange County Public Schools (Florida) Project---ACP
    >
    > 5\. Intercultural Development Research Association (Texas)
    > Project---T-TExAS
    >
    > 6\. South Carolina State Department of Education Project---PACE
    >
    > 7\. Montana State University, Bozeman Northern Plains Transition
    > to Teaching (NPTT)
    >
    > 8\. Newport News Public Schools (Virginia) NNPS/ODU Partnership

[^8]: Eligible applicants for TTT awards are an SEA; a high‑need LEA; a
    for‑profit or nonprofit organization that has a proven record of
    effectively recruiting and retaining highly qualified teachers, in a
    partnership with a high‑need LEA or an SEA; an institution of higher
    education (IHE) in a partnership with a high‑need LEA or an SEA; a
    regional consortium of SEAs; or a consortium of high‑need LEAs.

[^9]: For the APR, grantees indicated the "type" of project as local,
    state or regional or national. This report also refers to this as
    "scope," meaning the geographic reach of TTT in terms of the
    potential impact on LEAs, whether in the local area, in multiple
    areas of a state, or across the region or country. The ED categories
    for scope are: national or regional projects that serve eligible
    high‑need LEAs in more than one state; statewide projects that serve
    eligible high‑need LEAs statewide or eligible high‑need LEAs in more
    than one area of a state; and local projects that serve one eligible
    high‑need LEA or two or more eligible high‑need LEAs in a single
    area of a state.

[^10]: See <http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/RuralEd/definitions.asp> for
    detailed codes.

[^11]: The online APR was used to gather data up to May 2005 of the
    third project year. Project directors updated their information in
    September 2005 and many had not completed expending funds for
    scholarships and salaries.

[^12]: Occupations were collapsed into six variables. The "other"
    category consists of retired, unemployed, and other unspecified
    occupations. K--12 school staff includes both instructional and
    noninstructional staff. Service occupations include protective,
    food, and personal care services, per the U.S. Department of Labor
    categorization. Service occupations also include production, craft
    or repair, health‑related technicians, and technician or research
    assistants. Professional occupations include scientist,
    mathematician, engineer, lawyer or other legal professions,
    technology sector occupations, nonprofits, human resources, social
    worker or counselor, and health‑field worker. The "unknown" variable
    refers to participants whose prior occupation was not known by
    grantees.

[^13]: This instrument was developed by Martin Haberman to assist
    alternate route projects to select applicants. More information can
    be found at
    <http://www.habermanfoundation.org/newsletter/fall_2003.pdf>,
    obtained on\
    June 12, 2006.

[^14]: The portfolio pathway is the approach used by this TTT project to
    document the ways in which participants have met the state's
    certification requirements. A portfolio consists of evidence of
    satisfactory completion of courses, projects, and professional
    development according to a set of standard categories of skill and
    knowledge.

[^15]: Six factors were: academic course record, GPA, oral skills,
    interview, written skills and prior major or field.

[^16]: When eligible participants were rostered for the TTT teacher
    survey, the total was under 5,000 (see Appendix B). The discrepancy
    between the list of eligible TTT teachers provided for the survey
    (those hired to teach between 2002 and 2004) and these figures is
    likely due to (1) the APR item format, (2) estimation for the APR
    versus use of roster for the sample, and (3) loss of participants by
    2004.

[^17]: ^^ These categories and definitions are taken from the U.S.
    Census Bureau.

[^18]: These case studies were conducted between fall 2004 and spring
    2005 to coincide with the collection of data on the online APR for
    the third project year. Before publication on the AIR Web site, the
    case study descriptions were reviewed by the respective project
    directors. Since the publication there have been no further updates
    gathered from these sites, other than informally through
    conversations with the project directors.

[^19]: The case study report can be found on the AIR Web site at
    http://www.air.org/publications/pubs_ehd_higher_ed.aspx.