**A Summary of Highly Qualified Teacher Data**

**May 2008**

The *No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)* called for all core subject
classes to be taught by highly qualified teachers (HQTs) by the end of
the 2005-06 school year. To measure progress in meeting the HQT goal,
the U.S. Department of Education (ED) collects State-level data on the
teacher quality provisions of *NCLB*[^1] through the Consolidated State
Performance Reports (CSPR).[^2]

Ninety-four percent of core academic classes in our nation's public
schools were staffed by a highly qualified teacher during school year
2006-07 (Exhibit 1). A higher proportion of core academic classes were
taught by HQTs in elementary schools (96 percent) than in secondary
schools (93 percent). Classes in high-poverty schools were less likely
to be staffed by a highly qualified teacher than were classes in
low-poverty schools. At the elementary level, 97 percent of core
academic classes in low-poverty schools were taught by HQTs, compared to
94 percent of classes in high-poverty schools. The gap was even greater
at the secondary level, with 95 percent of classes in low-poverty
schools taught by HQTs compared to 89 percent of classes in high-poverty
schools.

The percentage of core academic classes taught by HQTs has been
increasing since 2003-04. In 2006-07, 94 percent of all core academic
classes were taught by a highly qualified teacher---an increase of more
than 7 percentage points from 2003-04. While there has been progress
toward the goal of all teachers being highly qualified by 2005-06,
growth was slightly slower from school year 2005-06 (92 percent) to
school year 2006-07 (94 percent) than from the school year 2003-04
baseline (87 percent).

![](media/image1.wmf){width="5.995138888888889in"
height="5.416666666666667in"}

**Highlights from the 2006-07 Highly Qualified Teacher Data**

-   In 2006-07, the percentage of classes taught by HQTs for all schools
    ranged from 57 percent (District of Columbia) to 100 percent (North
    Dakota). Thirty-three States (63 percent) reported rates of 95
    percent or greater.[^3] Over 80 percent of States reported that 90
    percent or more of core academic classes were taught by HQTs (42
    States).

-   Iowa, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire and New Jersey reported that
    99 percent of core academic classes were taught by HQTs.

-   Five states increased their percentage of classes taught by HQTs by
    more than 10 percentage points from 2005-06 to 2006-07 (Alaska,
    Arkansas, Delaware, Idaho and Rhode Island).

-   Six states experienced a decrease in their percentage of classes
    taught by HQTs from 2005-06 to 2006-07, ranging from a decrease of
    0.5 to 16 percentage points (Hawaii, Kansas, Oregon, Utah, West
    Virginia and Wisconsin).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Of the 50 States that reported data on the percentage of core
    academic classes taught by HQTs for all schools in 2003-04 and
    2006-07, 34 reported an overall increase in the percentage, and 15
    reported a decrease. One state reported no change.

-   The increase from 2003-04 to 2006-07 in the percentage of classes
    taught by HQTs ranged from over 68 percentage points in Alaska to
    0.6 percentage points in Montana.

-   From 2003-04 to 2006-07, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana and West
    Virginia reported a decrease of 5 percentage points or more in the
    percentage of classes taught by HQTs.

-   From 2003-04 to 2006-07, four States---Connecticut, Georgia,
    Pennsylvania and Washington---reported decreases of 1 point or less
    in the percentage of classes taught by HQTs.

**Differences in HQT Percentages in High- and Low-Poverty Schools**

-   A larger percentage of classes are taught by HQTs in low-poverty
    schools than in their high-poverty counterparts---96 percent versus
    91 percent.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   In the majority of States (48 for secondary and 38 for
    elementary),[^4] high-poverty schools were less likely to have
    classes taught by HQTs than low-poverty schools.

-   In high-poverty schools, the percentage of classes taught by HQTs
    ranged from 100 percent (North Dakota) to 66 percent (Maryland) for
    elementary and from 100 percent (North Dakota) to 56 percent
    (District of Columbia) for secondary.

-   In low-poverty schools, the percentage of classes taught by HQTs
    ranged from 68 percent (Alaska) to 100 percent (North Dakota) in
    elementary classes and from 57 percent (District of Columbia) to 100
    percent (North Dakota) in secondary classes.

-   The gap between high-poverty and low-poverty schools was greatest in
    Maryland (66 percent in high-poverty elementary schools compared to
    95 percent in low-poverty elementary schools; 63 percent in
    high-poverty secondary schools compared to 89 percent in low-poverty
    secondary schools).

-   The gaps between high-poverty and low-poverty schools are generally
    wider at the secondary than at the elementary level. Eighteen States
    had a gap of 1 percentage point or less between high- and
    low-poverty schools at the elementary level, but only six States had
    a gap this small at the secondary level (Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan,
    Montana, New Hampshire and North Dakota).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Seven States (Alaska, Florida, Indiana, Nebraska, Oregon, South
    Dakota and Utah) and the District of Columbia reported a greater
    percentage of classes in high-poverty schools taught by HQTs than in
    their low-poverty schools at the elementary level.

-   At the secondary level, Florida and Idaho reported that the
    percentage of core academic classes taught by HQTs was higher in
    high-poverty schools than in low-poverty schools.

-   Five states eliminated the gap at the elementary level (Colorado,
    Idaho, Iowa, Montana and North Dakota). Only North Dakota eliminated
    the gap at the secondary level.

**Most Commonly Reported Reasons for Classes That Were Not Taught by a
Highly Qualified Teacher**[^5]

**Of those elementary teachers who are not highly qualified---**

-   Twenty-six states reported that most of their elementary classes
    taught by non-HQTs were taught by certified general education
    teachers who had not pass a subject-knowledge test or who had not
    demonstrated subject-matter competency through HOUSSE. The
    percentage of non-HQT elementary classes taught by these teachers
    ranged from 41 percent in New Mexico to 99 percent in Arkansas.

-   Fifteen states reported that most of their elementary classes taught
    by non-HQTs were taught by teachers who were not fully certified and
    were not in an approved alternative route program. The percentage of
    non-HQT elementary classes taught by these teachers ranged from 35
    percent in West Virginia to 94 percent in New York.

-   Kentucky, Minnesota, Nebraska and Rhode Island reported that the
    majority of their elementary classes that were taught by non-HQTs
    were taught by certified special education teachers who had not
    passed a subject-knowledge test or who had not demonstrated
    subject-matter competency through HOUSSE.

-   Iowa reported that all of its elementary classes that were taught by
    non-HQTs were classes taught by certified teachers who were working
    toward an additional endorsement in an area in which they have a
    teaching assignment.

-   Nine States reported that in none of the cases where an elementary
    class was taught by a teacher who was not highly qualified was the
    teacher's status the result of lack of certification.

**Of those secondary teachers who are not highly qualified---**

-   Thirty-two states reported that most of their secondary classes
    taught by non-HQTs were taught by certified general education
    teachers who had not demonstrated subject-matter knowledge in those
    subjects. The majority of these States (25) reported that 50 percent
    or more of the secondary classes that were taught by non-HQTs were
    taught by these teachers.

-   Eleven states reported that most of their secondary classes taught
    by non-HQTs were taught by teachers who were not fully certified and
    were not in an approved alternative route program. The percentage of
    non-HQT secondary classes taught by these teachers ranged from 39
    percent in Texas to 94 percent in New York.

-   Kentucky, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island indicated that the
    majority of the secondary classes taught by teachers who were not
    highly qualified were taught by certified special education teachers
    who had not demonstrated subject-matter competency in those
    subjects.

-   Iowa reported that all of its secondary classes that were taught by
    non-HQTs were classes taught by certified teachers who were working
    toward an additional endorsement in an area in which they have a
    teaching assignment.

-   Ten States reported that in none of the cases where a secondary
    class was taught by a teacher who was not highly qualified was the
    teacher's status the result of lack of certification.

[^1]: The statutory reporting requirements can be found in
    §1111(h)(4)(G); §9101(23) *ESEA*.

[^2]: CSPR data were collected for the first time for the 2002-03 school
    year. Because several states reported that they did not have the
    mechanisms to accurately report these data the first year, the
    2002-03 data have been excluded from this analysis. The 2003-04 data
    will serve as the baseline for this issue brief.

[^3]: The 50 states, the District of Columbia and the Bureau of Indian
    Affairs submitted data. Puerto Rico did not submit data and is not
    included in these analyses.

[^4]: *N*=51 states; Bureau of Indian Affairs does not have any schools
    classified low poverty and is not included in this analysis.

[^5]: The Bureau of Indian Affairs, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Puerto
    Rico did not provide these data and are not included in this
    analysis.