Archived Information

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  ![](media/image1.jpeg)[Planning and Evaluation Service]{.smallcaps}

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

#### 

### 

# Literature Review on Teacher Recruitment Programs

## Prepared for:

### 

## U. S. Department of Education

## Planning and Evaluation Service

Washington, D.C.

Prepared by:

## The Urban Institute

Washington, D.C.

######## September 2000

![](media/image2.png){width="1.2361111111111112in" height="1.25in"}

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  [U.S. Department of Education \~ Office of the Under
  Secretary]{.smallcaps}

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

# Literature Review on Teacher Recruitment Programs

## Prepared for:

### 

## U. S. Department of Education

## Planning and Evaluation Service

Washington, D.C.

Prepared by:

Beatriz Chu Clewell

Katherine Darke

Thenoa Davis-Googe

Laurie Forcier

Sarah Manes

## The Urban Institute

Washington, D.C.

######## September 2000

This report was prepared for the U. S. Department of Education under
Contract No. EA 94053001. The views expressed herein are those of the
contractor. No official endorsement by the U. S. Department of Education
is intended or should be inferred.

**U. S. Department of Education**

Richard W. Riley

*Secretary*

**Office of the Under Secretary**

Judith A. Winston

*Under Secretary* (A)

**Planning and Evaluation Service**

Alan L. Ginsburg

*Director*

**Postsecondary, Adult, and Vocational Education Division**

David Goodwin

*Director*

September 2000

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 citation should be: U. S. Department
of Education, Office of the Under Secretary, Planning and Evaluation
Service, Postsecondary, Adult, and Vocational Education Division,
*Literature Review on Teacher Recruitment Programs*, Washington, D.C.,
2000.

To order copies of this report, write:

ED Pubs

Education Publications Center

U. S. Department of Education

P. O. Box 1398

Jessup, MD 20794-1398;

via fax, dial (301) 470-1244;

or via electronic mail, send your request to:

<edpubs@inet.ed.gov>.

You may also call toll-free: 1-877-433-7827 (1-877-4-ED-PUBS). If 877
service is not yet available in your area, call 1-800-872-5327
(1-800-USA-LEARN); Those who use a telecommunications device for the
deaf (TDD) or a teletypewriter (TTY), should call 1-800-437-0833.

To order online, point your Internet browser to:
[www.ed.gov/pubs/edpubs.html](http://www.ed.gov/pubs/edpubs.html).

This report is also available on the Department's Web site at:
www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/eval/.

On request, this publication is available in alternative formats, such
as Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette. For more
information, please contact the Department\'s Alternate Format Center
(202) 260-9895 or (202) 205-8113.

###### ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The Urban Institute staff working on the Literature Review on Teacher
Recruitment Programs wishes to thank a number of individuals who
contributed to the research process and to this review.

First, our thanks to Stacy Kotzin and Liz Eisner at the Planning and
Evaluation Service of the U.S. Department of Education who supported
creation and review of this document.

Second, several men and women provided essential information on the
programs, research and evaluation mentioned in this literature review:

-   John Gantz---Troops to Teachers Program

-   Janice Poda---South Carolina Center for Teacher Recruitment

-   Barnett Berry---University of South Carolina

-   John Poteat---Public School Forum

-   Elissa Clapp---Teach for America

-   William Luna---National Education Association

-   Abigail Hughes---Connecticut Board of Education

-   Donald Yarbrough---University of Iowa

-   Richard Ingersoll---University of Georgia

-   Anna Maria Villegas---Montclair State University

-   Michael Allen---Education Commission of the States

-   Willis Hawley---University of Maryland, College Park

-   Jacel Morgan---Houston Independent School District

-   Dan Humphrey---SRI, International

**Contents**

List of Tables, Figures and Examples
.............................................. ......vii

Chapter 1
Introduction.....................................................................\...1

Purpose, Scope, and Organization of the Literature
Review..................\...1

Teacher Supply and Demand: A Brief
Overview.................................3

> Recent Trends in Teacher Supply and Demand..........................3
>
> Meeting the Need for New Teachers: Policy Options ..................5

Chapter 2 Teacher Recruitment
Programs..................................................7

Sources of Newly Hired
Teachers................................................\...7

> Career Paths of Newly Hired
> Teachers.................................\...8
>
> Transfers from Nonteaching and Out-of-Education Fields.............9

Implications for Teacher Recruitment
Strategies..............................\...10

Teacher Recruitment in the Higher Education Act: Goals and
Strategy......13

Chapter 3 State and Local Efforts in Teacher
Recruitment\..............................16

######### Teacher Recruitment from a State Perspective: An Overview................. 16

> Description of State Recruitment Programs ............................
> 17
>
> Description of State Recruitment
> Policies...............\................. 25
>
> State Program Outcomes and Outcome Measurement................. 25
>
> Intermediate
> Outcomes..................................................... 32
>
> Longer-Term
> Outcomes.................................................... 32
>
> Data Systems Accessed by State Recruitment Programs............\...33
>
> Evaluation
> Methods.................................\........................ 34

Chapter 4 Effective Elements of State Recruitment
Efforts............................ 37

Effective State Leadership and Partnership
Structures.......................... 37

Effective Strategies for Recruitment and
Selection.....................\......... 39

Effective Support
Services.......................................................... 39

Effective Preservice Education
Strategies...............\.......................... 40

Effective Teacher Induction
Practices........................\..................... 41

Effective Dissemination and Institutionalization
Practices...\.................. 41

Chapter 5 Teacher Recruitment from a Local Perspective: An
Overview...\......... 43

Description of National Initiatives and Individual
Programs...\................ 43

Local Program Outcomes and Outcome
Measurement...............\........... 52

Intermediate and Long-Term Outcomes of Local Recruitment Programs... 57

**Contents (cont'd.)**

Data Systems Developed or Used in Evaluation of Local Programs..........
59

Evaluation
Methods\..................................................................
60

Chapter 6 Effective Elements of Local Recruitment
Programs........................ 63

> Effective Local Partnership
> Structures................................... 63
>
> Effective Recruitment and Selection
> Strategies......................... 64
>
> Effective Support
> Services................................................. 65
>
> Effective Preservice Education and Academic Preparation........... 67
>
> Effective Teacher Induction
> Practices.....................\............... 67
>
> Effective Dissemination and Institutionalization
> Practices......\...... 68

Comparison of State and Local Recruitment
Efforts............................ 68

Chapter 7 Implications for Evaluation of Teacher Recruitment
Programs...\......... 71

Quality of Research and
Data..............................\......................... 71

Key Issues to Address in Evaluating Teacher Recruitment Efforts and
Recommendations to
PES........................................................... 71

> Program Goals and Outcome Measures..................................
> 71
>
> Collection of Quantitative
> Data........................................... 73
>
> Use of Qualitative
> Data..................................................... 73
>
> Evaluation
> Design........................................................... 74

Chapter 8 Meeting the Need for Teachers: Implications of Findings for
Teacher

> Supply......\.........................................................................76

What Do the Findings Tell
Us?.................................................... 76

What Implications Can Be Drawn from these
Findings?....................... 76

References......................................................................................
80

Supplemental Statistical Reference
List........................................... 87

APPENDIX A: LIST OF INTERNET RESOURCES..................................
88

APPENDIX B: OUTCOME DATA AND PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS

> FOR STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAM EXAMPLES............... 93

**Contents (cont'd.)**

**Tables**

Table 1. Percentage Distributions of Newly Hired Public

> School Teachers by Supply Source: 1987-88 and 1990-91............ 8

Table 2A. Strategies for Recruiting Teachers by Duration Supply

> Source: Newly Prepared
> Teachers........................\................ 11

Table 2B. Strategies for Recruiting Teachers by Fast Track (0-2 years)

> Supply Sources: Delayed Entrants, Transfers and Reentrants........ 12

Table 3. State Recruitment
Programs............................................... 19

Table 4. Evaluations of State Recruitment
Programs......................... 27-31

Table 5. Nationally Coordinated and Locally Implemented
Initiatives......... 44

Table 6. Descriptions of the Types of Efforts in Local
Recruitment........... 46

Table 7. Evaluations of Local Recruitment
Programs.........................53-56

**Figure**

Figure 1. Comprehensive Plan for Teacher
Recruitment.......................... 79

**Examples**

Examples of State Recruitment
Programs................................................. 20

Example 1. Middle School Recruitment
Program............................... 20

Example 2. High School Recruitment
Program.................................. 21

Example 3. High School Recruitment
Program.................................. 22

Example 4. Minority Recruitment
Program....................................... 23

Example 5. Mid-career Transition
Program...................................... 24

Examples of Local Recruitment
Programs................................................. 47

Example 1. Pre-College Recruitment
Program................................... 47

Example 2. Four- and Five- Year University--Based
Program................. 48

Example 3. Community College Articulation
Program..................\........ 49

Example 4. Paraprofessional Career Ladder
Program........................... 50

Example 5. Alternative Preparation
Program..................................... 51

**Chapter 1: Introduction**

The prospect of a teacher shortage of large proportions has received
increasing attention from national, state, and local policymakers in
recent years. Demographics of the teaching population, student
enrollments, and state mandates to reduce class size and increase
instruction time have challenged state and local education authorities
to ensure that well-qualified, properly credentialed educators are
available in every classroom. The concern will not likely abate in the
near future, because the pressures that strain local supply and demand
of teachers will increase as a large proportion of the current teaching
force ages and retires in the first few decades of the twenty-first
century.

States and localities have a range of options in addressing teacher
shortages, among them programmatic and policy alternatives which are
included under the broad heading "teacher recruitment programs." The
efficiency and effectiveness of teacher recruitment programs enacted at
state and local levels will determine whether the nation's pressing need
for qualified teachers in critical geographic areas and subject areas is
met. That success depends on identifying and tapping into sources of
potential teachers, identifying critical outcomes for recruitment
programs, and implementing interventions designed to meet those specific
goals. Data collection to measure the effectiveness with which the goals
are met will also be important in determining whether policies and
programs work.

Purpose, Scope, and Organization of the Literature Review

This literature review is part of a multi-year evaluation of the Higher
Education Act's Title II programs to recruit teachers. This synthesis
will help the U.S. Department of Education focus on the key research
questions that provide the background for the evaluation. The second
purpose of the review is to create a reference tool for administrators
and grantees of the Title II teacher recruitment programs.[^1] By
highlighting the strengths of similar programs, the literature review
will provide examples of effective models, strategies, and policies.

In the course of the review the electronic archives of the Educational
Resources Information Center (ERIC) and Social Science Abstract were
searched for relevant literature published between 1989-1999. Search
topics included "teacher shortage," "teacher recruitment," and "teacher
supply and demand." An Internet search on the same topics was conducted,
and data from the U. S. Department of Education, the National Center for
Education Statistics, and the National Center for Education Information
was collected. As a result of this process, the authors obtained and
reviewed approximately 228 books, chapters, published articles and
unpublished manuscripts.

Failing to locate more than a few evaluations of teacher recruitment
programs through this method, staff at the Urban Institute contacted
several researchers and centers on research on teacher education to
identify sources of information on teacher recruitment programs,
especially evaluations of programs. This additional search turned up a
number of unpublished evaluation reports as well as reports and
manuscripts in preparation or draft form on teacher recruitment.[^2]

To be included in the review, each of the evaluations had to include at
least minimal information about the type of program, project goals and
intended outcomes, data collection methods, and analytic techniques.
Information about outcomes, data systems, and evaluation methods were
extracted from each of the eight evaluations that were identified for
review. Not all of the programs had discrete evaluation documents. In
some cases, evaluation information was gleaned from other, more
descriptive documents, sometimes from multiple sources. Table 4
describes the evaluations of state recruitment programs.

This report begins with background information about teacher supply and
demand from 1980 to the present. The portions of the Higher Education
Amendments of 1998 (P.L. 105-244) pertaining to teacher recruitment are
summarized to lend current context to the review. Subsequent sections
address state recruitment programs and local recruitment programs,
focusing on intermediate and long-term outcomes, data systems used by
programs, and program evaluation methods. From all the literature
reviewed, a collection of 19 program evaluations were identified (eight
of state programs, 11 of local programs).

From these evaluations we synthesize information about effective
recruitment strategies, including program recruitment and selection
strategies, support services, preservice education, teacher induction
practices, and dissemination and institutionalization practices. Based
on this extensive compilation of information about the practices of
state and local programs, we compare the two kinds of programs.
Implications for the evaluation of state and local programs are
presented, concentrating on the quality of available research and data,
key issues to address in evaluating recruitment efforts, and
recommendations to the Department of Education's Planning and Evaluation
Service (PES). The final section of the review addresses the
implications of the review findings in meeting the need for teachers.

Teacher Supply and Demand: A Brief Overview

It is difficult to discuss teacher recruitment without considering
issues of the supply and demand. How many teachers are needed for the
nation\'s classrooms and where they will come from are questions that
are closely related. Additionally, the issue of teacher quality is
inextricably linked to recruitment, for in recruiting teachers we wish
to attract individuals who are well-prepared, effective, and who will
remain in the teaching profession long enough to make a difference.

Teacher demand is determined by the number of teaching positions funded
by local education agencies (LEAs). The main factors affecting this
demand in a given year are the number of students enrolled in public
schools, policies relating to teacher-pupil ratios and curriculum, the
number of teachers currently employed, the funding capacity of LEAs,
teacher salaries, and teacher turnover. Notions of aggregate demand,
however, are not sufficient to describe the dynamics of teacher demand
or to design policies to ensure an adequate supply of teachers. To
understand this situation, total demand must be broken down by teaching
assignment, geographic distribution of teaching positions, and other
factors (Boe and Gilford, 1991; Darling-Hammond, Berry, Haselkorn, and
Fideler, 1999).

Teacher supply can be defined as the number of eligible individuals
available from all sources who are willing to supply their services. The
main factors in determining the availability of qualified individuals
willing to teach are the availability of teaching positions relative to
positions in other occupations, teacher salaries relative to those in
competing occupations, and working conditions in teaching compared to
conditions in other occupations. As with aggregate data on teacher
demand, aggregate information about the size of the teaching work force
is not useful in understanding issues of teacher supply. Information is
also needed about various sources of supply of potential teachers as
well as about the composition and distribution of the teaching force
(Boe and Gilford, 1991). This type of information could then be compared
to information about teacher demand in order to estimate the degree to
which demand is being met by qualified individuals and to determine the
sources of teachers that might be manipulated by policy to provide a
more adequate supply. Darling-Hammond and her colleagues (1999) point
out that the issue of supply in teaching "is not one of bodies, since
most states are willing to lower standards to fill classrooms, but one
of quality" (p. 187).

Recent Trends in Teacher Supply and Demand

In recent decades, there has been little or no shortage of teachers
available to fill open positions at the national level; in fact, the
supply of teachers has exceeded demand (Boe and Gilford, 1991;
Rollefson, 1992). Contrary to expectations in the 1980s and 1990s, a
predicted shortfall in the teaching force did not materialize due to
lower than anticipated attrition rates, slower retirement rates, and
other factors. In the early 1980s attrition rates for public school
teachers had been estimated at 8 percent but were actually much lower.
For example, the annual teacher attrition from 1987-88 to 1988-89 was
5.6 percent for the nation (Whitener, et al., 1997). And although the
average age of the teaching force has been gradually increasing, more
teachers are retiring at a later age. This slower retirement rate has,
in addition to other factors, slowed the demand for new teachers. As a
consequence, the National Research Council predicts that large numbers
of teachers will retire during the 2000-2010 period rather than during
the 1990s (Boe and Gilford, 1991).

These aggregate figures on teacher supply and demand, however, mask
problems of distribution and composition in the teaching force that are
highlighted by the disaggregated data. For example, there are shortages
of teachers in certain areas, such as poor, urban, and high minority
enrollment schools (Ingersoll and Bobbitt, 1995; Eubanks, 1996) and in
subjects such as mathematics and science (Gilford and Tenenbaum, 1990;
Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy, 1986) and in teaching
fields such as bilingual and special education (Schmidt, 1992). Reasons
for these shortages range from higher turnover rates and reluctance of
teachers to take jobs in poor, inner city schools to low numbers of
teachers being produced in specific specialty areas (Jones and Sandidge,
1997; Adams and Dial, 1993; Ingersoll, 1999).

Then, there is the issue of the demographic composition of the teaching
pool. Currently, the great majority of teachers come from the lower
middle class and are female and white, while their students have become
increasingly diverse (Zimpher, 1989).[^3] In fact, the Commerce
Department predicts that by the year 2035 students of color in K-12
classrooms will constitute a numerical majority of all students (U.S.
Department of Commerce, 1996). While evidence that teachers' demographic
characteristics influence student achievement is inconclusive (Ehrenberg
and Brewer, 1995; Ehrenberg, Goldhaber, and Brewer, 1995), advocates of
diversifying the teaching force have presented compelling arguments in
favor of increasing the number of male teachers and teachers of color
(Clewell and Villegas, 1998 or see Villegas, 1997 for a review of this
literature).[^4] The problem of teacher shortages, viewed from this
angle, can be seen in terms of inadequacies in the qualifications and
characteristics of the teaching force rather than in its absolute size
in relation to gross demand (Boe and Gilford, 1991).

Recent data seem to confirm that the large shortfall in the teacher
supply expected in the 1990s will materialize in the next decade. A
report that examines the need for newly hired teachers for a period from
1998-99 to 2008-09 predicts that at least two million newly hired public
school teachers will be needed. The report was not able to project the
need for new teachers by state but suggests that states that are
expected to have large increases in enrollment. Those states with large
numbers of older teachers might have a greater need for hiring new
teachers. The authors caution, however, that factors such as varying
retirement policies and proximity to other states needing large numbers
of teachers will also affect states' demands for newly hired teachers
(Hussar, undated).

Meeting the Need for New Teachers: Policy Options

Faced with the need for a large number of teachers within a short period
of time, the federal government, states, and districts can respond via
various policy options. They can increase continuation rates through
incentives to keep teachers employed beyond the typical retirement age
and combat attrition by improving working conditions and increasing
salaries and other benefits. They can also bring new individuals into
the teaching force by traditional means or by tapping nontraditional
pools of potential teachers. Because the subject of this report is
teacher recruitment programs, the authors will focus on one of these
policy options---teacher recruitment---as a strategy for addressing the
current and impending teacher shortage.

######   {#section-4 .unnumbered}

###### Chapter 2: Teacher Recruitment Programs

Much of the success of a recruitment strategy depends on the
availability in the traditional and nontraditional pools of individuals
who 1) are willing to become teachers and 2) have the potential to be
effective teachers.[^5] In considering this issue, it is instructive to
examine the major sources of teacher supply and how these have changed
over time. It is also useful to look at the career pathways into
teaching of newly hired teachers.

Sources of Newly Hired Teachers

Researchers who study teacher supply cite four general sources of newly
hired teachers: 1) Newly prepared teachers---first-time teachers who go
straight from college into teaching; 2) Delayed entrants---other
first-time teachers who engage in other activities between graduating
from college and assuming their first teaching job; 3)
Transfers---teachers who transfer from other schools, districts, states,
or sector (public or private); and 4) Reentrants---former teachers
reentering teaching after leaving the profession (Rollefson and
Broughman, 1995).

Over the years there have been shifts in the source of the largest
number of newly hired teachers. In the 1960s, for example, 67 percent of
newly hired teachers in public schools were new college graduates. By
the late 1980s, this source supplied only 27 percent of new hires
(National Education Association, 1987 cited in Rollefson and Broughman,
1995). Indeed, the numbers of newly graduated teachers began to fall
below the projected demand for new hires in the 1980s. As a result,
increasing numbers of teachers were hired from the reserve pool of
former teachers (Kirby, Grissmer, and Hudson, 1991; Murnane, Singer, and
Willet, 1988). Between 1988 and 1991, however, the sources of newly
hired teachers shifted, with both public and private schools hiring
fewer reentrants and more first-time teachers, suggesting that the
reserve pool of teachers had been depleted over this period
(Darling-Hammond, et al., 1999). These first-time teachers were
comprised of new graduates (33.8 percent) and delayed entrants (19.4
percent). Table 1 shows the change between 1987-88 and 1990-91 in the
supply source of newly hired public school teachers.

Table 1. Percentage Distributions of Newly Hired Public School Teachers
by

Supply Source: 1987-88 and 1990-91[^6]

+------------------------------------------+-------------+-------------+
| **Source**                               | **Public    |             |
|                                          | School      |             |
|                                          | Teachers**  |             |
+------------------------------------------+-------------+-------------+
|                                          | **1987-88** | **1990-91** |
+------------------------------------------+-------------+-------------+
| **Total number**                         | 106,820     | 133,798     |
+------------------------------------------+-------------+-------------+
| **Total percent**                        | 100.0       | 100.0       |
+------------------------------------------+-------------+-------------+
| **Percent first time teachers**          | 38.6        | 53.2        |
+------------------------------------------+-------------+-------------+
| > Newly prepared                         | 26.8        | 33.8        |
+------------------------------------------+-------------+-------------+
| > Delayed entrants                       | 11.8        | 19.4        |
+------------------------------------------+-------------+-------------+
| # Percent transfers                      | 19.9        | 16.3        |
+------------------------------------------+-------------+-------------+
| > Other sector (any state)               | 9.5         | 7.1         |
+------------------------------------------+-------------+-------------+
| > Other state (same sector)              | 10.4        | 9.1         |
+------------------------------------------+-------------+-------------+
| # Percent reentrants                     | 41.5        | 30.5        |
+------------------------------------------+-------------+-------------+

The change in the source of newly hired teachers has continued into the
late 1990s. Recent data show that there has been a sharp rise in the
number of individuals studying to be teachers in the United States.
While total enrollment in institutions of higher education rose 15
percent in the last 15 years, new teacher graduates increased by 49
percent from 1983 to 1998 (Feistritzer, 1999). These new teacher
graduates, however, differ from those of previous years in that a much
higher percentage have gone into teacher preparation programs at the
postbaccalaureate level. In fact, a recent survey of teacher preparation
programs documents a shift away from recent high school students with
bachelor's degrees in education as the sole source of new teachers, to
students with master's degrees in noneducation fields as a large source
(Feistritzer, 1999). For example, while in 1984, only 3 percent of
teacher preparation programs reported students beginning a program at
the postbaccalaureate level, in 1999 27 percent did so (Feistritzer,
1999). In 1999, 79 percent of prospective secondary school teachers (as
well as 75 percent of elementary school teachers) who began their
preparation to teach at the postbaccalaureate level had degrees in
noneducation fields.

[Career Paths of Newly Hired Teachers]{.underline}

What are the pathways by which newly hired teachers arrive at the
classroom door? A look at their occupational activities one year prior
to entering teaching can provide some insight. The career paths and
activities of newly hired public school teachers in each group differ
markedly. As might be expected, more than 90 percent of newly prepared
teachers had been in college in the previous year; the remainder had
obtained their highest degree the year before and had mostly substitute
teaching jobs or nonteaching jobs (in or outside of education). Delayed
entrants had more diverse experiences before their first year of
teaching than did the newly prepared teachers. More than 80 percent were
working in the previous year, mostly as substitute teachers (45 percent)
or outside the field of education (25 percent) or in nonteaching jobs in
education (10 percent). Among those not working, most were engaged in
homemaking or child-rearing (Rollefson and Broughman, 1995).

Transfers were defined as teachers teaching in an elementary or
secondary school in another state or sector, and sometimes both during
the previous year. In the public sector, transfers came equally from
public and private schools. Reentrants were more diverse in their prior
year experiences than transfers, with more than two-thirds working in
the prior year primarily in substitute teacher positions (24 percent)
and in non-teaching jobs in education (19 percent). Some reentrants (10
percent) had been attending college the previous year and another 19
percent were homemaking or child-rearing (Rollefson and Broughman,
1995).

[Transfers from Nonteaching and Out-of-Education Fields]{.underline}*.*

Among delayed entrants and reentrants, working in nonteaching
occupations was a major prior year activity. A third of delayed entrants
and more than a third of reentrants transferred from other occupations
in 1991. Of those delayed entrants who transferred from occupations in
education, 67 percent came from teacher aide positions; those who came
from outside education came equally from professional and support
occupations.

These data suggest two career strategies at work: one is a career
strategy used by individuals; the other is a recruiting strategy used by
education policy makers (Rollefson and Broughman, 1995). The first
strategy, which may have been adopted by the large proportions of
reentrants who transferred from other occupations, involves holding a
job while waiting for a teaching position to become available. The large
numbers of delayed entrants and reentrants who held substitute positions
and teacher aide positions suggests that these jobs in education may
have served as stepping stones into teaching for both inexperienced and
experienced teachers.

The second career strategy may reflect a policy strategy developed in
response to the anticipated teacher shortages of the last decade by many
states: the development of alternative route certification and licensure
programs to recruit individuals without education degrees. Many of these
programs targeted members of minority groups and individuals in
high-need areas in teaching, such as mathematics and science. Although
there is great variation in the extent to which these programs provide
education and support, by the early 1990s, at least 40 states had some
form of alternate route program (Feistritzer, 1993; Michael-Bandele,
1993).

Implications for Teacher Recruitment Strategies

Findings of recent research on supply and demand of teachers have
implications for the development of teacher recruitment programs. Two of
the findings that have an important bearing on issues of teacher
recruitment are: 1) There are several sources of supply for newly hired
teachers, these sources fall into four main categories, and their
contributions to the teaching pool can be estimated; 2) Demand for
teachers is best determined at a disaggregated level; that is, by
identifying needs for teachers by geographic location, field of
specialization, and characteristics of teachers.

*Sources of supply for newly hired teachers*. The fact that in the
recent past newly hired teachers have come from four main sources can
assist policymakers interested in developing policies and practices to
recruit new teachers to focus their efforts more narrowly. Focusing
efforts on each of these sources suggests different recruitment
strategies. For example, an initiative to increase the number of newly
graduated teachers might emphasize recruiting students in the
traditional pipeline into teacher education programs (through teacher
cadet type programs for middle and high school students), recruiting
undergraduates who have not yet declared a major into teacher education
programs, or (in light of the fact that 40 percent of teacher education
graduates do not go directly into teaching \[Ingersoll and Bobbitt,
1995\]) increasing the number of teacher education graduates who go
directly into teaching through placement programs. The knowledge that a
major source of teachers is the pool of substitute teachers and
paraprofessionals working in education can inform the development of
recruitment programs for these populations. Table 2 (A-B) show prevalent
approaches and models for recruiting teachers from each of the four
supply sources. Additionally, adapting the classification system used by
Worner (1991), these strategies have been categorized as "fast-track,"
"moderate-track," and "slow-track," according to the time each will take
to bring about the preparation and hire, or sometimes just hire, of a
certified teacher from each of the supply sources.

Table 2A. Strategies for Recruiting Teachers by Duration Supply Source:
*Newly Prepared Teachers*

Fast Track (0-2 years) Moderate Track (3-4 years) Slow Track (5-8 years)

+----------+----------+---+-----------+-----------+---+----------+----------+
| **Part   |          |   | ## B      |           |   | ## Teach |          |
| nerships |          |   | accalaure |           |   | ing Magn |          |
| with     |          |   | ate Degre |           |   | et/Teach |          |
| Underg   |          |   | e Program |           |   | er Cadet |          |
| raduate/ |          |   |           |           |   |  Program |          |
| Graduate |          |   |           |           |   |          |          |
| Instit   |          |   |           |           |   |          |          |
| utions** |          |   |           |           |   |          |          |
+----------+----------+---+-----------+-----------+---+----------+----------+
| ***Feat  | *        |   | ***Fea    | ***Incen  |   | ***Feat  | *        |
| ures:*** | **Incent |   | tures:*** | tives:*** |   | ures:*** | **Incent |
|          | ives:*** |   |           |           |   |          | ives:*** |
| -   int  |          |   | -   i     | -   sch   |   | -   par  |          |
| ernships | -   scho |   | ndividual | olarships |   | tnership | -   scho |
|          | larships |   |           |           |   |     with | larships |
| -   me   |          |   |  advising | `         |   |     IHE  |          |
| ntorship | ``       |   |           | ``{=html} |   |     and  | -   loan |
|          | `{=html} |   | -   peer  | <!-- -->  |   |          |     for  |
|    oppor | <!-- --> |   |           | ```       |   |   school | giveness |
| tunities | ```      |   |   support | -   loan  |   |          |          |
|          | -   fo   |   |           |     fo    |   | district | -        |
| -        | rgivable |   | -   e     | rgiveness |   |          |   summer |
|    bacca |          |   | mployment |           |   | -   p    |     em   |
| laureate |    loans |   |           | -   i     |   | otential | ployment |
|     or   |          |   | placement | nternship |   |     high |          |
|     po   | -        |   |           |     oppo  |   |          | -        |
| st-bacca |  tuition |   | -   n     | rtunities |   |   school | tutorial |
| laureate |          |   | etworking |           |   |     or   |     as   |
|          |  waivers |   |     with  | -   m     |   |          | sistance |
|  degrees |          |   |           | entorship |   |  college |     and  |
|          | -        |   |   schools |     oppo  |   |          |     co   |
| -   em   |   summer |   |           | rtunities |   |   credit | unseling |
| ployment |     em   |   |           |           |   |          |          |
|     upon | ployment |   |           | -         |   | -        | -   in   |
|          |          |   |           |  advising |   |   summer | ternship |
|   degree | -        |   |           |     and   |   |     em   |          |
|     co   |  housing |   |           |     peer  |   | ployment | -        |
| mpletion |          |   |           |           |   |          |   transp |
|          |  credits |   |           |   support |   | -        | ortation |
|          |          |   |           |           |   |  liaison |          |
|          | -        |   |           | -         |   |     with | -        |
|          |   transp |   |           |  tutoring |   |     IHEs | academic |
|          | ortation |   |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   |           | -         |   | -        |   course |
|          | stipends |   |           |    summer |   |    field |          |
|          |          |   |           |     e     |   |     p    |   credit |
|          |          |   |           | mployment |   | lacement |          |
|          |          |   |           |           |   |     exp  |          |
|          |          |   |           | -         |   | eriences |          |
|          |          |   |           |    school |   |     in   |          |
|          |          |   |           |     and   |   |          |          |
|          |          |   |           |     distr |   |    local |          |
|          |          |   |           | ict-based |   |          |          |
|          |          |   |           |           |   |  schools |          |
|          |          |   |           |  training |   |          |          |
|          |          |   |           |           |   | -   job  |          |
|          |          |   |           | -   e     |   |     obs  |          |
|          |          |   |           | mployment |   | ervation |          |
|          |          |   |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   |           | guarantee |   |  program |          |
|          |          |   |           |     upon  |   |          |          |
|          |          |   |           |     c     |   | -        |          |
|          |          |   |           | ompletion |   |   course |          |
|          |          |   |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   |           |           |   |  seminar |          |
+----------+----------+---+-----------+-----------+---+----------+----------+
| ## Em    |          |   | ## Parapr |           | # |          |          |
| ployment |          |   | ofessiona |           | # |          |          |
|  Clearin |          |   | l Pathway |           |   |          |          |
| ghouses/ |          |   | s Program |           |   |          |          |
| Networks |          |   |           |           |   |          |          |
+----------+----------+---+-----------+-----------+---+----------+----------+
| ***Feat  | *        |   | ***Fea    | ***Incen  |   |          |          |
| ures:*** | **Incent |   | tures:*** | tives:*** |   |          |          |
|          | ives:*** |   |           |           |   |          |          |
| -   part |          |   | -   c     | -   sch   |   |          |          |
| nerships | -   ease |   | ontinuing | olarships |   |          |          |
|          |     of   |   |     e     |           |   |          |          |
|  between |          |   | mployment | -   loan  |   |          |          |
|          |   access |   |     as    |     fo    |   |          |          |
|   school |     to   |   |           | rgiveness |   |          |          |
|     di   |     em   |   |   parapro |           |   |          |          |
| stricts, | ployment |   | fessional | -         |   |          |          |
|     rec  |          |   |           |   tuition |   |          |          |
| ruitment |    oppor |   | -         |           |   |          |          |
|     spec | tunities |   |    school |   waivers |   |          |          |
| ialists, |          |   |     (or   |           |   |          |          |
|     IHEs | -   app  |   |           | -   child |   |          |          |
|     and  | lication |   | district) |     care  |   |          |          |
|     un   |          |   |     based |           |   |          |          |
| iversity |  process |   |           | -   trans |   |          |          |
|          |     made |   |    course | portation |   |          |          |
|   career |          |   |     work  |           |   |          |          |
|          |   easier |   |           | -         |   |          |          |
|  centers |          |   | -   m     |  academic |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | entorship |     and   |   |          |          |
| ``       |          |   |           |           |   |          |          |
| `{=html} |          |   | `         |    social |   |          |          |
| <!-- --> |          |   | ``{=html} |           |   |          |          |
| ```      |          |   | <!-- -->  |   support |   |          |          |
| -   comp |          |   | ```       |           |   |          |          |
| uterized |          |   | -   i     |   network |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | nternship |           |   |          |          |
|    data- |          |   |           | `         |   |          |          |
|          |          |   |           | ``{=html} |   |          |          |
|    bases |          |   |           | <!-- -->  |   |          |          |
|          |          |   |           | ```       |   |          |          |
|          |          |   |           | -   e     |   |          |          |
|          |          |   |           | mployment |   |          |          |
+----------+----------+---+-----------+-----------+---+----------+----------+
| ## Fina  |          |   | **        |           |   |          |          |
| ncial In |          |   | Community |           |   |          |          |
| centives |          |   | Coll      |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | ege-Based |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | Art       |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | iculation |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | Program** |           |   |          |          |
+----------+----------+---+-----------+-----------+---+----------+----------+
| ***Feat  |          |   | ***Fea    | ***Incen  |   |          |          |
| ures:*** |          |   | tures:*** | tives:*** |   |          |          |
|          |          |   |           |           |   |          |          |
| -        |          |   | -   par   | -   sch   |   |          |          |
|  signing |          |   | tnerships | olarships |   |          |          |
|          |          |   |           |           |   |          |          |
|  bonuses |          |   |   between | -   loan  |   |          |          |
|          |          |   |           |     fo    |   |          |          |
| -   i    |          |   | community | rgiveness |   |          |          |
| ncreased |          |   |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | colleges, | -         |   |          |          |
| salaries |          |   |           |   tuition |   |          |          |
|     and  |          |   |    school |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   |     d     |   waivers |   |          |          |
| benefits |          |   | istricts, |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   |     local | -   child |   |          |          |
| ``       |          |   |           |     care  |   |          |          |
| `{=html} |          |   | teachers' |           |   |          |          |
| <!-- --> |          |   |           | -   trans |   |          |          |
| ```      |          |   |   unions, | portation |   |          |          |
| -   hom  |          |   |     or    |           |   |          |          |
| e-buying |          |   |     uni   | -         |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | versities |  academic |   |          |          |
|   grants |          |   |           |     and   |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | -   i     |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | nternship |    social |   |          |          |
|          |          |   |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | -   m     |   support |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | entorship |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   |           |   network |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | `         |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | ``{=html} | `         |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | <!-- -->  | ``{=html} |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | ```       | <!-- -->  |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | -         | ```       |   |          |          |
|          |          |   |    school | -   e     |   |          |          |
|          |          |   |     (or   | mployment |   |          |          |
|          |          |   |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | district) |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   |     and   |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   |     un    |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | iversity- |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   |     based |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   |    course |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   |     work  |           |   |          |          |
+----------+----------+---+-----------+-----------+---+----------+----------+

Table 2B. Strategies for Recruiting Teachers by Fast Track (0-2
years)Supply Sources: Delayed Entrants, Transfers and Reentrants

Delayed Entrants Transfers Reentrants

+----------+----------+---+---+-----------+-----------+---+----------+----------+
| **R      |          |   |   | # Employm |           |   | ##       |          |
| elicensu |          |   |   | ent Clear |           |   | Reentry  |          |
| re/Certi |          |   |   | inghouses |           |   | Programs |          |
| fication |          |   |   | /Networks |           |   |          |          |
| of       |          |   |   |           |           |   |          |          |
| Su       |          |   |   |           |           |   |          |          |
| bstitute |          |   |   |           |           |   |          |          |
| /Reserve |          |   |   |           |           |   |          |          |
| Te       |          |   |   |           |           |   |          |          |
| achers** |          |   |   |           |           |   |          |          |
+----------+----------+---+---+-----------+-----------+---+----------+----------+
| ***Feat  | *        |   |   | ***Fea    | ***Incen  |   | ***Feat  | *        |
| ures:*** | **Incent |   |   | tures:*** | tives:*** |   | ures:*** | **Incent |
|          | ives:*** |   |   |           |           |   |          | ives:*** |
| -   paid |          |   |   | -   par   | -   ease  |   | -   job  |          |
|     int  | -   scho |   |   | tnerships |     of    |   |          | -        |
| ernships | larships |   |   |           |           |   |  sharing |  signing |
|          |          |   |   |   between |    access |   |          |          |
| -   m    | -   loan |   |   |           |     to    |   | -   p    |  bonuses |
| entoring |     for  |   |   |    school |     e     |   | art-time |          |
|          | giveness |   |   |     d     | mployment |   |     em   | -   i    |
| -        |          |   |   | istricts, |     oppo  |   | ployment | ncreased |
|  highly- | -        |   |   |     re    | rtunities |   |          |          |
| targeted |  tuition |   |   | cruitment |           |   | -        | salaries |
|          |          |   |   |     spe   | -   ap    |   | targeted |     and  |
|   course |  waivers |   |   | cialists, | plication |   |     adv  |          |
|     work |     and  |   |   |     IHEs  |           |   | ertising | benefits |
|          |          |   |   |     and   |   process |   |          |          |
| -   scho | stipends |   |   |     u     |     made  |   | -        | -   hom  |
| ol-based |          |   |   | niversity |           |   |  general | e-buying |
|          | -        |   |   |           |    easier |   |          |          |
|    staff |   transp |   |   |    career |           |   |   public |   grants |
|     dev  | ortation |   |   |           |           |   |          |          |
| elopment |          |   |   |   centers |           |   |  service | -        |
|          | -        |   |   |           |           |   |          |    oppor |
|          |    child |   |   | -   com   |           |   |    annou | tunities |
|          |     care |   |   | puterized |           |   | ncements |     for  |
|          |          |   |   |     data- |           |   |          |     r    |
|          | -        |   |   |     bases |           |   | -   open | efresher |
|          |  ensured |   |   |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |     em   |   |   |           |           |   |    house | training |
|          | ployment |   |   |           |           |   |     re   |          |
|          |     upon |   |   |           |           |   | ceptions | -   f    |
|          |     co   |   |   |           |           |   |          | avorable |
|          | mpletion |   |   |           |           |   |          |     p    |
|          |          |   |   |           |           |   |          | lacement |
|          |          |   |   |           |           |   |          |     on   |
|          |          |   |   |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   |   |           |           |   |          | district |
|          |          |   |   |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   |   |           |           |   |          |   salary |
|          |          |   |   |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   |   |           |           |   |          | schedule |
|          |          |   |   |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   |   |           |           |   |          | -   por  |
|          |          |   |   |           |           |   |          | tability |
|          |          |   |   |           |           |   |          |     of   |
|          |          |   |   |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   |   |           |           |   |          | pensions |
|          |          |   |   |           |           |   |          |     and  |
|          |          |   |   |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   |   |           |           |   |          | licenses |
+----------+----------+---+---+-----------+-----------+---+----------+----------+
| # Al     |          |   |   | # Reci    |           | # |          |          |
| ternativ |          |   |   | procity A |           | # |          |          |
| e Licens |          |   |   | greements |           |   |          |          |
| ure Prog |          |   |   |           |           |   |          |          |
| ramming  |          |   |   |           |           |   |          |          |
| for Indi |          |   |   |           |           |   |          |          |
| viduals  |          |   |   |           |           |   |          |          |
| with Non |          |   |   |           |           |   |          |          |
| teaching |          |   |   |           |           |   |          |          |
|  Degrees |          |   |   |           |           |   |          |          |
+----------+----------+---+---+-----------+-----------+---+----------+----------+
| ***Feat  | *        |   |   | ***Fea    | ***Incen  |   |          |          |
| ures:*** | **Incent |   |   | tures:*** | tives:*** |   |          |          |
|          | ives:*** |   |   |           |           |   |          |          |
| -   in   |          |   |   | -   po    | -   ease  |   |          |          |
| tensive, | -   scho |   |   | rtability |     of    |   |          |          |
|          | larships |   |   |     of    |           |   |          |          |
|  focused |          |   |   |           |    access |   |          |          |
|          | -   loan |   |   |  licenses |     to    |   |          |          |
| training |     for  |   |   |     and   |           |   |          |          |
|     (un  | giveness |   |   |     certi |  teaching |   |          |          |
| iversity |          |   |   | fications |           |   |          |          |
|     or   | -        |   |   |           | positions |   |          |          |
|     scho |  tuition |   |   |    across |           |   |          |          |
| ol-based |          |   |   |     state |   outside |   |          |          |
|          |  waivers |   |   |     lines |     of    |   |          |          |
|   course |          |   |   |           |           |   |          |          |
|          | -        |   |   |           | licensing |   |          |          |
|    work) |   transp |   |   |           |     or    |   |          |          |
|          | ortation |   |   |           |     c     |   |          |          |
| -   in   |          |   |   |           | ertifying |   |          |          |
| ternship | -        |   |   |           |     state |   |          |          |
|     exp  |    child |   |   |           |           |   |          |          |
| eriences |     care |   |   |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   |   |           |           |   |          |          |
| -   m    | -   gu   |   |   |           |           |   |          |          |
| entoring | aranteed |   |   |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |     em   |   |   |           |           |   |          |          |
| -        | ployment |   |   |           |           |   |          |          |
|  support |          |   |   |           |           |   |          |          |
|     and  | -        |   |   |           |           |   |          |          |
|     ev   | elevated |   |   |           |           |   |          |          |
| aluation |     p    |   |   |           |           |   |          |          |
|          | lacement |   |   |           |           |   |          |          |
|   during |     on   |   |   |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   |   |           |           |   |          |          |
|    first | district |   |   |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   |   |           |           |   |          |          |
|    years |   salary |   |   |           |           |   |          |          |
|     of   |          |   |   |           |           |   |          |          |
|          | schedule |   |   |           |           |   |          |          |
| teaching |          |   |   |           |           |   |          |          |
+----------+----------+---+---+-----------+-----------+---+----------+----------+
|          |          |   |   | #         |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   |   |  Outreach |           |   |          |          |
+----------+----------+---+---+-----------+-----------+---+----------+----------+
|          |          |   |   | ***Fea    |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   |   | tures:*** |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   |   |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   |   | -   re    |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   |   | cruitment |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   |   |     fairs |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   |   |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   |   | -   lette |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   |   | r-writing |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   |   |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   |   | campaigns |           |   |          |          |
+----------+----------+---+---+-----------+-----------+---+----------+----------+
|          |          |   | # |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | # |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | # |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   |   |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | F |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | i |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | n |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | a |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | n |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | c |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | i |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | a |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | l |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   |   |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | I |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | n |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | c |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | e |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | n |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | t |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | i |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | v |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | e |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | s |           |           |   |          |          |
+----------+----------+---+---+-----------+-----------+---+----------+----------+
|          |          |   | * |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | * |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | * |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | F |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | e |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | a |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | t |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | u |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | r |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | e |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | s |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | : |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | * |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | * |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | * |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   |   |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | - |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   |   |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   |   |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   |   |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | s |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | i |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | g |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | n |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | i |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | n |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | g |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   |   |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   |   |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   |   |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   |   |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | b |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | o |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | n |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | u |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | s |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | e |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | s |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   |   |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | - |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   |   |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   |   |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   |   |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | i |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | n |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | c |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | r |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | e |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | a |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | s |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | e |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | d |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   |   |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   |   |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   |   |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   |   |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | s |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | a |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | l |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | a |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | r |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | i |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | e |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | s |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   |   |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   |   |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   |   |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   |   |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | a |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | n |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | d |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   |   |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   |   |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   |   |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   |   |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | b |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | e |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | n |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | e |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | f |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | i |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | t |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | s |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   |   |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | ` |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | ` |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | ` |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | { |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | = |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | h |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | t |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | m |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | l |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | } |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | < |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | ! |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | - |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | - |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   |   |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | - |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | - |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | > |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | ` |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | ` |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | ` |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | - |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   |   |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   |   |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   |   |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | h |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | o |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | m |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | e |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | - |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | b |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | u |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | y |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | i |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | n |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | g |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   |   |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   |   |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   |   |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   |   |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | g |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | r |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | a |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | n |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | t |           |           |   |          |          |
|          |          |   | s |           |           |   |          |          |
+----------+----------+---+---+-----------+-----------+---+----------+----------+

*Disaggregated demand for teachers*. The finding that supply and demand
problems are more effectively addressed by identifying the need for
teachers and a potential teacher supply at a disaggregated level, is
also helpful in focusing recruitment efforts at the state and local
levels. Policy-makers would do well to identify the qualifications and
characteristics of teachers needed in particular geographic
subdivisions. For example, a local recruitment program should determine
the specific teaching needs of a district or districts before embarking
on a recruitment initiative.

Teacher Recruitment in the Higher Education Act: Goals and Strategy

Under Title II of the Higher Education Amendments (HEAs) of 1998, the
Department of Education authorized the "Teacher Quality Enhancement
Grants"--- three programs designed to make lasting changes in the
recruitment, preparation, licensing and support of the nation's teachers
(U.S. Department of Education, 1999). The overarching goal of the
Teacher Quality Enhancement Grants program is to improve student
performance through comprehensive approaches to improving teacher
quality (U.S. Department of Education, 1999). In order to achieve this
primary goal, the Department of Education has mandated that applicants
for the Teacher Quality Enhancement Grants develop:

-   More rigorous state standards for initial teacher certification.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Recruitment programs that will attract highly competent people into
    teaching careers.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   High-quality pre-service teacher training programs that offer strong
    clinical components, rigorous course work, and continuing support to
    recent graduates (U.S. Department of Education, 1999).

Although there are three programs within the Teacher Quality Enhancement
Grants Program: State Grants Program, Partnership Grant Program, and
Teacher Recruitment Grants Program, for the purpose of this literature
review, we focus on the Teacher Recruitment component.

The Teacher Quality Enhancement Grants Program is built on the premise
that every child deserves a competent teacher in their classroom. This
goal has become increasingly difficult to achieve, however, as
simultaneous increases in student enrollment and early teacher
retirement have forced many schools, particularly those in high-poverty
rural and urban areas, to hire teachers who are either under-qualified
or teaching outside their subject area. The Teacher Recruitment Grant
Program is designed to support the efforts of both local partnerships
and states in reducing shortages of qualified teachers in high-need
school districts (U.S. Department of Education, 1999). The program
suggests several strategies grantees may adopt:

-   Identify the **critical needs** of the participating high-need
    districts for recruiting and preparing highly competent teachers.

-   Identify and recruit from **pools of potential teachers** who best
    fulfill these needs.

-   Design **high-quality teacher preparation and induction programs**
    tailored to both support teacher candidates and fulfill the
    education needs of the community (U.S. Department of Education,
    1999).

The programs supported by the Teacher Recruitment Grant Program are
expected to produce new teachers with strong content knowledge and
pedagogical skills. The programs also intend to place and retain
teachers for a period of at least three years in high-need districts.

**Chapter 3: State and Local Efforts in Teacher Recruitment**

In the following sections, we present descriptions and outcome data on
the effectiveness of a variety of state- and locally administered
teacher recruitment programs. Note that the distinctions between these
types of programs (state and local) are not always obvious. One state
program, Troops to Teachers, is in fact a national initiative
administered through coordinating offices at the state level. Several
programs discussed in the local section are also national efforts, but
these are administered through partnerships between the national
organization(s) and local school districts. In general, however, state
programs are administered (and funded through) state governments, and
local programs are run under local control.

The strategies used by state and local programs are sometimes similar
and sometimes different, according to the resources and priorities of
the state or locality. We found far more literature (descriptive and
outcome-oriented) about local programs than about state programs, and
thus in the local section we are able to provide more details about the
kinds of strategies used. Aside from places where more information is
available about local programs than about state programs, the state and
local section of the review follow essentially parallel structures. For
clarity's sake, the local information is synthesized so that comparisons
between different kinds of programs can be easily made. In the state
section, there were so few examples of each type (and so little data on
effectiveness) that a simpler prose style was adopted.

Teacher Recruitment from a State Perspective: An Overview

The body of literature regarding state teacher recruitment efforts[^7]
has grown tremendously in the last ten years as the subject has gained
national prominence. Problems related to teacher shortages in critical
fields (math and science) and in high-need areas (urban and rural),
insufficient ethnic and gender diversity in the teaching force, and low
retention rates for new teachers have been identified and described.
These issues, coupled with the increasing frequency of state mandates to
limit class size and the aging and retirement of baby-boom generation
teachers have prodded states to take action to increase, improve, and
diversify the pool of teachers in public schools (National Commission on
Teaching and America's Future, 1996). Education policy analysts have
recommended that the most efficient means to address both teacher
shortage and teacher quality issues is to target specific populations at
critical points in the teacher recruitment pipeline with programs
tailored to simultaneously support teacher candidates and fulfill the
state's education needs (Hirsch, Koppich, and Knapp, 1998;
Darling-Hammond, et al., 1999).

The teacher recruitment pipeline encompasses the identification,
recruitment, selection, training and certification of teachers. Target
populations within this pipeline have included middle and high school
students, undergraduate and graduate students (both education and
noneducation majors), minorities, paraprofessionals and substitute
teachers, mid-career professionals, transferring teachers, and
reentrants to the profession. A number of different approaches to
recruiting these target populations have been employed at the state
level. These include, but are not limited to:

-   Teacher clubs and scholarship programs that encourage middle and
    high school students to become teachers through teaching focused
    club activities, mentoring and financial incentives;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Targeting minority populations---particularly during the
    precollegiate years and through community colleges;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Continual financial assistance and social support services for
    education students throughout their undergraduate and graduate
    experiences;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Alternative certification or preparation programs for
    paraprofessionals, mid-career professionals, and other individuals
    who have earned their baccalaureate degree in a noneducation
    subject;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Induction programs that provide intensive support and constructive
    peer evaluation for novice teachers during their first critical
    years of teaching;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Establishing portable licensing agreements with other states in
    order to encourage teachers to move to high-need areas outside of
    their licensing or certifying state; and

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Professional development activities that enhance the skill base of
    teachers (Hirsch, et al., 1998; Darling-Hammond, et al., 1999).

Many states have incorporated the strategies listed above into teacher
recruitment programs. However, with the exception of Connecticut, none
have developed and implemented a *comprehensive* policy strategy to
effectively recruit quality teachers. Darling-Hammond and colleagues
(1999) note that teacher shortages are "much rarer in states with
proactive teacher recruitment policies" than in those without such
efforts. However, simply implementing individual policies is not
sufficient. In order for a state teacher recruitment program to be
*effective*, it must be part of a larger, comprehensive teacher
recruitment strategy.

[Description of State Recruitment Programs]{.underline}

Table 3 highlights some of the current recruitment efforts implemented
at the state level. Most of these efforts can be classified into five
types: (1) programs targeting middle- and high-school students; (2)
minority recruitment programs; (3) alternative certification programs;
(4) programs for mid-career professionals or paraprofessionals; and (5)
reentry programs. Note that the categories of programs are not mutually
exclusive. Frequently, states incorporate components of different types
of programs in their own efforts. For example, a South Carolina program
classified as a High School Recruitment Program also secondarily targets
males and minorities. Table 3 gives the types of recruitment programs,
goals, target populations, the number of states that have implemented
each initiative, and examples of state programs. Examples 1-5 give more
detailed descriptions of a middle school program, two high school
programs, a recruitment effort aimed at minorities, and a mid-career
transition program. We have not included specific descriptions of
alternative certification and reentry programs because we did not have
comprehensive evaluative data available.

Table 3. State Recruitment Programs

+-----+--------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| > * | **Programs** |           |           |           |           |
| *De |              |           |           |           |           |
| scr |              |           |           |           |           |
| ipt |              |           |           |           |           |
| ion |              |           |           |           |           |
| >   |              |           |           |           |           |
|  of |              |           |           |           |           |
| >   |              |           |           |           |           |
| Pro |              |           |           |           |           |
| gra |              |           |           |           |           |
| m** |              |           |           |           |           |
+-----+--------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
|     | **Programs   | *         | **Al      | *         | **Reentry |
|     | Targeting    | *Minority | ternative | *Programs | P         |
|     | Middle and   | Re        | Cert      | for       | rograms** |
|     | High School  | cruitment | ification | M         |           |
|     | Students**   | P         | P         | id-Career |           |
|     |              | rograms** | rograms** | Prof      |           |
|     |              |           |           | essional/ |           |
|     |              |           |           | P         |           |
|     |              |           |           | araprofes |           |
|     |              |           |           | sionals** |           |
+-----+--------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| >   | Identify,    | Select,   | A         | Create a  | Encourage |
| **G | interest.    | support   | ccelerate | "pathway" | retired   |
| oal | inform and   | and       | the entry | for       | teachers  |
| s** | instruct     | prepare   | of        | m         | to        |
|     | middle and   | minority  | in        | id-career | reenter   |
|     | high school  | in        | dividuals | switchers | the       |
|     | students     | dividuals | into      | and       | classroom |
|     | regarding    | for       | teaching  | para      | through   |
|     | teaching as  | careers   | careers   | educators | revision  |
|     | a career so  | in        | through   | to attain | to        |
|     | that they    | teaching. | modified  | teacher   | pension   |
|     | will choose  |           | licensure | certi     | policies  |
|     | to major in  |           | requ      | fication. | (i.e.     |
|     | teacher      |           | irements. |           | allow     |
|     | education in |           |           |           | them to   |
|     | college.     |           |           |           | teach and |
|     |              |           |           |           | earn a    |
|     |              |           |           |           | salary    |
|     |              |           |           |           | without   |
|     |              |           |           |           | losing    |
|     |              |           |           |           | their     |
|     |              |           |           |           | pension   |
|     |              |           |           |           | b         |
|     |              |           |           |           | enefits.) |
+-----+--------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| >   | Students in  | Minority  | Non       | Retired   | Retired   |
|  ** | middle       | students  | education | or        | school    |
| Tar | school,      | and       | b         | laid-off  | teachers. |
| get | junior high  | adults.   | ackground | military  |           |
| >   | and/or high  |           | with a    | personnel |           |
| Pop | school.      |           | bachelors | and       |           |
| ula | No           |           | degree or | D         |           |
| tio | ntraditional |           | higher    | epartment |           |
| n** | and more     |           |           | of        |           |
|     | academically |           |           | Defense   |           |
|     | able         |           |           | civilian  |           |
|     | students.    |           |           | e         |           |
|     |              |           |           | mployees. |           |
+-----+--------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| >   | 20[^9]       | 30[^10]   | 44 (plus  | 28[^12]   | 4[^13]    |
|  ** |              |           | the       |           |           |
| No. |              |           | District  |           |           |
| >   |              |           | of        |           |           |
|  of |              |           | Colum     |           |           |
| >   |              |           | bia)[^11] |           |           |
| Sta |              |           |           |           |           |
| tes |              |           |           |           |           |
| > w |              |           |           |           |           |
| ith |              |           |           |           |           |
| >   |              |           |           |           |           |
|  Pr |              |           |           |           |           |
| ogr |              |           |           |           |           |
| ams |              |           |           |           |           |
| **[ |              |           |           |           |           |
| ^8] |              |           |           |           |           |
+-----+--------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| > * | Middle       | South     | Texas     | Troops to | Maryland  |
| *St | school:      | Carolina  | Al        | Teachers  | Ree       |
| ate | South        | Program   | ternative |           | mployment |
| > P | Carolina's   | for the   | Cert      |           | of        |
| rog | ProTeam      | Re        | ification |           | Retired   |
| ram |              | cruitment | Programs  |           | Teachers  |
| >   | High School: | and       | (nine     |           | Act 1999  |
| Exa | South        | Retention | total)    |           |           |
| mpl | Carolina's   | of        |           |           |           |
| e** | Teacher      | Minority  |           |           |           |
|     | Cadet        | Teachers  |           |           |           |
+-----+--------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+

#### Examples of State Recruitment Programs

#### Example 1. Middle School Recruitment Program

#### Example 2. High School Recruitment Program

###### Example 3. High School Recruitment Program

###### Example 4. Minority Recruitment Program

###### Example 5. Mid-career Transition Program

Description of State Recruitment Policies

States may also carry out policies that aid in teacher recruitment or
retention, without creating formal programs. These policies include:

-   [Loan Forgiveness.]{.underline} Nineteen states[^14] offer college
    loan forgiveness to individuals who teach in the public schools
    after finishing their degrees (ECS Information Clearinghouse, 1999;
    Hirsch, et al., 1998; South Carolina Center for Teacher Recruitment,
    1998a; American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 1997;
    ECS, 1999; ECS Information Clearinghouse, 1998).

-   [Salary Increases.]{.underline} Eleven states[^15] have raised
    teacher salaries in an effort to attract more and better qualified
    individuals to the teaching profession. This may also be tied to
    performance-based salary raises, special "master teacher"
    certification, or other outcome-based evaluation of teacher
    performance tied to a pay schedule. To promote retention in the
    field, salary schedules may be adjusted to reward longevity in
    teaching (ECS Information Clearinghouse, 1999; Hirsch, et al., 1998;
    South Carolina Center for Teacher Recruitment, 1998a; American
    Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 1997; ECS, 1999; ECS
    Information Clearinghouse, 1998).

-   [Signing Bonus.]{.underline} Four states[^16] have signing bonuses
    for new teachers or teachers new to the district (ECS Information
    Clearinghouse, 1999; Hirsch, et al., 1998; South Carolina Center for
    Teacher Recruitment, 1998a; American Association of Colleges for
    Teacher Education, 1997; ECS, 1999; ECS Information Clearinghouse,
    1998).

-   [Pensions.]{.underline} At least four states[^17] have enacted
    policies permitting retired teachers to continue to draw pensions if
    they return to the classroom (Blair, 1999).

To the best of our knowledge, the effects of these polices at the state
level have not been evaluated. For this reason, we return to a
consideration of state programs which have been evaluated in the
following section addressing the effectiveness of state efforts toward
teacher recruitment.

State Program Outcomes and Outcome Measurement

To assess the intermediate and long-term outcomes of state recruitment
programs, eight evaluations of such programs were identified in the
literature. These studies included evaluations of:

-   South Carolina Teacher Cadet Program;

-   South Carolina ProTeam Program;

-   South Carolina Program for the Recruitment and Retention of Minority
    Teachers;

-   South Carolina Minority Access to Teacher Education Program;

-   North Carolina Teaching Fellows Program;

-   Texas alternative certification programs (nine total);

-   California State University Teacher Diversity Programs; and

-   Troops to Teachers Program (a nationwide program operated through
    state placement assistance offices).

These eight programs represent mid-career transition programs (one),
alternative certification programs (one), minority recruitment programs
(three), and middle and high school student programs (three, one of
which also serves undergraduates).[^18] Note that there is some overlap
in these categories as one of the minority recruitment programs also
targets paraprofessional teacher aides, as well as non-paraprofessional
minorities. The middle and high school programs also emphasize
recruiting males and minority students.

**Table 4. Evaluations of State Recruitment Programs**[^19]

+-------------+-----------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| **Program   | # Antic         | **     | **Eval | **Data | **Data |
| Name**      | ipated Outcomes | Sample | uation | Coll   | Anal   |
|             |                 | Size** | De     | ection | ysis** |
| **and       |                 |        | sign** | Met    |        |
| Type**      |                 |        |        | hods** |        |
+=============+=================+========+========+========+========+
| **South     | ***I            | N=246  | -   Pr | -      | -      |
| Carolina    | ntermediate:*** | to     | e-post |  Focus |  Descr |
| Teacher     |                 | 1,87   |     me |        | iptive |
| Cadet       | -               | 6[^20] | asures |  Group |        |
| Program---  |    Participants |        |        |        |    sta |
| High School |     complete    |        | -      | -   Q  | tistic |
| Program**   |     high school |        |    Unm | uestio | s[^21] |
|             |                 |        | atched | nnaire |        |
| (South      | -               |        |        |        |        |
| Carolina    |    Participants |        |   comp | -      |        |
| Center for  |     attend      |        | arison | Survey |        |
| Teacher     |     college     |        |        |        |        |
| R           |                 |        |  group | -      |        |
| ecruitment, | *               |        |        |  Field |        |
| 1998b --    | **Long-term:*** |        |    for |        |        |
| unpublished |                 |        |        | Visits |        |
| annual      | -               |        |   some |        |        |
| report;     |    Participants |        |     ou | -      |        |
| Cabral and  |     choose      |        | tcomes |   Inte |        |
| Cabral,     |     teacher     |        |        | rviews |        |
| 1999        |     education   |        |        |        |        |
| unpublished |     major       |        |        |        |        |
| evaluation) |                 |        |        |        |        |
|             | -               |        |        |        |        |
|             |    Participants |        |        |        |        |
|             |     complete    |        |        |        |        |
|             |     teacher     |        |        |        |        |
|             |                 |        |        |        |        |
|             |   certification |        |        |        |        |
|             |                 |        |        |        |        |
|             | -               |        |        |        |        |
|             |    Participants |        |        |        |        |
|             |     become      |        |        |        |        |
|             |     advocates   |        |        |        |        |
|             |     for         |        |        |        |        |
|             |     education   |        |        |        |        |
|             |                 |        |        |        |        |
|             | -   Increase    |        |        |        |        |
|             |     number of   |        |        |        |        |
|             |     students    |        |        |        |        |
|             |     entering    |        |        |        |        |
|             |     teaching    |        |        |        |        |
|             |     profession  |        |        |        |        |
|             |                 |        |        |        |        |
|             | -   Increase    |        |        |        |        |
|             |     number of   |        |        |        |        |
|             |     males and   |        |        |        |        |
|             |     minorities  |        |        |        |        |
|             |     entering    |        |        |        |        |
|             |     teaching    |        |        |        |        |
|             |     profession  |        |        |        |        |
|             |                 |        |        |        |        |
|             | -   Increase    |        |        |        |        |
|             |     number of   |        |        |        |        |
|             |     science and |        |        |        |        |
|             |     math        |        |        |        |        |
|             |     teachers    |        |        |        |        |
|             |                 |        |        |        |        |
|             | -   Fill        |        |        |        |        |
|             |     teacher     |        |        |        |        |
|             |     shortages   |        |        |        |        |
|             |     in rural    |        |        |        |        |
|             |     and urban   |        |        |        |        |
|             |     areas       |        |        |        |        |
+-------------+-----------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| **South     | ***I            | N=348  | -      | P      | -      |
| Carolina    | ntermediate:*** | to 654 |   Pre- | artici |  Descr |
| ProTeam     |                 |        |        | pants: | iptive |
| Progr       | -   Encourage   |        |    and |        |        |
| am---Middle |     exemplary   |        |        | -      |   stat |
| School      |     students to |        |  post- |  Focus | istics |
| Program**   |     complete    |        |     me |        |        |
|             |     high school |        | asures |  Group |        |
| (South      |                 |        |        |        |        |
| Carolina    | -   Improve     |        |        | -   Q  |        |
| Center for  |                 |        |        | uestio |        |
| Teacher     |   participants' |        |        | nnaire |        |
| R           |     grades and  |        |        |        |        |
| ecruitment, |     behavior    |        |        | -      |        |
| 1998b --    |                 |        |        | Survey |        |
| unpublished | -   Improve     |        |        |        |        |
| annual      |                 |        |        | -      |        |
| report;     |   participants' |        |        |  Field |        |
| Cabral and  |     self-esteem |        |        |        |        |
| Cabral,     |                 |        |        | Visits |        |
| 1999        | *               |        |        |        |        |
| unpublished | **Long-term:*** |        |        | -      |        |
| evaluation) |                 |        |        |   Inte |        |
|             | -   Change      |        |        | rviews |        |
|             |                 |        |        |        |        |
|             |   participants' |        |        |        |        |
|             |     academic    |        |        |        |        |
|             |     and         |        |        |        |        |
|             |     teaching    |        |        |        |        |
|             |     related     |        |        |        |        |
|             |     behaviors   |        |        |        |        |
|             |     (college    |        |        |        |        |
|             |     attendance, |        |        |        |        |
|             |     graduation, |        |        |        |        |
|             |     entering    |        |        |        |        |
|             |     the         |        |        |        |        |
|             |     teaching    |        |        |        |        |
|             |     profession) |        |        |        |        |
|             |                 |        |        |        |        |
|             | ```{=html}      |        |        |        |        |
|             | <!-- -->        |        |        |        |        |
|             | ```             |        |        |        |        |
|             | -   Increase    |        |        |        |        |
|             |     number of   |        |        |        |        |
|             |     males and   |        |        |        |        |
|             |     minorities  |        |        |        |        |
|             |     entering    |        |        |        |        |
|             |     teaching    |        |        |        |        |
|             |     profession  |        |        |        |        |
+-------------+-----------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| **South     | ***I            | N=63   | -      | -   No | -      |
| Carolina    | ntermediate:*** |        |   Post |        |  Descr |
| Minority    |                 |        |        |   data | iptive |
| Access to   | -   Pre-MATE    |        | interv |        |        |
| Teacher     |     component:  |        | ention |   coll |   Stat |
| Education   |     Encourage   |        |     me | ection | istics |
| (MATE)      |     minority    |        | asures |     m  |        |
| ---Minority |     high school |        |        | ethods |        |
| Re          |     students to |        |        |        |        |
| cruitment** |     complete    |        |        |    des |        |
|             |     high school |        |        | cribed |        |
| (Bond, 1997 |                 |        |        |        |        |
| --          | -   Pre-MATE    |        |        |        |        |
| unpublished |     component:  |        |        |        |        |
| evaluation) |     Recruit     |        |        |        |        |
|             |     rural,      |        |        |        |        |
|             |     minority    |        |        |        |        |
|             |     high school |        |        |        |        |
|             |     students    |        |        |        |        |
|             |     into the    |        |        |        |        |
|             |     teacher     |        |        |        |        |
|             |     education   |        |        |        |        |
|             |     pipeline    |        |        |        |        |
|             |                 |        |        |        |        |
|             | *               |        |        |        |        |
|             | **Long-term:*** |        |        |        |        |
|             |                 |        |        |        |        |
|             | -   Pre-MATE    |        |        |        |        |
|             |     component:  |        |        |        |        |
|             |                 |        |        |        |        |
|             |    Participants |        |        |        |        |
|             |     enter       |        |        |        |        |
|             |     teacher     |        |        |        |        |
|             |     education   |        |        |        |        |
|             |     programs in |        |        |        |        |
|             |     college     |        |        |        |        |
|             |                 |        |        |        |        |
|             | -   MATE        |        |        |        |        |
|             |     Scholars    |        |        |        |        |
|             |     component:  |        |        |        |        |
|             |     Recruit     |        |        |        |        |
|             |     minority    |        |        |        |        |
|             |     teacher     |        |        |        |        |
|             |     education   |        |        |        |        |
|             |     majors who  |        |        |        |        |
|             |     are willing |        |        |        |        |
|             |     to teach in |        |        |        |        |
|             |     critical    |        |        |        |        |
|             |     geographic  |        |        |        |        |
|             |     or subject  |        |        |        |        |
|             |     areas       |        |        |        |        |
+-------------+-----------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| **South     | ***I            | 25     | -      | -   No | -      |
| Carolina    | ntermediate:*** | partic |   Post |        |  Descr |
| Program for |                 | ipants |        |   data | iptive |
| the         | -   Recruitment |        | interv |        |        |
| Recruitment |     of desired  |        | ention |   coll |   Stat |
| and         |     population  |        |     me | ection | istics |
| Retention   |                 |        | asures |     m  |        |
| of Minority | *               |        |        | ethods |        |
| Teachers    | **Long-term:*** |        |        |        |        |
| (SC_PRRMT)  |                 |        |        |    des |        |
| ---Minority | -   Place       |        |        | cribed |        |
| Re          |                 |        |        |        |        |
| cruitment** |    participants |        |        |        |        |
|             |     in rural    |        |        |        |        |
| (Bond, 1997 |     "critical   |        |        |        |        |
| --          |     needs"      |        |        |        |        |
| unpublished |     schools     |        |        |        |        |
| e           |                 |        |        |        |        |
| valuations) |                 |        |        |        |        |
+-------------+-----------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| **North     | ***I            | 570    | -      | -      | -      |
| Carolina    | ntermediate:*** | partic | Quasi- |  Focus |  Descr |
| Teaching    |                 | ipants | experi |        | iptive |
| Fellows     | -   Recruit     |        | mental | groups |        |
| Prog        |     exemplary   |        |        |        |   stat |
| ram----High |     high school |        |  desig | -   S  | istics |
| school/un   |     students    |        | n[^22] | urveys |        |
| dergraduate |     into the    |        |        |     of | -   St |
| recruitment |     program     |        | ```{   |        | epwise |
| program**   |                 |        | =html} | partic |        |
|             | -   Recruit     |        | <!     | ipants |   regr |
| (Berry,     |     males and   |        | -- --> |        | ession |
| 1995;       |     minorities  |        | ```    |    and |     a  |
| Arnold and  |     into the    |        | -   P  |        | nalysi |
| Sumner,     |     program     |        | re-and |   prin | s[^23] |
| 1992)       |                 |        |        | cipals |        |
|             | *               |        |  post- |        |        |
|             | **Long-term:*** |        |     me | -      |        |
|             |                 |        | asures |   Comp |        |
|             | -   Improve     |        |        | arison |        |
|             |     retention   |        |   with |     to |        |
|             |     rates in    |        |     na |     da |        |
|             |     teaching    |        | tional | tabase |        |
|             |                 |        |        |     of |        |
|             | -   Improve     |        | sample |     a  |        |
|             |     teaching    |        |        |     na |        |
|             |                 |        |   comp | tional |        |
|             |   effectiveness |        | arison |        |        |
|             |                 |        |        | sample |        |
|             |                 |        |  group |     of |        |
|             |                 |        |        |        |        |
|             |                 |        |        |    beg |        |
|             |                 |        |        | inning |        |
|             |                 |        |        |     te |        |
|             |                 |        |        | achers |        |
+-------------+-----------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| *           | ***I            | 20 CSU | -      | -      | -      |
| *California | ntermediate:*** | ca     | Quasi- | Survey |  Descr |
| State       |                 | mpuses | experi |     of | iptive |
| University  | -   Prepare     |        | mental |        |        |
| Teacher     |                 |        |        |  deans |   stat |
| Diversity   |   undergraduate |        | design |     of | istics |
| P           |     students    |        |        |        |        |
| rograms---- |     for         |        | -   P  |    edu |        |
| Minority    |     competency  |        | re-and | cation |        |
| Re          |     tests       |        |        |        |        |
| cruitment** |                 |        |  post- |    and |        |
|             | -   Increase    |        |        |        |        |
| (McLevie,   |     number of   |        |   with |    dir |        |
| 1994)       |     minority    |        |        | ectors |        |
|             |     pa          |        |  state |     of |        |
|             | raprofessionals |        |        |     t  |        |
|             |     meeting     |        |   data | eacher |        |
|             |     teacher     |        |        |        |        |
|             |                 |        |   comp |    edu |        |
|             |   credentialing |        | arison | cation |        |
|             |                 |        |        |     pr |        |
|             |    requirements |        |  group | ograms |        |
|             |                 |        |        |        |        |
|             | -   Provide     |        |        |        |        |
|             |     advice on   |        |        |        |        |
|             |     teaching    |        |        |        |        |
|             |     careers to  |        |        |        |        |
|             |     middle and  |        |        |        |        |
|             |     high school |        |        |        |        |
|             |     students    |        |        |        |        |
|             |     and to      |        |        |        |        |
|             |                 |        |        |        |        |
|             |  undergraduates |        |        |        |        |
|             |                 |        |        |        |        |
|             | -   Provide     |        |        |        |        |
|             |     internship  |        |        |        |        |
|             |     experiences |        |        |        |        |
|             |     for         |        |        |        |        |
|             |     preservice  |        |        |        |        |
|             |     teachers    |        |        |        |        |
|             |                 |        |        |        |        |
|             | *               |        |        |        |        |
|             | **Long-term:*** |        |        |        |        |
|             |                 |        |        |        |        |
|             | -   Increase    |        |        |        |        |
|             |     diversity   |        |        |        |        |
|             |     in the      |        |        |        |        |
|             |     teaching    |        |        |        |        |
|             |     force       |        |        |        |        |
+-------------+-----------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| **Texas     | ***I            | No     | -      | -   No | -      |
| Alternative | ntermediate:*** | sample | Design |        |  Descr |
| Ce          |                 | size   |        |   data | iptive |
| rtification | -   None        | spe    |    not |        |        |
| P           |     specified   | cified |        |   coll |        |
| rograms---- |                 |        |    des | ection |        |
| Alternative | *               |        | cribed |     m  |        |
| Cert        | **Long-term:*** |        |        | ethods |        |
| ification** |                 |        | -      |        |        |
|             | -   Increase    |        |    Pos |    spe |        |
| (Cornett,   |     diversity   |        | t-data | cified |        |
| 1990)[^24]  |     in the      |        |        |        |        |
|             |     teaching    |        |   were |        |        |
|             |     force       |        |        |        |        |
|             |                 |        |    col |        |        |
|             |                 |        | lected |        |        |
+-------------+-----------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| **Troops to | ***I            | 1,171  | -      | -      | -      |
| Teachers--- | ntermediate:*** | partic | Quasi- | Survey |  Descr |
| Mid-career  |                 | ipants | experi |     or | iptive |
| t           | -   Assist      |        | mental |        |        |
| ransition** |     military    |        |        | partic |   stat |
|             |     and DOD     |        | -      | ipants | istics |
| (F          |     civilian    |        |  Post- |        |        |
| eistritzer, |     personnel   |        |        |        |        |
| Hill, and   |     affected by |        | interv |        |        |
| Willett     |     troop       |        | ention |        |        |
| 1998;       |     reductions  |        |     me |        |        |
| Defense     |     to enter    |        | asures |        |        |
| Activity    |     new careers |        |        |        |        |
| for         |     in public   |        |   with |        |        |
| Non         |     education   |        |     na |        |        |
| traditional |                 |        | tional |        |        |
| Education   | *               |        |        |        |        |
| Support     | **Long-term:*** |        | sample |        |        |
| (DANTES),   |                 |        |        |        |        |
| 1999 --     | -   Provide     |        |   comp |        |        |
| unpublished |     positive    |        | arison |        |        |
| information |     role models |        |        |        |        |
| packet)     |     for         |        |  group |        |        |
|             |     students in |        |        |        |        |
|             |     public      |        |        |        |        |
|             |     schools     |        |        |        |        |
|             |                 |        |        |        |        |
|             | -   Relieve     |        |        |        |        |
|             |     teacher     |        |        |        |        |
|             |     shortages,  |        |        |        |        |
|             |     especially  |        |        |        |        |
|             |     in math and |        |        |        |        |
|             |     science     |        |        |        |        |
|             |                 |        |        |        |        |
|             | -   Improve     |        |        |        |        |
|             |     retention   |        |        |        |        |
|             |     in teaching |        |        |        |        |
|             |                 |        |        |        |        |
|             | -   Improve     |        |        |        |        |
|             |     teacher     |        |        |        |        |
|             |     quality     |        |        |        |        |
+-------------+-----------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+

[Intermediate Outcomes]{.underline}[^25]

Intermediate outcomes are goals programs hope to achieve during, or
shortly after, the duration of an individual's participation in the
program. The most common intermediate outcomes for minority recruitment
programs, alternative certification programs, and mid-career or
paraprofessional training programs included retaining participants in
the program (also a goal for one of the middle school programs),
preparing participants for competency tests, and preparing participants
to meet teacher-credentialing requirements. Another intermediate outcome
listed in the evaluations was sustaining or developing participants'
interest in and commitment to teaching (Bond, 1997; Berry, 1995;
McLevie, 1994; Cornett, 1990; Feistritzer, et al., 1998).

For recruitment programs targeted at middle and high school students, an
important outcome is high school graduation and enrollment in college.
As with programs targeting adult populations, sustaining and developing
the students' interest in teaching is an intermediate outcome for this
type of program. Other intermediate outcomes included improving
participants' grades and behaviors (especially for middle school
students) and improving participants self-esteem (South Carolina Center
for Teacher Recruitment, 1998b; Cabral and Cabral, 1999).

Other kinds of immediate goals for all types of reviewed programs
included the target populations of the recruitment program, for example,
increasing the number of older teachers, male teachers, or minority
teachers or paraprofessionals training to be teachers. Variations of
this goal included two programs focused on recruiting high-achieving or
exemplary students as future teachers (South Carolina Center for Teacher
Recruitment, 1998b; Cabral and Cabral, 1999; Cornett, 1990; Berry,
1995).

Not all intermediate outcomes of state teacher recruitment programs are
entirely focused on increasing teacher supply, per se. Other goals may
be dictated by those the program is intended to serve. In the Troops to
Teachers Program evaluation, assisting military personnel who were
released from the military during troop reductions find employment was
an explicit goal. The same program has a stated goal of providing
positive role models for public school students (Feistritzer, et al.,
1998).

Long-term Outcomes

Longer-term outcomes are long-range goals which may not be measurable
until months or years after a cohort of participants completes a teacher
recruitment program. Predictably, the long-term outcomes of the eight
evaluated programs focused on increasing the number of certified
teachers, thereby relieving teacher shortages, retaining teachers for
the long term, and improving teacher quality, particularly in urban
areas with relatively high proportions of uncertified or emergency
certified (and therefore presumably under-qualified) teachers. Two
projects set as long-term goals increasing the supply of teachers in
critical fields, such as math and science (South Carolina Center for
Teacher Recruitment, 1998b ; Feistritzer, et al., 1998). Programs
targeting middle and high school students aimed to encourage students to
attend college and major in education in order to increase the number of
teachers in the long-term (South Carolina Center for Teacher
Recruitment, 1998b; Cabral and Cabral, 1999).

Long-term outcomes also included increasing the number of
paraprofessionals certified as teachers (mid-career or paraprofessional
programs) and diversifying the teaching force by increasing the number
of minority teachers, including males and older teachers as well as
teachers from cultural and ethnic minorities (all of four kinds of
evaluated programs) (Bond, 1997; Berry, 1995; McLevie, 1994; Cornett,
1990; Feistritzer, et al., 1998; South Carolina Center for Teacher
Recruitment, 1998b ). One minority recruitment program targeting middle
school students focused their long-term efforts on developing their own
teachers to meet state needs (South Carolina Center for Teacher
Recruitment, 1998b).

Last, two programs reported their long-terms goals included instilling
in participants a sense of the civic value of public education, and a
commitment to the system. The South Carolina Center for Teacher
Recruitment, for example, measures these goals through the participants'
comprehension of the consequences that social issues have on the
education system and in their retention in the field (South Carolina
Center for Teacher Recruitment, 1998b).

It is interesting to note that none of the reviewed state recruitment
programs had student outcomes as either immediate or long-term
goals.[^26] This suggests that teacher quality or teacher effectiveness
and student outcomes are not considered direct goals of many programs to
recruit teachers. The fact that none of the programs included student
outcomes among its goals also raises a host of quality versus quantity
of teacher supply questions (Darling-Hammond, et al., 1999)

Data Systems Accessed by State Recruitment Programs

In order to track the progress of participants and alumni and measure
program impact, state recruitment programs used a variety of data
sources, including state and local data sets and systems the programs
created for themselves. Among the extant data sources used were the
California Postsecondary Education Commission Student Profiles
collection and data from the Office of the Chancellor of California
State University on the ethnicity of newly credentialed teachers
(McLevie, 1994). One project accessed data from a national sample of new
teachers compiled by a doctoral degree candidate (Berry, 1995). State
records of test score data and student demographic data were used, as
were data from the Texas Teachers Appraisal System (Cornett, 1990). In
total, three programs used existing data sources, but only two programs
used available state data systems. As all eight of the programs were
state-level programs, it is surprising that so few evaluations reported
using student and teacher data which is routinely collected in every
state. Though these programs did not explain why they neglected to use
state data systems, we can speculate the reasons are related to poor
data quality, lack of access, or lack of awareness.

Programs also created their own data systems containing enrollment data
and demographic information about participants. These project-built data
sets included coded information from surveys of participants
administered for evaluation purposes. Six programs built their own data
systems. One exemplary database, constructed to track outcomes of the
South Carolina Teacher Cadet program, stores longitudinal data collected
for ten years after a participant leaves the program. The South Carolina
Center for Teacher Recruitment, the administering body of the program,
authorizes an annual post-survey of former teacher cadets. Variables
include certification, the number of students entering teaching
(disaggregated by gender and ethnicity), the number of participants
teaching in critical shortage urban and rural areas, and the number of
participants teaching math and science (South Carolina Center for
Teacher Recruitment, 1998b). Other project-generated databases did not
collect follow-up data for such a length of time and did not track as
many variables.

Evaluation Methods

Of the eight reviewed evaluations of state programs, five reported using
strictly quantitative methods and three reported using a combination of
quantitative and qualitative methods. On the whole, evaluations were of
acceptable rigor.

Quantitative methods used in the evaluations included surveys of the
participants themselves, program staff, principals, deans, and program
alumni. Data collected included basic descriptive statistics such as
number of participants, demographic data on participants, and numbers of
participants certified or entering teaching jobs. Three projects used
extant data sources to collect or corroborate some of this information.

Surveys were generally administered either before and after or after the
program only depending on the outcome to be measured, and at least three
programs used surveys to collect longitudinal data. The projects
reporting collection of follow-up data included one project that
surveyed program alumni after they had been teaching for three years and
two programs serving middle and high school students which tracked high
school completion and career choice during a ten year period. Response
rates for surveys are not always reported and one of the reported
response rates was as low as 20 percent (one was as high as 65 percent).
Interviews and focus groups with program alumni were conducted after
participation in the program.

Three program evaluations used a quasi-experimental design to compare
outcomes for participants to outcomes for nonparticipants of the
programs. For example, the Troops to Teachers evaluation used a
quasi-experimental design that posed similar survey questions to former
military personnel that had transitioned into teaching as had been asked
in three previous national sample surveys of public school teachers.
Another evaluation (which was not considered quasi-experimental)
attempted comparison with an unmatched comparison group, a construction
which compromises the program's ability to link program activities with
superior outcomes for participants.[^27] Two others compared those who
completed programs to a national random sample of new teachers. A third
program made a similar comparison to state data. Compared variables
included demographic characteristics of teachers, new teachers'
perceptions of school working conditions, and intentions to remain in
teaching.

Qualitative methods employed by three evaluations included focus group
interviews with participants, field visits to observe teaching alumni in
their classrooms and individual interviews with participants and their
teachers. Much of the data gathered through qualitative techniques was
used in formative evaluation to refine the content or delivery of
program services.

######   {#section-7 .unnumbered}

###### Chapter 4: Effective Elements of State Recruitment Efforts

This section describes effective programs in state recruitment efforts.
We consider an entire program effective if it can demonstrate positive
outcome data, and assume its components are each an effective part of
the whole. It is important to note that each program may employ more
than one strategy, and it is usually impossible to tell from program
evaluation results exactly which component of the project is responsible
for each measured change. Additionally, it is also difficult for us to
know whether the elements we highlight below as "effective" are unique
to successful recruitment programs as there is so little evaluative
information available concerning state programs.

In the evaluations with data indicating positive outcomes most of the
measured outcomes were intermediate outcomes. This is due to the fact
that half of the evaluations reported outcomes for relatively recent
cohorts of program graduates. Thus not enough time has passed since the
studied cohorts completed the programs to measure truly long-term
results. Three program evaluations included eight to ten years of data;
these programs were better able to assess long-term outcomes.

Effective State Leadership and Partnership Structures

The structures of the reviewed state programs show a variety of models
for partnerships between and among state and local entities. The South
Carolina Program for the Recruitment and Retention of Minority Teachers
represents the simplest structure. This program, created in 1991, is
state-funded and housed in a state university where it serves both
recruits from technical college (two year institutions) and also teacher
aides who wish to pursue bachelor degrees in education leading to
credentialing. A satellite teacher education program delivers initial
course work to teacher aides from sites in rural parts of the state.
These students must then complete their methods courses and advanced
classes on the central campus. Courses at the main campus are offered on
weekends for participants who work during the week. Program staff
include a full-time director and a full-time recruiter plus 1.25
full-time equivalent employees, all of whom are university employees.

Elsewhere in South Carolina, a much more complicated model has emerged.
The South Carolina Center for Teacher Recruitment houses a number of
diverse efforts aimed at targeting various populations of prospective
teachers. The center is the oldest and largest teacher recruitment
initiative in the state. The center, like the university program
described above, was initially funded by a 1984 state law mandating the
"elevation of the teaching profession." The center was created in 1986
and is headquartered at a state university. This center now runs
programs offered in 144 high schools representing more than
three-quarters of the school districts in the state. Each year the
center reports to the South Carolina Commission on Higher Education,
which governs its budget. The center has a staff of 13, including the
designated "state teacher of the year" who is released from the
classroom for one year to join the center staff. Other
teachers-in-residence are released from their classrooms for up to two
years and work from their homes in each of six regions of the state to
coordinate local efforts.

Interestingly, these two efforts (plus one other program not reviewed
here) attempted to form a state minority teacher recruitment partnership
to inform the state legislature about issues of shared concern. However,
the partnership has never been particularly active (Bond, 1997). An
annual joint activity operated in tandem for three years by the three
partners was eliminated in the early 1990s due to funding constraints.
In 1997 an evaluation report for several state programs reported the
partnership has "drifted into non-existence" (Bond, 1997). The
individual programs continue to operate independently.

The Texas State Education Agency supervises the nine minority
recruitment programs operating in 75 districts in the state. Initially
school-based, the programs are now collaborations between state
universities and school districts (Cornett, 1990).

California also has state teacher recruitment programs administered in
partnership with state universities. Unlike the single, unified South
Carolina program, the California programs have no central monitoring
agency and serve varying populations and have different target
populations according to the campus at which each is located. Twenty
campuses are involved in the umbrella program to recruit diverse
teachers. The initial pilot of the program began in 1989 and was
expanded to all 20 campuses by 1990. The efforts are funded by the state
lottery fund. The programs target middle and high school students as
well as school paraprofessionals to encourage them to enter college and
earn bachelor degrees and teaching credentials. Programs at each campus
collaborate with local schools and school districts, and each functions
independently with its own set of strategies but a shared goal of
increasing the diversity of the teaching force in the state (McLevie,
1994).

The North Carolina Teacher Fellows Program demonstrates the most complex
organizational structure of the models reviewed. The program is funded
directly by the state government and is administered by a nonprofit
partnership of business, educational, and political leaders. A
governor-appointed commission sets rules and policies for the operation
of the program. Fourteen state universities and colleges participate in
cooperation with local school districts which invite fellows to serve
internships in the classroom. The state provides scholarships for
fellows to enroll in participating college and universities. Within each
university there are staffs to provide services to fellows. For example,
one university hires 12 master teachers from the public school to
advise, teach, and provide field experiences for fellows. Unlike the
South Carolina program, fellows in North Carolina are encouraged not to
work in order to pursue study and classroom field work full-time (Berry,
1995).

The last model is a structure radically different from the others,
because it is nationally funded, and because it was originally designed
not specifically to increase the number of available teachers, but to
provide opportunities for former soldiers to enter public education as a
second career. The Troops to Teachers Program was initiated in 1994, a
result of 1993 legislation mandating a decrease in Armed Services
personnel. The program is funded by the U.S. Department of Defense and
administered by 21 state placement assistance offices. The state offices
network independently with local school districts to find teaching
positions for participants. The program functions more as a
clearinghouse for information than a service-providing program, in
effect, as it does not provide direct services to participants other
than referrals and scholarships (Feistritzer, et al., 1998).

Effective Strategies for Recruitment and Selection

Successful recruitment of program participants is a critical factor for
program results. Effective state recruitment programs share some common
strategies: hosting informational meetings, posting notices of
opportunities for participation, and working with relevant student and
professional organizations to target their memberships. In addition to
these methods, effective programs also use more creative, more focused
strategies as well. Although we have been able to identify the following
recruitment strategies as effective, we do not have exact counts as to
the number of participants recruited for each evaluated program.

The programs targeting middle and high school students use teachers to
recruit new applicants from among their best students. In fact,
eligibility criteria for these programs are more academically rigorous
than for adult participants in other kinds of programs. Examples of
minimum enrollment requirements include: a 3.0 grade point average,
recommendations from several teachers, top 40 percent of the class, an
essay describing motivation for enrollment. Candidates are screened on
the basis of these criteria, and the most qualified applicants are
selected. One program has a teacher specified in every high school in
the state responsible for recruiting the most promising students (South
Carolina Center for Teacher Recruitment, 1998b).

Another program based at a university, the California State University
Teacher Diversity Program, has a task force focused on developing
strategies to successfully recruit minority candidates. Unfortunately,
the specific strategies used were not described in the evaluation. The
task force is sponsored by the dean of education at the university
(McLevie, 1994).

The mid-career Troops to Teachers Program invites applications from any
interested retired or laid-off military personnel or DOD civilian
employees, but only provides funding to the top candidates. A second
tier of candidates receives referral services, but no funding.
Candidates determined to be unqualified receive no services
(Feistritzer, et al., 1998).

Effective Support Services

Effective support services for programs targeting middle and high school
students include providing information about colleges, including visits
and tours of state colleges. Sessions in which older participants and
program alumni make presentations to younger participants and college
and teaching also provide guidance to participants. Mentoring and
opportunities for networking are common features of effective programs
targeting students. Other services include newsletters, telephone help
lines to provide information about the college application process, and
job banks for participants who eventually earn education degrees. Two of
the student-oriented programs also offer college scholarship funds
(South Carolina Center for Teacher Recruitment, 1998b).

Programs targeting adults offer forgiveness of student loans,
preparation for competency tests, academic advice, career counseling,
internships, stipends, paid fellowships, and scholarships (Bond, 1997;
Berry, 1995; McLevie, 1994; Cornett, 1990; Feistritzer, et al., 1998).
One program, Troops to Teachers, offers on-line mentors to counsel
participants. This mentoring service is made up of an online network of
Troops to Teachers participants currently working as teachers, who
volunteer to answer basic questions about becoming a teacher. Another
service offered is scheduling of classes convenient to the target
population, for example, classes during the evening and on weekend for
participants who work during the day (Bond, 1997).

Effective Preservice Education Strategies

Students participating in the South Carolina Teacher Cadet Program
receive college credit for an Introduction to Teaching course. This
strategy is coupled with a teaching assistants program through which
participants work one-one-one with a teacher to practice their skills in
the classroom. The South Carolina ProTeam program offers a similar
course designed to interest middle school students in the teaching
profession (no college credit is offered). Optional educational
opportunities are provided in the context of a school-based club for
future teachers (South Carolina Center for Teacher Recruitment, 1998b).

Programs for adults focus on helping them earn undergraduate degrees in
education. They also provide tutoring services intended to provide
specific assistance, basic skills, or preparation for credentialing or
competency examinations. Some programs provide field experiences in
addition to helping participants earn college credit. (Bond, 1997;
Berry, 1995; McLevie, 1994; Cornett, 1990; Feistritzer, et al., 1998).
The most creative of these strategies, used by the North Carolina
Teaching Fellows Program, includes a series of visits to different
communities where participants can experience the differences between
urban and rural classrooms across the state. The same program offers
internships in school district offices in order to expose participants
to the workings of local education authorities (Bond, 1997).

The mid-career program offers no academic support or preservice
education, but does refer participants to state and local alternative
certification programs for such services. Some participants receive
scholarship funds to be used in these programs (Feistritzer, et al.,
1998).

Effective Teacher Induction Practices

Supportive induction programs are not a recruitment strategy but are
designed to retain teachers by helping them make the transition from a
teacher training program to the classroom. None of the recruitment
program evaluations reviewed reported data on teacher induction
practices. However, participants in recruitment programs in Texas and
North Carolina were surveyed about mentoring programs for new teachers
which were not part of program services but were offered to all new
teachers. Respondents in both states reported the mentoring relationship
between new and experienced teachers was critical. Respondents also
indicated mentoring services were not delivered consistently from school
to school and year to year (Bond, 1997; Berry, 1995).

One of the California State University Teacher Diversity Programs, the
California New Teacher Project included an induction component testing
alternative models of support for beginning teachers. Model projects
were funded throughout the state. The project confirmed that effective
induction models reduced attrition among first- and second-year teachers
by two-thirds (Patrick, et al., 1999). Of particular interest, the
project found that retention rates improved for minority teachers and
teachers working in urban and rural areas.

Effective Dissemination and Institutionalization Practices

Because funding for the programs discussed in this section come from
state governments, they are all by definition institutionalized.
However, each of the programs has an interest in disseminating
information about its effective strategies, and some also encourage
other states to adopt successful program models.

The most effectively publicized recruitment program in states has been
Troops to Teachers, which has received attention from the national
press. It is frequently cited as an example of an effective mid-career
recruitment program (Feistritzer, et al., 1998).

The university-based state recruitment program in California began as a
program on one campus, but has now spread throughout the state
university system. Thus state resources (in the university system) were
effectively leveraged to increase the target population and increase the
number of program graduates (McLevie, 1994).

Besides running two effective student-oriented programs, the South
Carolina Center for Teacher Recruitment also acts as a clearinghouse for
information about the status of teaching in the state. In its role as a
resource for information about effective strategies, the center
disseminates information about strategies and outcomes within and
outside the state. The center model has been replicated to varying
degrees by 17 other states (South Carolina Center for Teacher
Recruitment, 1998b).

######   {#section-8 .unnumbered}

###### Chapter 5: Teacher Recruitment from a Local Perspective: An Overview

Initiatives at the local level to increase the number of teachers in
schools and school districts range from nationally coordinated
initiatives to individual partnerships between teacher education
programs and nearby school districts. Many of these programs focus on
meeting the specific needs of the partner districts (or schools within
districts) in terms of teacher characteristics. This section begins with
a description of national initiatives and individual programs, discusses
the intermediate and long-term outcomes of local programs, and ends with
a description of effective elements of these recruitment programs.

Description of National Initiatives and Individual Programs

*National initiatives*. Major initiatives to recruit teachers that are
coordinated at the national level but implemented at local levels,
include: the Ford Foundation Minority Teacher Education Project
(Clewell, Anderson, Bruschi, Goertz, Joy, & Villegas, 1995), Teach for
America (Teach for America, 1999), and the DeWitt Wallace--Reader's
Digest Fund Pathways to Teaching Careers Program (Villegas and Clewell,
1998). Table 5 gives characteristics of these programs, including target
populations, number of sites, number of participants served, major
strategies, and funding agencies.

Table 5. Nationally Coordinated and Locally Implemented Initiatives

+-------+----------------+----------+---------+---------------+-------+
| *     | **Target       | **\# of  | **\# of | **Major       | **Fu  |
| *Prog | Population**   | Sites**  | Partici | Strategies**  | nding |
| ram** |                |          | pants** |               | Age   |
|       |                |          |         |               | ncy** |
+=======+================+==========+=========+===============+=======+
| > *   | -   Minority   | 50 sites | Approx  | -   I         | Ford  |
| *Ford |                | in six   | imately | dentification | Found |
| >     |    individuals | states   | 5,000   |     and       | ation |
| Found |                | (Ala.,   |         |               |       |
| ation | -   Precollege | Fla.,    |         |   recruitment |       |
| > Te  |     students   | Ga.,     |         |               |       |
| acher |                | La.,     |         | -             |       |
| >     | -   U          | N.C.,    |         |    Assessment |       |
|  Educ | ndergraduates/ | Ohio),   |         |     and       |       |
| ation |     graduates  | the      |         |               |       |
| >     |                | Navajo   |         |    monitoring |       |
|  Prog | -   Community  | Nation   |         |               |       |
| ram** |     college    | and the  |         | -   Academic  |       |
|       |     students   | Los      |         |     and       |       |
|       |                | Angeles  |         |     personal  |       |
|       | -   Par        | area     |         |     support   |       |
|       | aprofessionals |          |         |               |       |
|       |                |          |         | -             |       |
|       |                |          |         |    Curriculum |       |
|       |                |          |         |     revision  |       |
|       |                |          |         |               |       |
|       |                |          |         | -   Financial |       |
|       |                |          |         |               |       |
|       |                |          |         |    incentives |       |
|       |                |          |         |     (limited) |       |
+-------+----------------+----------+---------+---------------+-------+
| > **  | -   Drawn      | 15       | More    | -             | Pr    |
| Teach |     primarily  | p        | than    |    Eight-week | ivate |
| > for |     from       | lacement | 5,000   |     training  | f     |
| >     |     recent     | sites    |         |     course    | ounda |
|  Amer |                | na       |         |               | tions |
| ica** |  baccalaureate | tionwide |         | pre-placement | and   |
|       |     degree     |          |         |               | i     |
|       |     recipients |          |         | -             | ndivi |
|       |     with       |          |         |   Orientation | duals |
|       |                |          |         |     and       |       |
|       |   noneducation |          |         |     support   |       |
|       |     majors     |          |         |     at local  |       |
|       |                |          |         |     sites     |       |
+-------+----------------+----------+---------+---------------+-------+
| > **D | -   Emerg      | 41 sites | Almost  | -             | D     |
| eWitt | ency-certified | na       | 3,000   |  Partnerships | eWitt |
| > Wa  |     teachers   | tionwide |         |     between   | Wa    |
| llace |                |          |         |     teacher   | llace |
| --Rea | -   Substitute |          |         |     education | --Rea |
| der's |     teachers   |          |         |     programs  | der's |
| > D   |                |          |         |     and local | D     |
| igest | -   Par        |          |         |     school    | igest |
| > Pat | aprofessionals |          |         |     districts | Fund  |
| hways |                |          |         |               |       |
| > to  | -   Returned   |          |         | -   Flexible  |       |
| > Tea |     Peace      |          |         |     and       |       |
| ching |     Corps      |          |         |     varied    |       |
| > Ca  |     volunteers |          |         |     selection |       |
| reers |                |          |         |     criteria  |       |
| >     |                |          |         |               |       |
|  Prog |                |          |         | -   Network   |       |
| ram** |                |          |         |     of        |       |
|       |                |          |         |     academic  |       |
|       |                |          |         |     and       |       |
|       |                |          |         |     social    |       |
|       |                |          |         |     support   |       |
|       |                |          |         |               |       |
|       |                |          |         | -             |       |
|       |                |          |         |  Modification |       |
|       |                |          |         |     of        |       |
|       |                |          |         |     teacher   |       |
|       |                |          |         |     education |       |
|       |                |          |         |               |       |
|       |                |          |         |    curriculum |       |
|       |                |          |         |               |       |
|       |                |          |         | -             |       |
|       |                |          |         |   Substantial |       |
|       |                |          |         |     tuition   |       |
|       |                |          |         |               |       |
|       |                |          |         |    assistance |       |
+-------+----------------+----------+---------+---------------+-------+

*Individual programs*. School districts have established numerous
individual programs to recruit teachers. There are: university teacher
education programs in partnership; community colleges in partnership
with university teacher education programs and school districts; and
partnerships of school districts, local teacher unions, university
teacher education programs, community colleges, and other entities. Most
of these efforts can be classified into five types: (1) precollege
recruitment programs; (2) initiatives at traditional four-year and
redesigned five-year university-based programs to improve recruitment
and retention of students already in the pipeline; (3) efforts to
develop pathways into teaching for students in community colleges; (4)
programs that tap the pool of paraprofessionals and teacher aides; and
(5) programs to attract mid-career professionals and other college
graduates into teaching (Darling-Hammond, et al., 1999). Although some
of the programs in these categories have been state-supported, most have
focused on filling local district demands for teachers in specific
areas, usually mathematics, science, bilingual education or special
education. Another recruitment focus is on candidates with certain
characteristics desired by the districts, such as minority status,
fluency in another language, or male gender. Table 6 below gives goals,
target populations, and major activities of local recruitment programs.
Examples 1 -- 5 give examples of each type of local initiative.

Table 6. Descriptions of the Types of Efforts in Local Recruitment[^28]

+---+-----------------+-------------+------------+---------+---------+
| > | ###             |             |            |         |         |
|   | #### Initiative |             |            |         |         |
| * |                 |             |            |         |         |
| * |                 |             |            |         |         |
| D |                 |             |            |         |         |
| e |                 |             |            |         |         |
| s |                 |             |            |         |         |
| c |                 |             |            |         |         |
| r |                 |             |            |         |         |
| i |                 |             |            |         |         |
| p |                 |             |            |         |         |
| t |                 |             |            |         |         |
| i |                 |             |            |         |         |
| o |                 |             |            |         |         |
| n |                 |             |            |         |         |
| > |                 |             |            |         |         |
|   |                 |             |            |         |         |
| o |                 |             |            |         |         |
| f |                 |             |            |         |         |
| > |                 |             |            |         |         |
|   |                 |             |            |         |         |
| I |                 |             |            |         |         |
| n |                 |             |            |         |         |
| i |                 |             |            |         |         |
| t |                 |             |            |         |         |
| i |                 |             |            |         |         |
| a |                 |             |            |         |         |
| t |                 |             |            |         |         |
| i |                 |             |            |         |         |
| v |                 |             |            |         |         |
| e |                 |             |            |         |         |
| * |                 |             |            |         |         |
| * |                 |             |            |         |         |
+---+-----------------+-------------+------------+---------+---------+
|   | **Pre-College   | **Four Year | *          | **Pa    | **Alte  |
|   | Recruitment     | and Five-   | *Community | raprofe | rnative |
|   | Programs**      | Year        | College    | ssional | Prep    |
|   |                 | University  | Ar         | P       | aration |
|   |                 | Based       | ticulation | athways | Pro     |
|   |                 | Programs**  | Program**  | into    | grams** |
|   |                 |             |            | Tea     |         |
|   |                 |             |            | ching** |         |
+---+-----------------+-------------+------------+---------+---------+
| > | Identify,       | Attract     | Select,    | Create  | E       |
|   | interest,       | college     | support    | a       | xpedite |
| * | inform and      | students    | and        | "p      | the     |
| * | instruct middle | into        | prepare    | athway" | li      |
| G | and high school | teaching    | community  | for     | censure |
| o | students        |             | college    | teacher | process |
| a | regarding       |             | students   | certif  | for     |
| l | teaching as a   |             | for        | ication | teacher |
| s | career so that  |             | careers in | by      | can     |
| * | they will       |             | teaching.  | paraed  | didates |
| * | choose to major |             |            | ucators | who     |
|   | in teacher      |             |            |         | have    |
|   | education in    |             |            |         | b       |
|   | college and     |             |            |         | achelor |
|   | graduate as     |             |            |         | degrees |
|   | teachers.       |             |            |         | and     |
|   |                 |             |            |         | subject |
|   |                 |             |            |         | matter  |
|   |                 |             |            |         | ex      |
|   |                 |             |            |         | pertise |
+---+-----------------+-------------+------------+---------+---------+
| > | Students in     | -   Un      | Students   | Paraed  | Noned   |
|   | middle school,  | dergraduate | attending  | ucators | ucation |
| * | junior high     |             | two year   | in      | degree  |
| * | and/or high     |    students | ins        | local   | holders |
| T | school.         |     in      | titutions. | school  | with    |
| a | Nontraditional  |     n       |            | di      | subject |
| r | and more        | oneducation |            | stricts | matter  |
| g | academically    |     majors  |            |         | ex      |
| e | able students.  |     or      |            |         | pertise |
| t |                 |             |            |         |         |
| > |                 |   undecided |            |         |         |
|   |                 |     majors. |            |         |         |
| P |                 |             |            |         |         |
| o |                 | ```{=html}  |            |         |         |
| p |                 | <!-- -->    |            |         |         |
| u |                 | ```         |            |         |         |
| l |                 | -   Older   |            |         |         |
| a |                 |             |            |         |         |
| t |                 | individuals |            |         |         |
| i |                 |     who had |            |         |         |
| o |                 |     not     |            |         |         |
| n |                 |             |            |         |         |
| s |                 |    attended |            |         |         |
| * |                 |     college |            |         |         |
| * |                 |     but who |            |         |         |
|   |                 |     are     |            |         |         |
|   |                 |             |            |         |         |
|   |                 |  interested |            |         |         |
|   |                 |     in      |            |         |         |
|   |                 |             |            |         |         |
|   |                 |    teaching |            |         |         |
|   |                 |             |            |         |         |
|   |                 | ```{=html}  |            |         |         |
|   |                 | <!-- -->    |            |         |         |
|   |                 | ```         |            |         |         |
|   |                 | -   Caree   |            |         |         |
|   |                 | r-switchers |            |         |         |
|   |                 |     with    |            |         |         |
|   |                 |     n       |            |         |         |
|   |                 | oneducation |            |         |         |
|   |                 |     degrees |            |         |         |
+---+-----------------+-------------+------------+---------+---------+
| > | -   Recruitment | -           | -   Pr     | -   Fi  | -   R   |
|   |     in local    | Recruitment | eeducation | nancial | evision |
| * |     schools     |     of      |     course |         |     of  |
| * |                 |     target  |     at the | support |     li  |
| M | -   Use         |             |            |         | censure |
| a |     structured  | populations |  community | -   A   |         |
| j |     activities  |             |            | cademic |   requi |
| o |     to:         | -           |    college |     and | rements |
| r |                 |   Financial |     level  |         |         |
| > | ```{=html}      |             |            |  social | -       |
|   | <!-- -->        |  incentives | -          |         |  Formal |
| A | ```             |     (sc     |    Support | support |         |
| c | -   introduce   | holarships, |            |         |    prep |
| t |     students to |     loan    |   services | -   Cur | aration |
| i |     teaching as |     f       |     from   | riculum |     for |
| v |     a career    | orgiveness, |            |     r   |     t   |
| i |     through job |     etc.)   |  community | evision | eaching |
| t |                 |             |            |         |         |
| i |   observations, | -           |    college | ```     | -   On  |
| e |     school      |  Innovative |     and    | {=html} |     the |
| s |     visits,     |     teacher |            | <       |     job |
| * |     etc.        |             |    teacher | !-- --> |         |
| * |                 | preparation |            | ```     |    supe |
|   | -   maintain    |             |  education | -       | rvision |
|   |     student     |    programs |            |   Partn |         |
|   |     interest in |             |    program | erships | -       |
|   |     teaching    | ```{=html}  |            |         |   Field |
|   |                 | <!-- -->    | -   Ar     | between |     exp |
|   | -   develop     | ```         | ticulation |         | erience |
|   |     teaching    | -           |            |  school |         |
|   |     skills via  |    Academic | agreements |     di  | -   Me  |
|   |     internship  |     and     |     and    | stricts | ntoring |
|   |     experiences |     social  |     pa     |     and |         |
|   |                 |     support | rtnerships |         | -   In  |
|   | -   academic    |             |     with   |    IHEs | duction |
|   |     enrichment  |             |     four   |         |         |
|   |     seminars    |             |     year   |         |         |
|   |                 |             |            |         |         |
|   | ```{=html}      |             |   colleges |         |         |
|   | <!-- -->        |             |            |         |         |
|   | ```             |             | -          |         |         |
|   | -   Academic    |             |    Special |         |         |
|   |     support at  |             |            |         |         |
|   |     the         |             | sequencing |         |         |
|   |     pre-college |             |     of     |         |         |
|   |     level       |             |     course |         |         |
|   |                 |             |     work   |         |         |
|   | ```{=html}      |             |            |         |         |
|   | <!-- -->        |             | ```{=html} |         |         |
|   | ```             |             | <!-- -->   |         |         |
|   | -   Support     |             | ```        |         |         |
|   |     services at |             | -          |         |         |
|   |     the         |             |  Financial |         |         |
|   |                 |             |            |         |         |
|   |   postsecondary |             |    support |         |         |
|   |     level       |             |            |         |         |
+---+-----------------+-------------+------------+---------+---------+

#### Examples of Local Recruitment Programs

#### 

#### Example 1. Pre-College Recruitment Program

#### Example 2. Four- and Five- Year University-Based Program

#### Example 3. Community College Articulation Program

#### Example 4. Paraprofessional Career Ladder Program

**Example 5. Alternative Preparation Program**

Local Program Outcomes and Outcome Measurement

Few summative[^29] evaluations of the many existing local teacher
recruitment programs are available in the literature. Fortunately, we
were able to supplement those that we found through literature searches
with unpublished evaluations. The information in this section,
therefore, is based on a review of ten credible evaluations of various
types of programs: one local evaluation of a community college
articulation program; two evaluations of paraprofessional pathways
programs (one national and one local); one national evaluation of a
consortium of university-based five-year programs; five evaluations of
national and district-level alternative certification programs; and two
evaluations of local loan forgiveness and scholarship reimbursement
programs. Table 7 gives the main components of these evaluations.[^30]

Table 7. Evaluations of Local Recruitment Programs[^31]

+------------+-------------------+--------+--------+---------+--------+
| **Program  | **Anticipated     | #      | **Eval | **Data  | **Data |
| Name**     | Outcomes**        |  Sampl | uation | Col     | Anal   |
|            |                   | e Size | De     | lection | ysis** |
| **and      |                   |        | sign** | M       |        |
| Type**     |                   |        |        | ethod** |        |
+============+===================+========+========+=========+========+
| **Project  | **                | 212    | -      | -       | -      |
| TEACH---   | *Intermediate:*** | partic |  Post- |  Review |  Descr |
| Community  |                   | ipants | interv |     of  | iptive |
| College    | -   Recruitment   |        | ention |         |        |
| Ar         |     of desired    |        |     me |  instit |   stat |
| ticulation |     population    |        | asures | utional | istics |
| Program**  |                   |        |        |         |        |
|            | -   Progression   |        |        | records |        |
| (Schulman, |     of            |        |        |         |        |
| 1990)      |     participants  |        |        | -       |        |
|            |     through       |        |        |  Review |        |
|            |     required      |        |        |     of  |        |
|            |     course work   |        |        |         |        |
|            |                   |        |        |    data |        |
|            | -   GPAs          |        |        |     co  |        |
|            |                   |        |        | llected |        |
|            | -   Transfer to   |        |        |     by  |        |
|            |     four-year     |        |        |         |        |
|            |     college       |        |        | program |        |
|            |                   |        |        |         |        |
|            | ***Long-term:***  |        |        |         |        |
|            |                   |        |        |         |        |
|            | -   None          |        |        |         |        |
|            |     specified     |        |        |         |        |
+------------+-------------------+--------+--------+---------+--------+
| **Aide-    | **                | 113    | -      | -       | -      |
| to-Teacher | *Intermediate:*** | partic |  Post- | Surveys |  Descr |
| Project--- |                   | ipants | interv |         | iptive |
| Parapr     | -   Retention of  |        | ention | -       |        |
| ofessional |     students      |        |     me |  Review |   stat |
| Pathways   |                   |        | asures |     of  | istics |
| to         | -   Progression   |        |        |         |        |
| Teaching** |     to Phase II   |        |        |  instit |    inc |
|            |                   |        |        | utional | luding |
| (Warshaw,  | -   Academic      |        |        |         |        |
| 1992)      |     progress of   |        |        | records |  cross |
|            |     students in   |        |        |         |        |
|            |     Phases II and |        |        |         |   tabu |
|            |     III (class    |        |        |         | lation |
|            |     standing and  |        |        |         | s[^32] |
|            |     average GPA)  |        |        |         |        |
|            |                   |        |        |         |        |
|            | ***Long-term:***  |        |        |         |        |
|            |                   |        |        |         |        |
|            | -   None          |        |        |         |        |
|            |     specified     |        |        |         |        |
|            |                   |        |        |         |        |
|            | -   Follow-up     |        |        |         |        |
|            |     data          |        |        |         |        |
|            |     collection    |        |        |         |        |
|            |     suggested     |        |        |         |        |
+------------+-------------------+--------+--------+---------+--------+
| **Pathways | **                | 2,579  | -      | -       | -      |
| to         | *Intermediate:*** | partic | Quasi- | Surveys |  Descr |
| Teaching   |                   | ipants | experi |     of  | iptive |
| Careers    | -   Recruitment   |        | mental |         |        |
| Program--- |     of target     |        |        |  partic |   stat |
| Parapr     |     population    |        | design | ipants, | istics |
| ofessional |                   |        |        |     pr  |        |
| and Other  | -   Retention in  |        | ```{   | ograms, | -      |
| Pathways   |     teacher       |        | =html} |         |  Tests |
| to         |     education     |        | <!     |   field |     of |
| Teaching** |     program of    |        | -- --> |     exp |        |
|            |     participants  |        | ```    | erience | signif |
| (Clewell   |                   |        | -      |         | icance |
| et al.,    | -   Progression   |        |  Post- |   super |        |
| 1997)      |     through       |        | interv | visors, |        |
|            |     required      |        | ention |     and |        |
|            |     course work   |        |     me |     pri |        |
|            |                   |        | asures | ncipals |        |
|            | ***Long-term:***  |        |        |         |        |
|            |                   |        | -   Co | -       |        |
|            | -   Completion of |        | mpared |    Perf |        |
|            |     certification |        |        | ormance |        |
|            |     requirements  |        |   with |     ass |        |
|            |                   |        |     na | essment |        |
|            | -   Placement in  |        | tional |     of  |        |
|            |     teaching      |        |        |     cl  |        |
|            |                   |        | sample | assroom |        |
|            | -   Teaching      |        |        |     t   |        |
|            |     effectiveness |        |   comp | eaching |        |
|            |                   |        | arison |         |        |
|            | -   Retention in  |        |        | -       |        |
|            |     teaching      |        |  group |    Case |        |
|            |                   |        |        |         |        |
|            |                   |        |        | studies |        |
|            |                   |        |        |         |        |
|            |                   |        |        | -       |        |
|            |                   |        |        |  Docume |        |
|            |                   |        |        | ntation |        |
|            |                   |        |        |     int |        |
|            |                   |        |        | erviews |        |
+------------+-------------------+--------+--------+---------+--------+
| **Eleven-  | **                | 2,917  | -      | -       | -      |
| University | *Intermediate:*** | partic | Quasi- | Surveys |  Descr |
| Consort    |                   | ipants | experi |     of  | iptive |
| ium---Five | -   Entry of      |        | mental |     gr  |        |
| Year       |     teachers into |        |        | aduates |   stat |
| Univer     |     the           |        | design |     and | istics |
| sity-Based |     profession    |        |        |     pri |        |
| Program**  |                   |        | -      | ncipals | -      |
|            | ***Long-term:***  |        |  Post- |         |  Tests |
| (Andrew    |                   |        | interv |         |     of |
| and        | -   Retention in  |        | ention |         |        |
| Schwab,    |     the           |        |     me |         | signif |
| 1995)      |     profession    |        | asures |         | icance |
|            |                   |        |     co |         |        |
|            | -   Classroom     |        | mpared |         | -      |
|            |     performance   |        |        |         | Factor |
|            |     of teachers   |        |   with |         |     a  |
|            |                   |        |        |         | nalysi |
|            | -   Leadership    |        |   comp |         | s[^33] |
|            |     behavior      |        | arison |         |        |
|            |                   |        |        |         |        |
|            |                   |        | groups |         |        |
|            |                   |        |        |         |        |
|            |                   |        |   from |         |        |
|            |                   |        |     na |         |        |
|            |                   |        | tional |         |        |
|            |                   |        |     s  |         |        |
|            |                   |        | tudies |         |        |
|            |                   |        |        |         |        |
|            |                   |        |    and |         |        |
|            |                   |        |        |         |        |
|            |                   |        |   four |         |        |
|            |                   |        |        |         |        |
|            |                   |        |   year |         |        |
|            |                   |        |        |         |        |
|            |                   |        | versus |         |        |
|            |                   |        |        |         |        |
|            |                   |        |   five |         |        |
|            |                   |        |        |         |        |
|            |                   |        |   year |         |        |
|            |                   |        |     p  |         |        |
|            |                   |        | rogram |         |        |
|            |                   |        |        |         |        |
|            |                   |        |    gra |         |        |
|            |                   |        | duates |         |        |
+------------+-------------------+--------+--------+---------+--------+
| **HISD     | **                | A      | -      | -       | -      |
| A          | *Intermediate:*** | pproxi | Quasi- | Surveys |  Descr |
| lternative |                   | mately | experi |     of  | iptive |
| Cer        | -   Recruitment   | 400    | mental |     ACP |        |
| tification |     of target     | p      |        |     i   |   stat |
| P          |     population    | rogram | design | nterns, | istics |
| rogram---A |                   | i      |        |         |        |
| lternative | -   Performance   | nterns | -      | mentors | -      |
| Cer        |     on            |        |  Post- |     and |  Tests |
| tification |     certification |        | interv |         |     of |
| Program**  |     exam          |        | ention | adminis |        |
|            |                   |        |     me | trators | signif |
| (Morgan,   | -   Retention in  |        | asures |         | icance |
| 1998;      |     program       |        |     co | -   Ass |        |
| Morgan,    |                   |        | mpared | essment |        |
| 1999 -- in | ***Long-term:***  |        |        |     of  |        |
| press)     |                   |        |   with |         |        |
|            | -   Teaching      |        |        | teacher |        |
|            |     performance   |        |   comp |         |        |
|            |     in classroom  |        | arison |    perf |        |
|            |                   |        |        | ormance |        |
|            | -   Achievement   |        | groups |         |        |
|            |     of students   |        |     of | -       |        |
|            |     on            |        |     t  |  Review |        |
|            |     standardized  |        | raditi |     of  |        |
|            |     tests         |        | onally |     d   |        |
|            |                   |        |     pr | istrict |        |
|            | -   Retention in  |        | epared |     da  |        |
|            |     teaching      |        |        | tabases |        |
|            |                   |        | novice |         |        |
|            |                   |        |     te |         |        |
|            |                   |        | achers |         |        |
|            |                   |        |     in |         |        |
|            |                   |        |        |         |        |
|            |                   |        |    the |         |        |
|            |                   |        |     di |         |        |
|            |                   |        | strict |         |        |
+------------+-------------------+--------+--------+---------+--------+
| **LAUSD    | **                | 1,100  | -   Pr | -       | -      |
| Intern     | *Intermediate:*** | i      | e-post |  Review |  Descr |
| P          |                   | nterns |     me |     of  | iptive |
| rogram---A | -   Number of     |        | asures |     d   |        |
| lternative |     teachers      |        |        | istrict |   stat |
| P          |     recruited     |        | -      |     and | istics |
| reparation |                   |        | Quasi- |     n   |        |
| Program**  | -   Decrease in   |        | experi | ational |        |
|            |     number of     |        | mental |     da  |        |
| (Stoddart, |     "marginally   |        |        | tabases |        |
| 1990)      |     qualified"    |        | design |         |        |
|            |     em            |        |        | -   In  |        |
|            | ergency-certified |        |    com | terview |        |
|            |     teachers      |        | paring |         |        |
|            |                   |        |        |    data |        |
|            | -   Increase in   |        | partic |         |        |
|            |     the number of |        | ipants |    with |        |
|            |     competent     |        |        |         |        |
|            |     teachers in   |        |   with |   staff |        |
|            |     hard to staff |        |     t  |     of  |        |
|            |     schools       |        | raditi |         |        |
|            |                   |        | onally | program |        |
|            | -   Increase in   |        |     pr |         |        |
|            |     the number of |        | epared | -       |        |
|            |     teachers in   |        |        |  Review |        |
|            |     shortage      |        | novice |     of  |        |
|            |     fields        |        |     te |         |        |
|            |                   |        | achers |    tape |        |
|            | -   Quality of    |        |     in |     rec |        |
|            |     program       |        |     di | ordings |        |
|            |     participants' |        | strict |     of  |        |
|            |     subject       |        |        |         |        |
|            |     matter        |        |    and | teacher |        |
|            |     preparation   |        |     na |     ed  |        |
|            |                   |        | tional | ucation |        |
|            | -   Retention in  |        |     s  |         |        |
|            |     program       |        | amples | classes |        |
|            |                   |        |     of |         |        |
|            | ***Long-term:***  |        |        |         |        |
|            |                   |        |  newly |         |        |
|            | -   Retention of  |        |        |         |        |
|            |     teachers in   |        |    qua |         |        |
|            |     hard to staff |        | lified |         |        |
|            |     schools       |        |     te |         |        |
|            |                   |        | achers |         |        |
+------------+-------------------+--------+--------+---------+--------+
| **Teach    | **                | A      | -      | -       | -      |
| for        | *Intermediate:*** | pproxi |  Post- | Surveys |  Descr |
| America--- |                   | mately | interv |     of  | iptive |
| A          | -   Numbers       | 2,000  | ention |     pri |        |
| lternative |     placed in     | partic |     me | ncipals |   stat |
| Cer        |     teaching      | ipants | asures |     and | istics |
| tification |                   |        |        |         |        |
| Program**  | ***Long-term:***  |        |        |   corps |        |
|            |                   |        |        |         |        |
| (Kane,     | -   Effectiveness |        |        | members |        |
| Parsons    |     of corps      |        |        |         |        |
| and        |     members as    |        |        |         |        |
| A          |     teachers      |        |        |         |        |
| ssociates, |                   |        |        |         |        |
| Inc., 1999 | -   Leadership    |        |        |         |        |
| --         |     roles of      |        |        |         |        |
| u          |     corps members |        |        |         |        |
| npublished |                   |        |        |         |        |
| evaluation |                   |        |        |         |        |
| report;    |                   |        |        |         |        |
| Teach for  |                   |        |        |         |        |
| America    |                   |        |        |         |        |
| Impact     |                   |        |        |         |        |
| Measures,  |                   |        |        |         |        |
| undated)   |                   |        |        |         |        |
+------------+-------------------+--------+--------+---------+--------+
| **Teachers | **                | A      | -      | -       | -      |
| for        | *Intermediate:*** | pproxi | Quasi- | Surveys |  Descr |
| C          |                   | mately | experi |     of  | iptive |
| hicago---A | -   Number of     | 600    | mental |         |        |
| lternative |     participants  | partic |        | interns |   stat |
| Cer        |     recruited     | ipants | design |     and | istics |
| tification |                   |        |        |     re  |        |
| Program**  | -   Attrition     |        | -      | sidents |        |
|            |     from program  |        |  Post- |         |        |
| (Kamin,    |                   |        | interv | -       |        |
| 1999\--u   | ***Long-term:***  |        | ention |  Review |        |
| npublished |                   |        |     me |     of  |        |
| evaluation | -   Retention in  |        | asures |         |        |
| report;    |     teaching in   |        |     co |   board |        |
| Chesek,    |     Chicago       |        | mpared |     of  |        |
| 1998\--u   |     public        |        |     to |     ed  |        |
| npublished |     schools       |        |     na | ucation |        |
| status     |                   |        | tional |     d   |        |
| report;    | -   Completion of |        |        | atabase |        |
| Gallegos,  |     masters'      |        | sample |         |        |
| 1995a;     |     degrees       |        |        | -   Int |        |
| Gallegos,  |                   |        |    and | erviews |        |
| 1995b)     | -   Achievement   |        |     s  |         |        |
|            |     of students   |        | tudent |    with |        |
|            |                   |        |        |     gr  |        |
|            |                   |        | scores | aduates |        |
|            |                   |        |     of |     and |        |
|            |                   |        |     t  |     pri |        |
|            |                   |        | raditi | ncipals |        |
|            |                   |        | onally |         |        |
|            |                   |        |     t  |         |        |
|            |                   |        | rained |         |        |
|            |                   |        |     te |         |        |
|            |                   |        | achers |         |        |
+------------+-------------------+--------+--------+---------+--------+
| **Loan     | **                | 17     | -      | -       | -      |
| F          | *Intermediate:*** | partic |  Post- |  Survey |  Descr |
| orgiveness |                   | ipants | interv |         | iptive |
| Program**  | -   Recruitment   |        | ention |         |        |
|            |     of desired    |        |     me |         |   stat |
| (Mateu     |     population    |        | asures |         | istics |
| -Gelabert, |                   |        |        |         |        |
| 1993)      | -   Retention in  |        |        |         |        |
|            |     program       |        |        |         |        |
|            |                   |        |        |         |        |
|            | ***Long-term:***  |        |        |         |        |
|            |                   |        |        |         |        |
|            | -   Completion of |        |        |         |        |
|            |     program       |        |        |         |        |
|            |                   |        |        |         |        |
|            | -   Retention in  |        |        |         |        |
|            |     NYC public    |        |        |         |        |
|            |     schools after |        |        |         |        |
|            |     repayment of  |        |        |         |        |
|            |     loans         |        |        |         |        |
+------------+-------------------+--------+--------+---------+--------+
| #          | **                | 523    | -      | -       | -      |
|  Scholarsh | *Intermediate:*** | partic |  Post- |  Survey |  Descr |
| ip Program |                   | ipants | interv |         | iptive |
|            | -   Recruitment   |        | ention |         |        |
| (Manzo, et |     of target     |        |     me |         |   stat |
| al., 1994) |     population    |        | asures |         | istics |
|            |                   |        |        |         |        |
|            | -   Retention in  |        |        |         |        |
|            |     program       |        |        |         |        |
|            |                   |        |        |         |        |
|            | ***Long-term:***  |        |        |         |        |
|            |                   |        |        |         |        |
|            | -   Completion of |        |        |         |        |
|            |     program       |        |        |         |        |
|            |                   |        |        |         |        |
|            | -   Retention in  |        |        |         |        |
|            |     NYC public    |        |        |         |        |
|            |     schools       |        |        |         |        |
+------------+-------------------+--------+--------+---------+--------+

From the data contained in the evaluations, we will describe
intermediate and long-term outcomes identified by the various types of
programs, the data systems used to inform the evaluations, and the
evaluation methods. Some of the discussion of these issues will be
structured according to program type, when this is required for a better
understanding of the evaluation components.

Intermediate and Long-Term Outcomes of Local Recruitment Programs[^34]

Intermediate and long-term outcomes vary according to two factors: the
type of program being evaluated and the goals of the program. For
example, the long-term outcomes of a community college articulation
program might be choice of a teacher education major in college,
completion of a teacher education degree, and entry into a teaching
career, whereas long-term outcomes for an alternative certification
program might be effectiveness in teaching and retention in the teaching
force for a specified period of time.

The specific goals of programs also help determine outcomes. Two
alternative certification programs might have different long-term
outcomes even though they may be using similar strategies. The goal of
one might be to increase the percentage of math- and science-certified
teachers in a school district and, thus, one of its long-term outcomes
might be to have at least 75 percent of all math and science teachers
teaching within field of certification within five years. The goal of
the second program might be to increase the number of fully certified
teachers of color who are effective teachers and who remain (for a
specified period of time) in urban schools. A long-term goal for the
second program then might be an increase in the number of participants
of color who attain certification, who are judged to be effective
teachers, and who are retained in an urban school for a specified number
of years.

*Community college articulation programs*. An internal evaluation of
Project Teach at La Guardia Community College chose the following as
intermediate outcomes:

-   Recruitment of the desired target population (in terms of
    characteristics and number)

-   Progression of participants through required course work

-   Improvement in grade point averages

-   Transfer to a four-year college

The evaluation did not indicate what long-term outcomes might be
considered, although conventional wisdom suggests that appropriate
long-term outcomes for this type of program might be:

-   Choice of teacher education major in college

-   Completion of teacher education degree and certification

-   Entry into a teaching career

*Paraprofessional pathways into teaching*. Two evaluations, one of a
national program (DeWitt Wallace Pathways to Teaching Career Program)
and the other of a local program (The Aide-to-Teacher Project),
identified similar outcomes. Intermediate outcomes were:

-   Recruitment of targeted populations (including demographic
    characteristics and numerical goals)---both evaluations

-   Retention in program---both evaluations

-   Progression through required course work---both evaluations

Long-term outcomes were defined by the Pathways evaluators; the
Aide-to-Teacher evaluation called for "additional follow-up evaluations
as Aide-to-Teacher students enter the teaching profession to gauge the
long term effects of the program" (Warshaw, 1992):

-   Completion of degree and certification---both evaluations

-   Placement in a teaching position---Pathways only

-   Effectiveness in teaching---Pathways only

-   Retention in the teaching profession---Pathways only

*University-based programs (four- and five-year)*. One evaluation of a
group of eleven five-year teacher education programs to increase the
number of effective teachers was conducted (Andrew and Schwab, 1995).
The intermediate outcome identified by the evaluators was: entry of
teachers into the profession of teaching (this implies completion of
degree and certification).[^35]

Long-term outcomes were:

-   Retention of teachers in the profession

-   Classroom performance (effectiveness as teachers)

-   Leadership behavior

*Alternative certification programs*. Four evaluations of alternative
certification programs were reviewed: the Los Angeles Unified School
District Intern Program, the Teachers for Chicago Program, the Houston
Independent School District Alternative Certification Program, Teach for
America Program, and the DeWitt Wallace--Reader's Digest Fund\'s
Pathways Program. While not strictly an alternative certification
program, the DeWitt Wallace Pathways Program is included here because it
involves preparation and certification of bachelor-degree holders who
work as teachers while completing teacher certification requirements.
Three of the programs were local and two were national in scope. Some
intermediate and long-term outcomes were similar across programs. For
example, intermediate outcomes were:

-   Number and characteristics of participants recruited and
    placed---all evaluations

-   Retention in program---all evaluations

-   Immediate changes in teaching force of district (degrees in number
    of marginally qualified emergency certified teachers, increase in
    the number of teachers in shortage fields, etc.)---Los Angeles
    program evaluation

-   Progression through required course work---Pathways evaluation

Long-term outcomes were:

-   Completion and certification of participants---all except for Los
    Angeles program and Chicago program evaluations

-   Teacher performance/effectiveness (using principals' ratings)---all
    except Teachers for Chicago and Los Angeles program evaluations

-   Student achievement in participants' classrooms (compared to
    nonparticipant classrooms)---Teachers for Chicago and Houston
    program

-   Retention in teaching in targeted school district---all except
    Chicago program

-   Completion of two-year commitment to teaching---Chicago program

-   Leadership roles of participants---Chicago program

*Loan forgiveness and scholarships or tuition reimbursement*. Two
programs administered by the New York City Board of Education were
evaluated. Intermediate outcomes identified by the evaluators were:

-   Recruitment of desired participants---scholarship program evaluation

-   Retention in the program---both evaluations

Long-term outcomes were:

-   Completion of program---both evaluations

-   Retention in reaching in New York City public schools after
    fulfillment of obligations---both evaluations

Data Systems Developed or Used in Evaluation of Local Programs

Although few of the evaluations we reviewed described the data systems
that they had developed, it was evident that, for the most part,
evaluations of local programs relied on databases they created from
survey responses and other data collection tools used in the evaluation.
A few evaluations also used existing institutional or district databases
to supplement the information collected by the evaluators. For example,
the three district-level alternative certification program evaluations
used district databases. Teachers for Chicago drew on board of education
data systems for information on teacher retention and standardized test
scores for students. The Los Angeles Unified School District Intern
Program study used data from the district's Personnel Division and a
National Center for Research on Teacher Education study to examine
intern recruitment patterns, attrition rates, academic qualifications,
school assignments, and background characteristics; comparison
statistics were obtained from the American Association of Colleges of
Teacher Education Rate III study and NCES data on newly qualified
teachers. The Houston Alternative Certification Program evaluation
relied on several district databases, including the Accountability
System for Educator Preparation for test scores, the district's computer
tracking system database for retention information, the Professional
Development Appraisal System Database for effective teaching measures,
and the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills database for student
standardized test scores. The Aide-to-Teacher Project used an
institutional database for information on participant academic records,
enrollment, and retention.

It is logical that evaluations commissioned or undertaken by school
districts or universities would have access to the extensive databases
maintained by these entities. Gaining access to such databases can
greatly help an evaluators collect information Access granted to these
databases can also reduce the cost and increase the accuracy of external
evaluations.

Evaluation Methods

Half of the evaluations (five) used only post-intervention measures. The
five remaining evaluations used or planned to use a quasi-experimental
design for most of their outcome measures. The quasi-experimental
designs used as comparison groups national samples derived from national
databases (such as National Center for Education Statistics' databases,
the American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education's Research
About Teacher Education (RATE) studies and other data collected via
national surveys and studies). Also used as comparison data were
district data on traditionally-trained teachers in the district.

The majority of the credible evaluations that we reviewed represented a
combination of quantitative and qualitative methodologies. Six of the
ten evaluations used a combination of these methods; the other four used
only quantitative measures. We considered qualitative data to be data
that were not quantifiable, regardless of the method of collection. So,
for example, responses to open-ended survey questions were usually
considered to be qualitative and responses to interview questions that
were quantifiable might be considered quantitative.

Qualitative data were often used in formative evaluations, which are not
included in this review. Evaluations also used these data, however, to
provide deeper insight into the quantitative findings of an evaluation.
Quantitative data were most often used to answer summative evaluation
questions or to provide measures of outcomes indicators.

The main methods of collecting quantitative data were through surveys
and reviews of quantitative data in databases or records, such as
transcripts. The major qualitative methods were through case studies,
interviews and document review. Several of the evaluations surveyed (by
mail or by telephone) participants or graduates of programs, principals,
mentor teachers, and administrators. One evaluation (Pathways) collected
data on teacher performance via teacher observations using a performance
assessment instrument. Interviews were also conducted by telephone or in
person with key individuals involved with the programs. In at least one
case (Pathways), site visits were made to all program sites to collect
data.

Most of the evaluations included descriptive statistics including cross
tabulations for analysis and presentation of their findings. In some
cases where comparisons (between or among pre- and post-measures or
experimental and control groups) were involved, tests of differences
such as Chi Square[^36] or t-tests[^37] were used to show significance.
In one case (the evaluation of the eleven-university consortium), a
factor analysis was used.

######   {#section-10 .unnumbered}

###### Chapter 6: Effective Elements of Local Recruitment Programs

The effective elements cited in this section are elements of programs
that have demonstrated success through credible evaluation data showing
positive outcomes for recruitment efforts. Unfortunately, we found no
evaluations that tied specific strategies or elements to program
effectiveness. The elements that we identify here, therefore, are those
that have been used by effective programs. Our choice of these elements
is based on the assumption that because the programs were deemed
effective, we can infer that their elements and strategies were also
effective. We can state, however, with a high degree of confidence based
on our observations of more than one hundred teacher recruitment
programs that these elements are necessary, though not sufficient, to
ensure program success.

Effective Local Partnership Structures

Effective partnership structures at the local level tend to involve
parties whose support and resources are necessary for the success of the
initiative. These parties are actively involved in the implementation of
the programs and stand to benefit from their success. In effective
partnerships all partners have clearly defined roles and
responsibilities and have had a say in the planning of the program
(Villegas and Clewell, 1998). For example, the funder of the DeWitt
Wallace--Reader's Digest Fund's Pathways to Teacher Career Program
requires the partners in each program site to collaborate in designing
and implementing the program. Partnerships began at the planning phase
(before full proposals were written) with the collaborating parties
conducting an assessment of the districts' needs for qualified teachers,
examining local trends in the racial and ethnic composition of the
student body and the faculty, and deciding on the pool from which to
draw the new teacher recruits.

An effective basic partnership structure for paraprofessional
initiatives is a collaboration between an institution of higher
education (IHE) and a school district or districts. This basic structure
is important for this type of program because it depends on the
cooperation of schools for their participants, program implementation,
and eventual employment of the participants. The IHE partner brings an
academic preparation and credentialing function to the mix of services.

For effective community college articulation programs, the basic
partnership of an IHE and a school district or districts requires
another element, which is the community college. Close collaboration
between a community college and the four-year institution is necessary
for this type of effort because a smooth transition for participants is
vital to success. The community college must prepare students (through a
preeducation curriculum and advice and support) for the transition to a
teacher education program at the four-year institution. The IHE must
make the transition process easier through articulation with the
community college curriculum (credit transfers, etc.), as well as
academic counseling and support services tailored to incoming community
college students.

Effective alternative certification programs seem to reflect a more
eclectic mix of partners. The basic partnership structure seems to be
that of a school district collaborating with an IHE or IHEs. This is a
logical structure because it is often the school district that
determines the need for teachers and enacts the policies (waivers,
emergency certification, etc.) for the training of participants, while
it is the IHE that provides the academic preparation that is usually
required for credentialing. In the case of two of these programs,
additional partners were included. Teachers for Chicago involved a
collaboration among the Chicago Public Schools, the Chicago Teachers
Union, the Council of Chicago Area Deans (representing the IHEs), and
the Golden Apple Foundation. The Houston Independent School District
Alternative Certification Program represented a partnership among the
district, Teach for America Region IV, the University of St. Thomas, and
school staff members. Although the literature describing Teachers for
Chicago is not explicit on this point, the teachers' union as a partner
may have contributed to smoothing the way for the placement of interns
at substitute teacher pay in teaching positions (requiring a waiver of
union requirements). The Houston Alternative Certification Program
partnered with Teach for America because this program was an important
source of new teachers in the district. These examples illustrate that,
in addition to basic partnerships, other local parties whose cooperation
may be important given the situation in a specific school district are
likely and important collaborators.

Effective Recruitment and Selection Strategies

Effective recruitment and selection strategies varied according to
target population. There was no description of recruitment strategies
for community college articulation programs that were reviewed.
Effective paraprofessional pathways programs involved the school
districts heavily in recruitment activities. In the Aide-to-Teacher
Project the school district coordinator in each of the seven partner
school districts was responsible for disseminating an announcement about
the program to all district classroom aides and inviting aides to attend
an information meeting at the district headquarters (Warshaw, 1992).
Pathways programs targeting paraprofessionals use similar approaches;
these programs also ask principals to nominate promising
paraprofessionals in their schools to be program participants.
Alternative certification programs place ads in the newspapers, on TV
and radio, and involve the schools and IHEs in disseminating
information. In the case of Teach for America, which is a national
program, recruitment takes place at 100 colleges and universities around
the nation. Campus representatives of Teach for America, who are
students at those universities, plan and execute informational sessions
and presentations, distribution of information and flyers, and
advertising. A Teach for America Day is held once a year as a recruiting
device (National Association of State Directors of Special Education,
1990). It is important that programs identify a recruitment pool large
enough to accommodate the selection process. Pathways evaluators
concluded that that recruitment pool from which participants are drawn
should be large enough to allow the program freedom to choose the most
qualified candidates while still meeting recruitment targets (Clewell,
Villegas, et al., forthcoming).

Selection procedures did not vary according to program type. In most
cases, interviews of applicants are used in selection, sometimes using
instruments such as the Haberman Urban Teacher Interview Selection
Process or the Gallup Urban Teacher Perceiver. Selection is often made
by a committee. One program uses writing samples, another a practice
teaching session, others require that participants be accepted into the
teacher education program before applying. If nontraditional applicants
are being reviewed, it is important to use nonconventional selection
criteria in addition to the more conventional grade point average (GPA)
and test score criteria (Villegas and Clewell, 1998). For example,
Pathways programs used interviews and writing samples to gauge the depth
of applicants' commitment to teaching, persistence in overcoming
obstacles, and other qualities that are important in completing a
program and teaching in an urban setting. Teachers for Chicago, for
example, has emphasized the importance of ensuring that "teachers have
the ability and the desire to stick it out in our classrooms" (Gallegos,
1995b).

In discussing key criteria to consider in selecting successful
candidates from nontraditional pools for participation in teacher
education programs, Pathways evaluators cited the following: entering
GPA, performance on writing samples, performance in interviews,
background in minority cultures, and years of teaching experience
(Clewell, Villegas et al, forthcoming). These evaluators found that
candidates who entered Pathways with higher GPAs (2.8 and above on a
four-point scale) were more likely to complete certification
requirements in a timely manner than those with lower GPAs. They
caution, however, against automatically disqualifying applicants with
marginal GPAs and suggest that these applicants be considered seriously
if they have strong writing samples or perform well in their interviews.

Effective Support Services

Effective support services---which can be characterized as academic or
social support services---vary according to the target populations being
served. For example, services designed for students in community college
articulation programs are different from those targeted to
paraprofessionals or career switchers. The following are examples of
specific support services provided by the effective programs in this
review.

Community college articulation programs, as represented by Project Teach
at La Guardia Community College, provided academic and counseling
services necessary for students to be successful in completing a major
and making a successful transition to a four-year teacher education
program (Schulman, 1990). These support services included:

-   Learning groups under a group leader that worked on academic skill
    development and discussed professional issues (related to the
    teaching profession).

-   Individual and group counseling services that included career and
    education goal identification, courses, change of major, internship
    and graduation advisement, financial aid and transfer information,
    career, academic and personal counseling, and employment guidance.

-   Meetings with teacher education faculty and students at the partner
    four-year institution.

Because community college students often have lower socioeconomic status
and are more likely to belong to minority groups than four-year college
students, they require a strong academic support system to help them
make the transition to a four-year college.

Paraprofessional participants are similar to community college students
because they tend to have similar levels of education and demographic
characteristics. As noted above, both populations require a great deal
of support, both academic and social. The Aide-to-Teacher Project and
Pathways Programs that serve paraprofessionals offer a similar range of
support services. These include:

-   Specially designed course work that help participants make the
    transition into a teacher education program.

-   Financial assistance with tuition, books, and fees.

-   The services of a mentor.

-   Test preparation assistance.

-   Tutoring.

-   Financial aid advising.

-   Cohort structure to provide a social support network.

-   Family, childcare and transportation support.

-   Employment assistance.

A profile of the Pathways paraprofessionals shows them to be older as
well as likely to have families. As paraprofessionals, they receive low
wages, slightly above subsistence. Many of them have been out of college
for a number of years and suffer from a lack of self-confidence in terms
of their academic achievement (Villegas and Clewell, 1998). An array of
well-integrated support services is a necessity in programs that serve
this population.

Effective support services for participants in the alternative
certification programs focus on providing supervision once they begin
teaching as interns or emergency-licensed teachers in the classroom.
Some programs offer financial support, while others do not because many
of these participants receive reduced teacher salaries for their work in
the classroom. Support services include:

-   Guidance, supervision and support of trained mentors and others in
    the classroom---all programs.

-   Support group of other interns.

-   Preparation for certification exams.

-   Placement assistance---all programs.

-   Financial assistance in the form of tuition waivers, loan
    forgiveness, scholarships, stipends.

Effective Preservice Education and Academic Preparation

Effective academic preparation for teaching varies greatly depending on
the population recruited. At the community college level a pre-teacher
education curriculum should be developed that is articulated with the
teacher education program at a four-year partner college and for which
credits can be transferred to that college.

Paraprofessional pathways programs require a revised teacher education
curriculum that gradually integrates participants into the academic
mainstream after a long absence from college-level work. Also required
is a curriculum that builds on these paraprofessionals\' strengths and
experiences by emphasizing the application of theoretical concepts in
teaching. Additionally, these courses should be offered at convenient
times and locations to encourage attendance by individuals who may be
working full-time in schools.

Alternative certification programs offer a combination of pre-assignment
preparation and long-term training to participants in the following
formats:

-   A short, intensive introductory course on teaching together with
    field experience before assignment to classroom teaching **and**

-   A longer training period that often consists of weekly or twice a
    week after-school (or Saturday) classes during a longer period (such
    as a year or two) **or**

-   A graduate degree program offered by a participating university
    **or**

-   A revised graduate degree program developed specially for program
    participants with the addition or substitution of seminars and
    workshops on topics of special interest.

Effective Teacher Induction Practices

Only a few of the programs we reviewed described teacher induction
practices. The Aide-to-Teacher Project provided for university
supervisors to monitor classroom performance of participants during two
semesters in lieu of student teaching. Some of the Pathways Programs
serving paraprofessionals provided supervision for a period after they
had been placed in a teaching position. In general, Pathways Programs
provide support to graduates in the form of special workshops, alumni
networks, and inclusion in Pathways activities.

Most of the alternative certification programs provided some type of
support for participants once they entered the classroom. These supports
include:

-   Guidance of a mentor teacher during the internship period,

-   Supervision and counseling provided by the building principal and a
    program staff member,

-   Access to professional development opportunities,

-   Access to a clearinghouse of educational resources, and

-   An alumni network with reunions, conferences, and newsletter.

Effective Dissemination and Institutionalization Practices

There is little in the literature about dissemination and the formal
incorporation of recruitment programs. The Aide-to-Teacher Project
developed and disseminated a videotape describing the program. Teachers
for Chicago served as a model mentoring program for citywide
initiatives. Most of the programs have published descriptions of their
activities in journals or reported them at professional conferences.

The most active dissemination of a model that we encountered was that of
the Pathways Model. The funder, DeWitt Wallace--Reader's Digest Fund,
provided additional monies as well as technical assistance to Pathways
sites to disseminate the Pathways model and to explore ways of
incorporating it into their universities. The fund has also retained the
Education Commission of the States and Recruiting New Teachers Inc., a
nonprofit organization headquartered in Belmont, Mass., to disseminate
the model and has commissioned a design principles monograph from the
external evaluators to provide guidelines for educators. This monograph
will also contain information on the cost of replicating a Pathways-type
program. Pathways evaluators and staff of the projects have made several
presentations at national conference to describe the model and
evaluation results. Journal articles have been published on Pathways.
The evaluators and staff also made a presentation to the staff of the
House Committee on Education and the Workforce prior to the
reauthorization of Title II of the Higher Education Act which resulted
in the incorporation of elements of the Pathways model into projects
funded by the Department of Education under Title II.

Comparison of State and Local Recruitment Efforts

In comparing state and local teacher recruitment efforts, a few
differences emerge. One natural difference stems from the relative scale
of state and local efforts. State programs, in general, have more
funding, larger collaboration networks, and more participants than local
programs. For example, Troops to Teachers has helped place over 3,000
new teachers since 1994 (Feistritzer, et al., 1998). No
locally-originated program has placed so many. State programs have a
potential to reach more participants than do local efforts, with the
exception of national programs administered through localities.

Partnership structures of state programs tend to be more complex than
local program structures. At the state level there is an additional
layer of bureaucracy above the local level, resulting in multi-tiered
administrative systems in state programs. The structure of a state
program may include a supervisory group commissioned by the governor, a
group of state universities and colleges, local districts, and teachers
at individual schools (South Carolina's Center for Teacher Recruitment
has this structure). State programs also have broader geographic
jurisdiction than localities, and feature bigger district collaborations
(such as the South Carolina program implemented in 75 percent of the
districts in the state \[Bond, 1997\]). Locally-run programs generally
have partnership structures with fewer layers and fewer members.

States have authority to enact policy changes, while local entities have
no such authority. Policy actions, such as the provision of incentives
including signing bonuses, loan forgiveness, and effectiveness, or
longevity-based salary structures are more likely to be undertaken by
states than by localities. Reciprocal agreements about credential
portability require state level authority. These tools are not available
to locally-sponsored programs.

Another difference between state and local efforts is in the programs'
ability to focus on specific target populations. Local programs which
collaborate with a particular district to fill a teacher shortage have
discrete information about what kinds of teachers (in terms of subject
area or gender or ethnicity) will best address local needs. States, on
the other hand, must train new teachers to fill differing needs in
districts all over the state and are less likely to be able to pinpoint
narrow target populations.

Finally, state programs have broader scope for dissemination of
successful models than do local programs. In California, for example, a
successful model for recruiting minority teachers based at a state
university was replicated at all 20 state university campuses within two
years after the initial trial (McLevie, 1994). Similarly, Troops to
Teachers, administered in 21 states by state assistance offices can rely
on its national reputation to attract participants (Feistritzer, et al.,
1998). Another program with far reaching dissemination success, the
South Carolina Center for Teacher Recruitment, has exported its model to
17 other states. Local programs do not command audiences or resources of
that scale, unless they are national programs implemented at the local
level.

###### Chapter 7: Implications for Evaluation of Teacher Recruitment Programs

Quality of Research and Data

In examining the available evaluation data on teacher recruitment
programs, it is clear that there is far more experimentation going on in
states and localities across the country than is being reported in the
literature. One issue of immediate concern is that evaluation results of
model programs are not being shared via evaluation reports with other
researchers and practitioners, and thus valuable information about
successful strategies is being lost. State and local programs should be
encouraged to identify intermediate and long-term outcomes and design
evaluations to assess change. Evaluation results are most useful when
they are written up and made available to the field. Although we can
understand the reluctance of programs to share results that are not
positive with the general public, these results are just as useful as
successful evaluations in advancing the knowledge base about teacher
recruitment strategies. This review of published literature revealed a
critical lack of outcome-oriented data about teacher recruitment
efforts. Researchers, policy makers, and program administrators have an
interest in increasing the amount and quality of published research and
data.

The evaluations that we reviewed ranged from well-designed,
well-executed studies to simple compilations of data on enrollment,
attrition and completion of participants (in a few cases unrelated to
stated program outcomes or goals). We understand that for some programs
the latter type of information is all that is required for
accountability purposes. Investing in larger, more complex evaluations
might be seen as expending funds that could be better spent on service
delivery. Rather than comment on evaluations that were prepared for
internal purposes only and whose administrators or evaluators were kind
enough to share with us, we prefer to confine our remarks to the quality
of evaluations in general and discuss this topic in the following
sections on key issues and recommendations.

Key Issues to Address in Evaluating Teacher Recruitment Efforts and

Recommendations to PES

As mentioned above, our review of the evaluations of state and local
teacher recruitment programs reveals the need for more frequent, and
more rigorous evaluation of programs. The following key issues and
recommendations emerged from our review of the literature on teacher
recruitment and our own experiences as evaluators of teacher recruitment
programs.

Program Goals and Outcome Measures

Program goals should be measurable, and appropriate outcomes should be
identified to measure them. Particularly where different entities
collaborate in the development and implementation of programs, all
parties should agree on stated goals. In the design of program
evaluations, intermediate and long-term outcomes should be matched to
program goals. For example, if one of the goals of a program is to
recruit teachers who remain in the teaching profession, a long-term
outcome might be retention in teaching for a specified period of time.
If, on the other hand, the goal is to recruit teachers who remain in
teaching in high-poverty, urban districts, an appropriate long-term
outcome would the retention of graduates who have continued teaching in
high-poverty, urban districts for a specific period of time. Appropriate
outcome measures should also be developed to measure progress toward
goals. For teacher cadet type programs, for example, appropriate
measures of progress might be graduation from high school, enrollment in
college, and choice of a teacher education major.

In addition to the quality of the teachers recruited, teaching
effectiveness has become an important outcome in assessing the success
of these programs, but constructing appropriate measures for teacher
effectiveness is challenging. Some evaluators have relied on principals'
ratings of teachers, but then the question becomes "effective compared
to whom?" Evaluators have tried to address this issue by requesting that
principals rate graduates of programs in comparison to other teachers
who are similar to the program participants in some way (for example,
other novice teachers or newly certified teachers). In discussing this
issue, Andrew and Schwab (1995) review the literature on the validity of
principals' ratings of teacher performance and conclude, "Evidence
exists showing substantial agreement of principals' ratings and
teachers' self-ratings of performance." They also argue that because
principals are responsible for formal evaluation of teachers and have
access to informal comments on their teaching from many others for an
extended period of time, the use of principal ratings using a rating
scale can be an appropriate approach "to gain a general assessment of
teacher education programs and of the competence of a group of graduates
of teacher education programs." The evaluators of the Pathways Programs
have approached this difficult task by using a series of similar
measures to assess longitudinally the teaching effectiveness of Pathways
graduates: field supervisor ratings, principal ratings, and a
performance assessment (Praxis III) at different points in a continuum,
thus comparing these data on effectiveness.

Another approach to measuring teaching effectiveness is to compare the
achievement gains (as measured by standardized test scores) of students
taught by graduates of programs compared with the achievement of
students taught by other teachers (who have, presumably, similar levels
of experience). One difficulty here is ensuring that both the conditions
of teaching and the student samples are matched with similar
characteristics. Another is attributing specific characteristics of
recruitment programs (i.e., academic training, support services,
induction strategies) to the gains students make in academic
achievement. Unknown factors also include the talent that individual
students and teachers bring to their subjects. It is extremely difficult
to trace the direct effects of the series of events that must take place
before an effective teacher can stand before a class, ready to teach.
Individuals who have the potential to be effective teachers must first
be recruited, then well prepared and supported through completion of a
teaching degree and certification, then placed in a teaching job, before
they can even begin to influence student achievement. Several years must
elapse before this ultimate connection between teacher and student can
be made. Teacher recruitment programs cannot be evaluated in the short
term based on student achievement data.

Collection of Quantitative Data

Data collection can be difficult and plans for evaluation must fit
within the project\'s budget. The data collection plan should be
developed at the beginning of the project, to ensure available data are
captured and collection procedures are in place as early in the program
as possible.

Where data are difficult to collect, programs offering incentives for
participants (scholarships, stipends, loan forgiveness, etc.) may be
wise to use a "carrot and stick" approach to collecting data. Some
projects had survey response rates as low as 20 percent. Measures to
raise such low response rates should be examined, including follow-up
efforts with non-responders and withholding incentives for participants
who do not comply with evaluation efforts. In cases in which evaluators
of several projects that are a part of a larger program are dependent on
individual projects for data, funders should build some responsibility
for the collection of evaluation data into contractual agreements with
individual sites. A brief training session for sites regarding data
collection might also be helpful to ensure the quality of data
collected.

Confidentiality is important when working with teacher and student data.
Collecting data from minors requires parental permission, and gaining
access to district- and school-level data can be difficult. These data
collection issues should be anticipated and resolved at the beginning of
the project, so that sufficient data are available for program
evaluation. In view of the extensive use of state and district- and
school-level data in evaluations commissioned or executed by district
agencies, we recommend that permission be sought by private evaluators
for similar access to these data. Such access can increase the accuracy
of data collected as well as reduce cost.

For programs with long-term goals another critical issue is longitudinal
data collection. Almost all of the programs reviewed had long-term
outcome goals, but few reported data (or plans to collect data in the
future) which could be used to assess progress toward those goals.
Program administrators might consider using tracking systems to follow
participants for several years (as two projects have attempted to do) in
order to determine if teacher recruitment programs do in fact relieve
teacher shortages or improve teacher quality or retention in the long
run. Funding to conduct long-term tracking could be built into the
evaluation grant or program funds and should include some type of
incentive for respondents.

Use of Qualitative Data

Qualitative data can be useful in providing descriptive information
about program implementation and other areas that might help evaluators
to interpret the quantitative data collected on outcomes. In evaluations
of model programs, qualitative data in the form of case studies and
documentation reports are especially important in order to document
components of successful models so that they can be replicated.

Evaluation Design

Another issue to be considered is evaluation design. Seven of 19
reviewed evaluations featured a quasi-experimental design,[^38] the
standard for rigorous evaluation (we are assuming that experimental
design is out of the question). Three other evaluations used pre- and
post- treatment assessment measures, which are also useful (although not
as robust) in identifying positive outcomes correlated with program
activities. The remaining nine evaluations had post-only data
collection.

Identifying appropriate comparison groups can be problematic and care
should be taken to ensure that comparison groups are similar in all the
important ways to the experimental group.[^39] Another approach to using
comparison groups is to compare the experimental group to a national
sample. Evaluations that measure change via pre- post data should test
the significance of differences via standard statistical tests of
difference.

If recommendations about evaluation design and data collection described
above are carried out, state and local programs will have more, and
better quality data on which to base their assessments about the
effectiveness of programs and particular strategies. These assessments
can then show how the nation can meet current and future needs for
qualified teachers.

######   {#section-11 .unnumbered}

###### Chapter 8: Meeting the Need for Teachers: Implications of Findings for Teacher Supply

What Do the Findings Tell Us?

A number of implications pertaining to the teacher supply can be drawn
from the findings of the literature review. There are useful data at the
national level on sources of teacher supply. These data indicate four
main sources of supply---newly prepared teachers, delayed entrants,
transfers, and reentrants---and track fluctuations in the contributions
of each source over a period of time.[^40] Most recent data show an
increase in new teacher graduates. The data also reflect a change in the
profile of these new graduates, who are more likely to begin a teacher
preparation program at the postbaccalaureate level and who begin this
preparation with degrees in noneducation fields. This is valuable
information for policy-makers or practitioners in identifying target
populations for recruitment programs. How many policy-makers or
practitioners, however, actually use this type of data in formulating
plans to recruit teachers?

Second, there is a need to determine the supply and demand of teachers
at the state and local levels. Disaggregating data at these levels and
by geographic region, specialty, and teacher characteristics, allows
districts and states to target their specific needs, resulting in more
effective use of recruitment funds.

Third, there is a lack of evaluation data on the effectiveness of
existing models of teacher recruitment. In spite of this, however,
successful strategies and models have been identified and can be
replicated.

This review of the literature on teacher recruitment also illustrates
the disconnected nature of state, local and private initiatives on the
teacher recruitment. In spite of the available information on teacher
supply and demand and the numerous efforts to recruit teachers at the
state and local levels, there has been little attempt to develop a
coherent, holistic plan to address this problem.

What Implications Can Be Drawn from these Findings?

First, information on supply and demand must be coordinated to yield an
accurate assessment of needs (in terms of shortage areas and numbers of
teachers needed to fill shortages) and sources of supply (pools from
which potential teachers can be drawn).[^41] The quantity and quality of
people in each of the pools are important considerations in identifying
the appropriate pool(s) from which to recruit. Local officials
overseeing recruitment efforts should ask: Are there enough individuals
in the pool who possess the relevant characteristics to meet the need
identified?[^42] Needs assessments and plans to fill these needs should
be undertaken by local districts and information aggregated and
coordinated at the state level in a state plan.

Second, once needs and sources of supply to fill these needs are
identified at the local level then aggregated at the state level, a
comprehensive plan (see Figure 1 on page 76) integrating federal and
state policies as well as recruitment strategies and programs should be
developed. We believe leadership for developing and coordinating such a
plan should come from the U.S. Department of Education in collaboration
with the State education agencies. (Too often policies and programs have
been crafted without thought of how they fit with other policies and
programs. This plan should take into account existing policies and
programs, and, if necessary, modify them). Using input from the state
plans (which are an aggregation of the district and local plans), the
comprehensive plan should articulate a national recruitment strategy.
Current research on effective recruitment practices should also be
incorporated into such a plan.

Third, SEAs then should build on the national comprehensive plan to
craft strategies and programs at the statewide level that are responsive
to the needs identified by the local districts. These strategies could
involve developing state recruitment policies such as offering loan
forgiveness, increasing teacher salaries, adjusting salary schedules,
providing signing bonuses, and allowing portable pensions. Statewide
recruitment programs such as the South Carolina Teacher Cadet Program
and the California State University Teacher Diversity Programs might
also be established.

Fourth, local education agencies should then, in turn, build on state
policies and programs in developing their local initiatives for
recruiting teachers. These initiatives should focus specifically on
filling local needs for teachers.

Fifth, at state and local levels a continuous monitoring and evaluation
loop should be established to provide formative data that will improve
programs. Evaluation data should be periodically collected at both state
and local levels on intermediate and long‑term program outcomes to
assess whether or not the general approach is yielding the desired
results and, if not, why not. Data collected through such evaluations
are critical for identifying effective models to be replicated
nationally. In addition to informing program practice, these data should
contribute to current research on effective practices, which, in turn
will influence revision of the comprehensive national teacher
recruitment plan.

Any comprehensive teacher recruitment plan should work simultaneously on
recruitment and retention of teachers in the teaching force. Induction
policies and programs should be part of the overall plan. Recruitment
programs should be assessed in terms of whether or not they produce
teachers who remain in teaching in high-need districts or areas where
shortages are chronic. Ensuring teacher quality should be the goal of
such a plan. The effectiveness of teachers recruited by programs should
also be a measure of their success.

Implementation of a comprehensive teacher recruitment plan requires not
only the integration of resources, policies and programs at the
national, state, and local level but also the collaboration of a variety
of players. These include the U.S. Department of Education, the SEAs,
LEAs, teacher education programs at universities and colleges, teacher
unions, and others. Effective partnership structures are important
components of successful recruitment initiatives.

Finally, once an effective pipeline is created to ensure an adequate
supply of teachers, states and districts should look beyond the
immediate goals of addressing shortages. Long term goals might include
assuring an adequate and constant supply of effective teachers for
hard-to-fill positions, such as those in rural or urban schools;
producing teachers who will be leaders in education reform; preparing
teachers (regardless of racial and ethnic background) to be effective
instructors of diverse student populations; and changing the
infrastructure of institutions---colleges and universities, state
education agencies, school districts, and schools---to encourage a
seamless process of attraction into teaching, quality preparation, and
placement in the classroom of teachers who will see teaching as their
life's work.

#### Figure 1. Comprehensive Plan for Teacher Recruitment[^43]

**References**

Adams, G. J. and Dial, M. (1993). "Teacher survival a Cox regression
model." *Education and Urban Society, 26*, (1), 90-99.

American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. (1997). *Teacher
Education Policy in the States: A 50-State Survey of Legislative and
Administrative Actions*. Washington, D.C.: Author.

Andrew, M. and Schwab, R. (1995). "Has reform in teacher education
influenced teacher performance? An outcome assessment of graduates of an
eleven university consortium." *Action in Teacher Education, 17* (3),
43-53.

Arnold, G.H. and Sumner, P. (1992). "The best and brightest should be
teachers: North Carolina's Teaching Fellows Program." *Teacher Educator
28*, (1), 2-6.

Berry, B. (1995). *Keeping Talented Teachers: Lessons Learned from the
North Carolina Teaching Fellows*. Raleigh, N.C.: North Carolina Teaching
Fellows Commission.

Blair, J. (1999). "States strive to lure retired teachers." *Education
Week, 19* (1), 22-23.

Boe E. E. and Gilford, D.M. (1991). *Teacher Supply, Demand and Quality:
Policy Issues, Model and Data Bases*. Washington, D.C.: National Academy
Press.

Bond, S. (1997). *1996 Evaluation of EIA-Funded Teacher Recruitment
Initiatives: MATE, SC-PRRRMT, and SCCTR*. Durham, N.C.: Horizon
Research, Inc.

Burns, P.K. (1997). *South Carolina Center for Teacher Recruitment
Programmatic Evaluations*. (Unpublished report).

Cabral, A. and Cabral, C.J. (1999). *South Carolina Center for Teacher
Recruitment-Programmatic Evaluation 1997-1998*. Unpublished report:
Carolina Technotics, Inc.

Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy. (1986). *A Nation Prepared:
Teacher for the 21^st^ Century*. Washington, D.C.: Author.

Charters, W. W. (1970). "Some factors affecting teachers' survival in
school districts." *American Educational Journal, 7*, 1-21.

Chesek, F. (1998). *Teachers for Chicago: Status Report*. Unpublished
report.

Clewell, B.C., Anderson, B.T., Bruschi, B.A., Goertz, M.E., Joy, M.F.,
and Villegas, A.M. (1995). *Increasing Teacher Diversity: Current
Practices of the Ford Foundation Minority Teacher Education
Demonstration Program*. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute.

Clewell, B.C. and Villegas, A.M. (1998). "Increasing the number of
teachers of color for urban schools: Lessons from the pathways national
evaluation." *Education and Urban Society, 31*(1), 42-61.

Clewell, B.C., et al. (1997). *DeWitt Wallace--Reader\'s Digest Fund
Pathways to Teaching Careers Program Evaluation-Third Year Report*.
Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute.

Clewell, B.C., Villegas, A.M., et al. (Forthcoming). *Pathways Design
Principles: Building Blocks for Effective Programs*.

Cole, B.P. (1986). "The black educator: An endangered species." *Journal
of Negro Education, 55* (3), 326-334.

Coley. R., & Thorpe, M. (1986). "A look at the M.A.T. model of teacher
education and its graduates: Lessons for today." Princeton, N.J.:
Educational Testing Service.

Cornett, L. (1990). "Alternative certification: State policies in the
SREB states." *Peabody Journal of Education, 67* (3), 55-83.

Darling-Hammond, L., Berry, B.T., Haselkorn, D., and Fideler, E. (1999).
"Teacher recruitment, selection, and induction; policy influences on the
supply and quality of teachers." In Darling-Hammond, L., and Sykes, G.
(Eds.), *Teaching as the Learning Profession: Handbook of Policy and
Practice*. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Defense Activity for Nontraditional Education Support (DANTES). (1999).
*Troops to Teachers Information Packet*. Unpublished information packet:
Author.

ECS. (1999) *Teacher Pipeline Snapshots for 14 States.* Unpublished:
Author.

ECS Information Clearinghouse. (1998). *1997-1998 State Issues Report*.
Retrieved September, 1999 from World Wide Web:
www.ecs.org/ecs/ecsweb.nsf.

ECS Information Clearinghouse. (1999). *Teacher Recruitment-Legislative
Summary: Trends in Teacher Recruitment*. Retrieved August, 1999 from
World Wide Web: www.ecs.org/ecs/ecsweb.nsf.

Ehrenberg, R.G., Goldhaber, D.D. and Brewer, D. J. (1995). "Do teachers'
race, gender and ethnicity matter? Evidence from the National
Educational Longitudinal Study of 1988." *Industrial and Labor Relations
Review, 48*, (3), 547-561.

Ehrenberg, R.G. and Brewer, D.J. (1995). "Did teachers' verbal ability
and race matter in the 1960s?" Coleman revisited. *Economics of
Education Review, 14,* (1), 1-21.

Eubanks, S. (1996). *The Urban Teacher Challenge: A Report on Teacher
Recruitment and Demand in Selected Great City Schools*. Belmont, Mass.:
Recruiting New Teachers, Inc.

Feistritzer, C.E. (1993). "National overview of alternative teacher
certification." *Education and Urban Society, 26*, (1), 18-28.

Feistritzer, C.E. (1999). *The Making of a Teacher: A Report on Teacher
Preparation in the U.S*. Washington, D.C.: Center for Education
Information.

Feistritzer, C.E., Hill, M.D., and Willet, G.G. (1998). *Profile of
Troops to Teachers*. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education
Information.

Feistritzer, E.D. (1983). *The Condition of Teaching: A State by State
Analysis*. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Gallegos, B. (1995a). "Teachers for Chicago: Ensuring urban teachers
with class." *Phi Delta Kappan, 76,* (10), 782-785.

Gallegos, B. (1995b). "Urban alternatives." *The American School Board
Journal, 182,* (3), 38-40.

Geer, B. (1966). "Occupational commitment and the teaching profession."
*School Review, 74*, 31-47.

Gilford, D.M. and Tennenbaum, E. (Eds.) (1990). *Precollege Science and
Mathematics Teachers: Monitoring Supply Demand, and Quality*. Panel on
statistics on supply and demand for precollege science and mathematics
teachers. Committee on National Statistics. Washington, D.C.: National
Academy Press.

Graham, P.A. (1987). "Black teachers: A drastically scarce resource."
*Phi Delta Kappan, 68* (8), 598-605.

Gutknecht, B., Fountain, C., Kaye, D., Keenan, D., D\'Zamko, E., and
Whittemore, G. (1992). *Preparation of Minority Educators (PREMIER): A
Public School/ Community College/University Collaborative Program*.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association of Teacher
Educators, Orlando, Fla., February 15-19.

Hirsch, E., Koppich, J.E., and Knapp, M.S. (1998). *What States are
Doing to Improve the Quality of Teaching: A Brief Review of Current
Patterns and Trends*. Working Paper of the Center for the Study of
Teaching and Policy: University of Washington.

Howey, K.R. and Zimpher, N.L. (1996)**. "**Patterns in Prospective
Teachers: Guides for Designing Preservice Programs." In Murray, F.B.
(Ed.) *The Teacher Educator\'s Handbook*. San Francisco, Calif.:
Jossey-Bass.

Hussar, W.J. (undated). *Predicting the Need for Newly Hired Teachers in
the United States to 2008-2009.* Unpublished manuscript. National Center
for Education Statistics.

Ingersoll, R. (1999). *Teacher Turnover, Teacher Shortages, and the
Organization of Schools: A CTP Working Paper*. University of Washington,
Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.

Ingersoll, R. and Bobbit, S. (1995). *Teacher Supply, Teacher
Qualifications, and Teacher Turnover (1990-91)*. Washington, D.C.:
National Center for Education Statistics.

Irvine, J.J. (1988). "An analysis of the problem of the disappearing
black educator." *Elementary School Journal, 88* (5), 503-514.

Jacullo-Noto, J. (1991). "Minority recruitment in teacher education:
Problems and possibilities." *Urban Education, 26,* (2), 215-231.

Jones, D.L. and Sandidge, R.F. (1997). "Recruiting and retaining
teachers in urban schools: Implications for policy and the law."
*Education and Urban Society, 29,* (2), 192-203.

Kamin, C. (1999). *Evaluation Report for Teachers for Chicago.*
(Unpublished report).

Kane, Parsons & Associates, Inc. (1999). *A Survey of Principals in
Schools with Teach for America Corps Members: Report on Findings*.
(Unpublished report).

King, S.H. (1993). "The limited presence of African-American teachers."
*Review of Educational Research, 63* (2), 115-149.

Kirby, S.N., Grissmer, D.W. and Hudson, L. (1991). *Entering and
Reentering Teachers in Indiana: Source of Supply.* R-4049-LE. The RAND
Corporation.

Kirby, S.N., Darling-Hammond. L. and Hudson, L. (1989). Nontraditional
recruits to mathematics and science teaching. *Education Evaluation and
Policy Analysis*, 11, (3), 301-323.

Manzo, L., et al. (1994). *Scholarship Program, Follow-Up Evaluation,
1992-1993.* New York: New York City Board of Education.

Mark, J.L., & Anderson, N.F. (1977). "Teacher survival rates: A current
look." *American Educational Research Journal, 15(3),* 379-383.

Mateu-Gelabert, P. (1993). *The 1992-1993 Evaluation of the Loan
Forgiveness Program (Revised)*. New York: New York City Board of
Education.

McLevie, J. (1994). *Teachers for California\'s Schools in the 21^st^
Century: Effective Recruitment and Support Programs*. Sacramento,
Calif.: California Commission on Teacher Credentialing.

Mercer, W.A. and Mercer, M.M. (1986). "Standardized testing: Its impact
on blacks in Florida's educational system." *Urban Educator, 8* (1),
105-113.

Michael-Bandele, M. (1993). Who\'s Missing from the Classroom: The Need
for Minority Teachers-Trends and Issues. *Monograph of American
Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.* Washington, D.C.: AACTE.

Morgan, J. (1998). *Designing and evaluating appropriate training for an
alternative teacher certification program*. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, Fla.

Morgan, J. (1999). *The Development and Evaluation of the Houston ISD
Alternative Certification Program*. Los Angeles, Calif.: Tomas Rivera
Policy Institute, Forthcoming.

Murnane, R.J., Singer, J.D., and Willet, J.B. (1988). "The career paths
of teachers: Implications for teacher supply and methodological lessons
for research." *Educational Researcher, 17*, (6), 22-30.

National Association of State Directors of Special Education;
Clearinghouse for Professions in Special Education. (1990). *Teach for
America: Information Bulletin #34*. Washington, D.C.: Author.

National Center for Education Statistics. (1990). *New teachers in the
market, 1987 update*. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.

National Center for Education Statistics. (1997). *Common Core Data.
\"Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe\" survey, 1993-94, and
\"Public Elementary/Secondary Education Agency Universe\" survey,
1993-94*.

Available: www.nces.ed.gov/ pubs/96212.html.

National Commission on Teaching & America\'s Future. (1996). *What
Matters Most: Teaching for America\'s Future.* New York: Author.

National Education Association. (1987). *Status of American Public
School Teacher 1985-85*. Washington, D.C.: Author.

National Education Association. (1998). *American Education Statistics
At a Glance.* Washington, D.C.: Author.

Natriello, G. and Zumwalt, K. (1993). "New teachers for urban schools?
The contribution of the Provisional Teacher Program in New Jersey."
*Education and Urban Society, 26* (1), 49-62.

Rollefson, M.R. (1992). *Sources of Newly Hired Teachers in the U.S.:
Results of the 1987-88 Schools and Staffing Survey.* Paper presented at
the NCES Annual Data Conference, Washington, D.C., July, 1992.

Rollefson, M.R. and Broughman, S. P. (1995). *Teacher Supply in the
United States: Sources of Newly Hired Teachers in Public and Private
Schools*. Washington, D.C.: National Center of Education Statistics.

Schlechty, P.C. & Vance, V. (1983). "Recruitment, selection and
retention: The shape of the teaching force." *Elementary School Journal,
83*, 469-87.

Schmidt, P. (1992). "Shortage of trained bilingual teachers is focus of
both concern and attention." *Education Week, February 12, 1992:14*.

Schulman, J. (1990). *Project TEACH: Teacher Education: A Career
Headstart*. Long Island, N.Y.**:** LaGuardia Community College.

Shields, P.M., Esch, C.E., Humphrey, D.C., Young, V.M., Gaston, M. and
Hunt, H. (1999). *The Status of the Teaching Profession: Research
Findings and Policy Recommendations. A Report to the Teaching and
California\'s Future Task Force.* Santa Cruz, Calif.: The Center for the
Future of Teaching and Learning.

South Carolina Center for Teacher Recruitment. (1998a). *Annual Report
1997-1998*. Unpublished report: Author.

South Carolina Center for Teacher Recruitment. (1998b). *Strengthening
the Profession that Shapes South Carolina\'s Future Teaching*. Retrieved
September, 1999 from World Wide Web: www.scctr.org.governorsreport.htm.

Stoddart, T. (1990). "Los Angeles Unified School District Intern
Program: Recruiting and preparing teachers for an urban context."
*Peabody Journal of Education, 67,* (3), 84-122.

Stoddart, T. (1993). "Who is prepared to teach in urban schools?"
*Education and Urban Society, 26* (1), 29-48.

Teach for America. (Undated). *Impact Measures.* Unpublished information
sheet: Author.

Teach for America. (1999). *Who We Are.* Retrieved October, 1999, from
World Wide Web: www.teachforamerica.org/about/whoweare.htm.

U.S. Department of Commerce. (1996). *Current Population Reports:
Population projections of the United States by age, sex, race, and
Hispanic origin: 1995 to 2050.* Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government
Printing Office.

U.S. Department of Education. (1999). *A Guide to States for the
Preparation of Applications for State Grants and Teacher Recruitment
Grants.* Washington, D.C.: Author.

Villegas, A.M. (1997). "Increasing the racial and ethnic diversity of
the U.S. teaching force." In Biddle, B. (Ed.) *International Handbook of
Teaching and Teachers.* The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Villegas, A.M. and Clewell, B.C. (1998). "Increasing the number of
teachers of color for urban schools: Lessons from the Pathways national
evaluation." *Education and Urban Society, 31,* (1), 42-61.

Warshaw, M.B. (1992). *Aide-to-Teacher Project: Building Partnerships
for Faculty Diversity.* Dominquez Hills, Calif.: Consortium for
Minorities in Teaching Careers.

Whitener, S.D., Gruber, K.J., Lynch, H., Tingos, K., Perona, M., and
Fondelier, S. (1997). *Characteristics of Stayers, Movers, and Leavers:
Results from the Teacher Follow-up Survey: 1994-95.* Washington, D.C.:
National Center for Education Statistics.

Worner, R.B. (1991). *Minority Teacher Recruitment, Preparation, and
Retention.* St. Paul, Minn.: Minnesota State Department of Education,
St. Paul Equal Educational Opportunities Section.

Yopp, H.K., Yopp, R.H. and Taylor, H.P. (1991). "The teacher track
project: Increasing teacher diversity." *Action in Teacher Education,
8,* (2), 36-42.

Yopp, H.K., Yopp R.H. and Taylor, H.P. (1992). "Profiles and viewpoints
of minority candidates in a teacher diversity project." *Teacher
Education Quarterly, Summer 1992,* 29-48.

Zimpher. (1989). "The RATE project: A profile of teacher education
students." *Journal of Teacher Education, Nov-Dec**,*** 27-30.

**Supplemental Statistical Reference List**

Kachigan, S. K. (1986). *Statistical Analysis: An Interdisciplinary
Introduction to Univariate & Multivariate methods*. New York:Redius
Press.

Merten, D. (1998). *Research Methods in Education and Psychology:
Integrating diversity with qualitative & quantitative approaches.*
Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.

Runyon, R.P., & Haber, A. (1976). *Fundamentals of Behavioral
Statistics*. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.

> StatSoft, Inc. (1999). Electronic Statistics Textbook. Tulsa,
> Okla.:StatSoft. Web: www.statsoft.com/textbook/stathome.html.
> (includes statistical glossary)

[Appendix A: List of Internet Resources]{.smallcaps}

**[List of Internet Resources]{.smallcaps}**

> This Internet resource list is designed to provide an additional
> reference tool for administrators
>
> and grantees of the Title II teacher recruitment programs. Some of the
> Web sites or pages listed
>
> below contain information concerning the recruitment programs we
> discuss in the review. Other listed
>
> sites contain information that may also prove useful in the
> implementation of the teacher recruitment
>
> grants.

[Appendix B:]{.smallcaps}

[Outcome Data and Program Effectiveness]{.smallcaps}

[for State and Local Program Examples]{.smallcaps}

**[Outcome Data and Program Effectiveness for State and Local
Examples]{.smallcaps}**

**Outcome Data and Program Effectiveness for State Examples**

**A. South Carolina Teacher Cadet Program**

The South Carolina Teacher Cadet Program is run by the South Carolina
Center for Teacher Recruitment. The program is aimed at encouraging
academically talented or capable high school juniors with solid
interpersonal and leadership skills to consider teaching as a career.
The secondary goal is to educate these students about teaching, schools
and social issues so they will become civic advocates of education. In
recent years, math and science components have been added to encourage
students to pursue teaching careers in subject shortage areas.

**Program Description:**

***Recruitment.*** South Carolina Center for Teacher Recruitment runs
several recruitment activities including career fairs and dedicated
mailings to recruit both students as well as new Teacher Cadet school
sites. The state also makes an effort to bridge the middle school
component (ProTeam) with the Teacher Cadet Program. Teacher cadets must
have at least a 3.0 in a college preparatory curriculum, five
recommendations, and submit an essay describing their interest in the
program. Since 1985-86, the program has grown from four to 145 high
schools serving approximately 2,695 students. By the end of the 1997-98
academic year, almost 21,000 high school students had completed the
course.

***Academic Preparation.*** The program includes a class designed to
provide an introduction to teaching.

***Financial Support.*** Each teacher cadet class receives a grant to
purchase supplies, develop curriculum materials and provide additional
activities.

***Support Services.*** Depending on the schedule, teacher cadets may
participate in college visits, regional activities, receptions and
conferences. Students may join two different types of clubs: the Future
Teachers of America or the Student Action for Education Club and the
Choices Club. The clubs are designed to prepare students for future
teaching careers. The South Carolina Center and the South Carolina
Education Association collaborate to encourage teachers to establish
these clubs on their campuses. The center also sponsors the Choices
Club, which is for campuses where no future teacher clubs exist. The
Choices Club allows students to be involved in teaching-oriented
activities. Membership in these clubs is not limited to Teacher Cadet
students.

**Program Outcomes:**

***Intermediate outcomes***. The South Carolina Teacher Cadet program's
intermediate goals are to encourage college-bound high school juniors
and seniors to (1) complete high school, and (2) attend college to
pursue a major in education. Because participants selected from among
college-track, high achieving students, it is difficult to understand
why this population would need assistance or special encouragement to
complete high school or choose to attend college. Evaluation data
indicate all participants in the 1992-1993 cohort graduated from high
school. No information about the proportion of participants attending
college was reported.

***Long-term outcomes***. The long-term goals of the teacher cadet
program are to help teacher cadet participants earn teaching credentials
and enter the teaching force. Twenty-one percent of former cadets
surveyed reported they were teaching (and therefore had earned
credentials). Another 4 percent of cadet alumni were working as
noncredentialed teachers' aides. Forty-one percent of those surveyed
reported they were still students: 61 percent of these are enrolled in a
master of arts in education, alternative certification, or undergraduate
education program and may become credentialed teachers in the future.

***What the evaluation data tell us about program effectiveness*.** The
evaluation relies on self-report from a survey of teacher cadet alumni
with a response rate of 20 percent. This raises the issue of potential
bias in the survey data, for example, if the cadets who did not return
their surveys differed in important ways from those who did return them.
Logically, one might wonder if cadets who were (1) not teaching or (2)
not planning to teach might not return the survey. This would raise
questions about the ability to draw a conclusion about the whole
population of cadets. In any case, data about this program are
incomplete. More than 40 percent of the cohort studied are still in
school. Data about cadets who have completed the program and entered the
teaching force are sparse.

Although broadening the diversity of the teaching force is not mentioned
as a goal of the teacher cadet program, the evaluator reports that the
proportion of males and minority participants enrolled in the teacher
cadet program is higher than that in the teaching pool. However, the
proportion of teacher cadet alumni who reported being classroom teachers
were 88 percent Caucasian female: similar to the national teaching pool.

Source: South Carolina Center for Teacher Recruitment,
1998b---unpublished annual report; Burns, 1997; Cabral and Cabral,
1999---unpublished evaluation.

**B. South Carolina ProTeam Program**

Administered by the South Carolina Center for Teacher Recruitment,
ProTeam is designed to encourage exemplary middle school students to
attend college and consider teaching as a career. A secondary goal is to
expand the pool of minority and male teachers in the public schools in
South Carolina.

**Program Description:**

***Recruitment.*** ProTeam students must be in seventh or eighth grade,
in the top 40 percent of their class, receive recommendations from three
teachers, and demonstrate potential for successful completion of high
school and college. South Carolina Center for Teacher Recruitment runs
several recruitment activities including career fairs and dedicated
mailings to recruit both students and schools to participate in ProTeam.
As of 1997-1998, 43 middle or junior high schools in 24 school districts
offered the ProTeam curriculum to 790 students.

***Academic Preparation.*** There are two ProTeam program models: one
features a curriculum that runs for 18 weeks (one semester); the second
features a year-long implementation model in conjunction with an
extra-curricular club. Through the hands-on, self-exploration course
students are exposed to role models and participate in teacher-like
activities.

***Financial Support.*** The South Carolina center provides each
semester-long ProTeam class a \$125 grant for supplies, curriculum
materials, and additional activities. Year-long classes receive \$250.

***Support Services.*** ProTeam encourages parents and other family
members to participate in the program workshops. There are six regional
college days held across South Carolina for ProTeam students to tour
campuses and talk to current and former teacher cadets (the South
Carolina program for high school students interested in teaching.)

**Program Outcomes:**

***Intermediate outcomes***. Intermediate-term goals of ProTeam include:
encouraging exemplary students to complete high school, improving
participant\'s grades and behavior, and enhancing participants'
self-esteem. Teachers interviewed by the evaluator reported that
participating in ProTeam improves students' study skills and behavior
and makes them more likely to complete high school and college.
One-third of participating students indicated an interest in a teaching
career at the beginning of the evaluation study, that figure rose to 39
percent at the end of the study. ProTeam students' self-image improved
with regard to peers and school but declined with regard to family from
pre- to post-participation.

***Long-term outcomes***. The long-term goals of ProTeam are to
encourage participants to attend college, complete an education degree,
and enter the teaching profession in order to expand the pool of
minority and male teachers in South Carolina. There are no data about
these long-term outcomes. However, in 1998, 65 percent of ProTeam
participants were students of color. Forty percent were male. The
percentage of students indicating they intended to attend a four-year
college rose 0.6 percent from pre- to post-participation.

***What the evaluation data tell us about program effectiveness*.**
Evaluation data on ProTeam are limited: we do not know whether the
interventions delivered were effective in encouraging participants to
attend college, complete and education degree, and enter the teaching
force. There are data that show the intervention did increase students'
interest in teaching, and mixed results about the impact of
participation on self-esteem.

Source: South Carolina Center for Teacher Recruitment,
1998b---unpublished annual report; Burns, 1997; Cabral and Cabral,
1999---unpublished evaluation.

**C. South Carolina Minority Access to Teacher Education**

The South Carolina Minority Access to Teacher Education Program began as
research project in 1986 and developed into a teacher recruitment
initiative in 1987. The teacher education initiative is designed to
motivate rural, minority high school students to attend college and
pursue a degree in education. In addition, the initiative seeks to
increase the supply of teachers in critical geographic areas or subject
areas in South Carolina.

**Program Description:**

***Recruitment.*** Minority high schools students are recruited from 21
rural districts that have high proportions of economically deprived
students and low academic performance. Undergraduate candidates must
have a 2.75 academic average and pass a qualifying test.

***Academic Preparation.*** There are three pipeline programs that
combined, make up the program. A club called Pre-MATE Club and the
Summer Residency Program serve high school students. Pre-MATE clubs are
school-based. Club organizers (teachers, counselors, parents) use a
standard handbook for club activities. The three-week Summer Residency
Program include classes in mathematics, foreign languages, communication
arts, and test-taking skills. In addition students attend seminars on
topics such as college financial aid and teaching as a career. A campus
visit is also included. The Minority Access to Teacher Education Program
is a forgivable teacher loan program available to minority education
majors at Benedict College.

***Financial Support.*** Each Pre-MATE club receives \$250 per semester
to defray the cost of club activities. Upon successful completion of
Summer Residency Program, each participant receives a \$300 stipend to
offset the loss of wages they might have earned during the three-week
period. Undergraduate students who meet the qualifications of the
program receive loans to pay tuition costs.

***Support Services.*** The program and Benedict College host a High
School Academic Bowl Competition Day and an annual Visitation Day for
Pre-MATE members. Program staff provide scholars with individual
attention to guide them through the education program at Benedict
College.

**Program Outcomes:**

***Intermediate outcomes***. Intermediate-term goals of the program
include encouraging minority students to complete high school and
recruiting rural, minority high school students into college education
programs. The numbers of participating high schools and participating
students rose over the time period 1988 to 1996. No data are available
to show how many participants attend college and major in education

***Long-term outcomes***. The long-term goal of the program is to
recruit minority education majors to teach in critical geographic areas
or critical subject areas (e.g. math, science, special education).
Program records show that since 1988, 63 students have graduated as
program scholars and 52 of them (83 percent) taught (or are teaching) in
South Carolina schools for at least three years. Available data indicate
most program scholars are teaching in noncritical (or even surplus
fields), e.g. early childhood education. There was no information about
the number of program scholars teaching math or science or teaching in
high-need rural areas.

***What the evaluation data tell us about program effectiveness*.** No
demographic information about program participants is provided in the
evaluation, so we do not whether the program was effective in increasing
the number of potential minority teachers. Data do indicate that the
program is successful at producing teachers for South Carolina schools,
as 83 percent of one cohort of participants are currently teaching
in-state. However, these teachers were not likely to be teaching in
critical fields, so we cannot conclude that the program effectively met
its goal to meet teacher shortages in rural areas or critical subject
areas.

Source: Bond, 1997---unpublished evaluation.

**D. South Carolina Program for the Recruitment and Retention of
Minority Teachers**

Developed out of South Carolina State University\'s Project, the South
Carolina Minority Program for the Recruitment and Retention of Minority
Teachers (addresses the need to expand the minority teaching pool by
recruiting and financially supporting nontraditional students in the
education program at South Carolina State University.

**Program Description:**

***Recruitment.*** The program targets elementary school teacher aides
and technical college transfer students. The program has a full-time
recruiter on staff. Recruitment activities for teacher aides are not
described in the evaluation. Recruitment activities for technical
college students include information booths on technical college
campuses and distribution of literature that promotes teaching as
career. Prospective candidates are asked to provide contact information
and receive additional information about the program.

***Academic Preparation.*** There are two distinct components of the
program: the Education Entrance Exam Intervention Seminars and the
Satellite Teacher Education Program. A third component, Weekend College,
is not supported by program funds, but staff identify the component as
an incentive for technical college recruits to participate in the
program. The Intervention Seminars are designed to prepare
nontraditional students for the reading, mathematics, and writing
sections of the state-required Education Entrance Exam. The Satellite
Teacher Education Program enables students to take most of their initial
course work at satellite sites located closer to their homes and offers
evening classes to accommodate students working full-time. The Weekend
College offers Saturday and Sunday courses on South Carolina\'s State
University\'s main campus to accommodate students who work full-time.

***Financial Support.*** South Carolina Minority Program for the
Recruitment and Retention of Minority Teachers provides forgivable
teacher loans to qualified teacher aides and technical college transfer
students. After acceptance into the program, students complete a
financial aid application. The program supplies enough aid to make up
the difference between student\'s costs (tuition and books) and the
amount of federal aid available to each student. For each year of aid
received, students are expected to teach for one year. If student does
not elect to teach, they must re-pay the loan with 8 percent interest.

***Support Services.*** None reported.

**Program Outcomes:**

***Intermediate outcomes***. South Carolina Minority Program for the
Recruitment and Retention of Minority Teachers aims to recruit
nontraditional students into the education program at South Carolina
State University. The program helps to prepare nontraditional students
for post-secondary study by providing assistance in preparing for the
state post-secondary school entrance examination. Program data show that
from 1991-1996 between 10 and 40 percent of participants in the
preparatory activities passed all three parts of the exam. Participation
in these activities has declined over the five years 1991 t0 1996.
Recruitment for the technical college transfer component of the program
is described as "weak" by the evaluator. Twelve transfer students have
participated in the program since 1991 (10 of whom are currently working
toward degrees in education; two have dropped out of the program).

***Long-term outcomes***. The long-term goal of South Carolina Minority
Program for the Recruitment and Retention of Minority Teachers is to
place teachers in "critical needs" schools in rural areas. Program data
show that between 1991 and 1996, 34 teacher aides received forgivable
loans through South Carolina Minority Program for the Recruitment and
Retention of Minority Teachers to study education at South Carolina
State University, and by 1996 25 of the teacher aides had completed
their degrees. Twenty-one were teaching as of 1996. A 1997 evaluation of
the program revealed that approximately three-quarters of program
graduates were teaching in rural areas, and *no program teachers were
teaching in high-need fields* (e.g. math, science, special education.)
No demographic information about program participants is provided in the
evaluation, so we do not know how many of the participants are
minorities.

***What the evaluation data tell us about program effectiveness*.**
Evaluation data show that the program did effectively produce new
teachers from nontraditional populations: 84 percent of participants who
have completed their education degrees are teaching. However, none of
the participants are teaching in high-need fields.

Source: Bond, 1997---unpublished evaluations.

**E. North Carolina Teaching Fellows Program**

The North Carolina Teaching Fellows Program was proposed by the Public
School Forum of North Carolina and has been funded since 1986 by the
North Carolina General Assembly to recruit academically talented high
school students into teaching careers. The teaching fellows program is
designed to provide an academically and culturally enriched preparation
program that extends beyond the classroom experience, and that develops
professional teachers who are competent leaders and decision makers. A
secondary goal is to recruit and retain greater numbers of male and
minority teacher education candidates in North Carolina.

**Program Description:**

***Recruitment and selection.*** Top students are recruited to apply for
the Teaching Fellows Program by Teacher Recruitment Officers within
their high schools. Recipients must be legal residents of North Carolina
and citizens of the United States. The Fellows selection process occurs
at the school district and regional levels. Selection committees are
composed of educational, political, and community leaders from across
the state.

***Academic preparation.*** The Teaching Fellows Program is a four-year
undergraduate teacher education program which is offered at fourteen
North Carolina colleges and universities. The curriculum includes school
visits; hands-on investigations into the issues that define public
schools; topical monthly seminars; and courses on leadership, at-risk
students, and cultural diversity.

***Field experience.*** The teaching fellows are exposed to early and
extensive field experiences during the school year and the summer
months. Teaching fellows travel across North Carolina to schools in a
variety of geographic locations, observing rural and urban classrooms,
learning about differences in cultures and economy, attending
conferences, and participating in other enrichment experiences.

***Financial support***. Each year the program awards 400 four-year
scholarships worth \$20,000, to outstanding high school seniors who
agree to teach for four years in one of North Carolina's public schools
following their graduation from a teacher education program.

***Support services***. In addition to financial support, fellows are
provided with an academic advisor in the liberal arts as well as a
teacher educator advisor. In addition to monitoring the fellows academic
progress, the advisors also serve in a mentoring capacity.

**Program Outcomes:**

***Intermediate outcomes***. The program\'s intermediate goal is to
recruit exemplary high school students into the teaching pipeline,
particularly males and racial or ethnic minorities. The average
Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT) score of program participants is 240
points higher than other North Carolina college bound students.
Participants also have higher high school and college GPAs than their
non-participating peers. These should not be regarded as outcomes of the
program, however, as high-achieving students are especially recruited to
participate. Instead, these data speak to the high-quality of students
recruited and to the effectiveness of recruitment strategies. Compared
to all teachers in the United States, Fellows are more likely to be male
and more likely to be minorities.

***Long-term outcomes***. The long-term goals of the program are to
improve retention rates of new teachers, improve teacher effectiveness,
and to increase the number of males and minorities entering the teaching
profession. The evaluation data come from a survey of four cohorts of
fellows, including fellows who have been out of college and teaching for
one to three years and fellows currently completing their degrees.
Therefore, there are no data about long-term retention in the classroom,
although the survey did reveal that fellows were less likely to plan to
teach until retirement than other new teachers. Evidence presented in
the evaluation to suggest that fellows are more effective than other new
teachers comes from surveys of currently teaching fellows and their
principals. The majority of fellows reported they were "making a
difference" in the lives of their students and "helped them achieve
significantly." Principals rated fellows higher than other new teachers
along several variables including: student discipline, curriculum,
instructional methods, adjusting to the teaching environment, working
with parents, site-based decision making, student assessment, and
effectively working with diverse students. The proportion of males and
minorities in the fellows program was higher than the national
proportion of males and minorities, but the evaluation does not
explicitly state whether the proportion of Fellows who go on to teach
are also more likely to represent minority groups.

***What the evaluation data tell us about program effectiveness*.**
Evaluation data show that the program effectively recruited high-caliber
participants, including a proportion of males and minorities above the
national average of for teachers. Survey data indicate principals
believe fellows teaching in their schools are more effective teachers
than their non-fellow peers. It remains to be seen whether the program
is effective at retaining teachers- the cohort studied in the evaluation
had only been in the classroom one to three years.

Source: Berry, 1995; Arnold and Sumner, 1992.

**F. California State University Teacher Diversity Programs**

In response to a growing awareness of the need to diversify California's
teaching force, the Board of Trustees of the California State University
established pilot Teacher Diversity planning projects in 1989-90. The
program was expanded to include all 20 California State University
system campuses in 1990-91. Though each campus has specific objectives
and intervention strategies, the overarching goal of the programs is to
encourage racial and ethnic minority populations to attend one of the
California State campuses and eventually earn teaching credentials.

**Program Description:**

***Recruitment.*** Depending on the program, recruitment efforts may
vary. For example, one program recruits instructional aides employed by
collaborating school districts. Another program uses individual schools
to identify minority students in grades 7-12 who might be interested in
teaching.

***Financial Support.*** The programs receive grants from the state
lottery fund. Participants have access to stipends and scholarships,
paid tutoring internships, and paid teacher assistant positions. Some of
the participants receive financial support to attend community colleges,
four year degree programs, and fifth year teacher preparation programs.

***Academic Preparation.*** Participants receive academic support and
basic skills preparation focused on remediation in subject matter
content and passing the competency tests. Specific supports include
tutoring, academic advising, career counseling, and supervised field
experiences guided by a teacher mentor.

**Program Outcomes:**

***Intermediate outcomes***. California State University Teacher
Diversity Programs' intermediate goals include preparing undergraduates
for competency tests, increasing the number of paraprofessionals meeting
teacher credentialing requirements, and providing advice on teaching
careers to middle and high school students and undergraduates. According
to the program\'s records, between 1989-90 and 1992-93 there was an
increase in the percentage of multiple subject and single subject
credentials earned among minority populations. This included an increase
of 42 percent in the number of new Asian teachers earning credentials;
an increase of 28 percent in the number of credentials earned by
Latinos; and an increase of 10 percent in the percentage of credentials
earned by Native Americans. There was a simultaneous decrease of 13
percent in the proportion of newly credentialed teachers (and California
State University graduates) who were Filipino and a decrease of 20
percent in the proportion who were black. Overall, the proportion of
newly credentialed teachers who were white, non-Hispanic fell by 5
percent.

***Long-term outcomes***. The long-term goal of the state's Teacher
Diversity Programs is to increase the racial and ethnic diversity of
California's teaching force. The evaluator asserted that not enough time
has elapsed to measure the long-term outcome of the programs.

***What the evaluation data tell us about program effectiveness*.**
Evaluation data show that the program, overall, has improved ethnic
diversity in the newly-credentialed teacher pool. There were not
sufficient data to evaluate program effectiveness at achieving long-term
goals.

Source: McLevie, 1994.

**G. Texas Alternative Certification Programs**

The first state-supported alternative certification program in Texas was
initiated in a single school district in 1985 to address a local
shortage of teachers. By 1990, 12 programs serving 166 school districts
had a total of 1,215 "interns-in-training" enrolled. The Texas Education
Agency reports that for the 1988-89 school year 16 percent of new
teachers in Texas were certified through alternative certification.

Three models of alternative certification programs have emerged from the
collection of Texas efforts: a higher education model providing
university course work and field-based training in cooperating school
districts: a teacher-mentor model providing supervised, field-based
experienced for interns; and a local-school district model which uses
both university course work and fieldwork to prepare new teachers.

**Program Description:**

***Recruitment.*** No information about recruitment strategies was
available***.***

***Academic Preparation.*** Participants are prepared (through course
work, field-experiences, and special preparatory sessions) to take the
Texas certification exam for educators.

***Financial Support.*** No information about financial support of
participants was available***.***

***Support Services.*** No information about support services was
available, although many programs seem to be using a teacher-mentor
strategy, whereby interns are paired with especially-selected teachers
for role modeling and individual guidance***.***

**Program Outcomes:**

***Intermediate outcomes***. The intermediate goal of Texas Alternative
Certification programs is to recruit high-quality minority candidates
for alternative certification. The 1988-89 cohort of participants were
52 percent minority, comparable to Texas's general population. The
evaluation did not provide any other data about recruitment.

***Long-term outcomes***. The Texas Alternative Certification program
aims to increase the supply of minority teachers available to Texas
schools over the long-term. The evaluation suggests that the program has
been successful in retaining minority teachers who complete the programs
but provide no data as evidence except for a survey of participants
indicating many of them intend to remain in teaching.

***What the evaluation data tell us about program effectiveness*.** The
evaluation suggested the programs have been effective in both recruiting
and retaining new minority teachers in the field.

Source: Wale and Irons, 1990; Cornett, 1990

**H. Troops to Teachers**

Troops to Teachers is a referral and placement assistance program funded
by the federal government and is managed by Defense Activity for
Nontraditional Support, an agency of the Department of Defense. The
program began in January, 1994 as a result of legislation introduced to
offset military downsizing. The goals of Troops to Teachers are to give
retired or downsized military personnel and DOD civilian employees an
entrance into a second career in public education, and to help fill the
shortage of public school teachers, particularly in rural and urban
areas.

Troops to Teachers currently has 21 state placement assistance offices
in states that expressed an interest in attracting former military
personnel to teaching. As of September, 1999, over 3,355 participants
have been hired as teachers or teacher's aids in 49 states, the District
of Columbia, Puerto Rico and DOD schools overseas.

**Program Description:**

***Recruitment.*** Those interested in academic teaching must hold a
baccalaureate degree from an accredited college. Those interested in
vocational teaching are not required to have a baccalaureate degree, but
must be able to document their skill level and expertise in other ways.

***Academic Preparation.*** No specific academic preparation is
undertaken through the Troops to Teachers program. However, state
support offices refer participants to alternative certification and
other programs where available.

***Support Services.*** The primary function of the program is referral
and placement assistance. Defense Activity for Nontraditional Support
provides counseling and assistance to help participants identify
employment opportunities and teacher certification programs.
Participants choose the area in which they want to teach. State support
offices assist participants with both certification requirements and
employment leads. The state program managers assist individuals with the
certification and employment process. The state program managers also
seek to form extensive connections and partnerships with their local
communities in order to make the transition from troop to teacher an
easier one for participants. One way they do this is by reinforcing the
image of former military personnel as mature, motivated leaders who
provide positive role models for young people.

Another support service available is the Troops to Teacher Web site. The
site provides information and resource links to help participants
transition to a second career in public education. One feature of the
site is mentor connection, a network of Troops to Teachers participants
currently working as teachers, who volunteer to answer basic questions
about becoming a teacher. The site also includes links to public
education job listings, model resumes, and state departments of
education.

**Program Outcomes:**

***Intermediate outcomes***. The intermediate goal of the Troops to
Teachers Program is to assist military and Department of Defense
civilian personnel affected by troop reductions to enter new careers in
public education. As of September, 1999, 3,355 participants have entered
careers in pubic education.

***Long-term outcomes***. Over the long term, Troops to Teachers seeks
to (1) provide positive role models for students in public schools
(which they define both in terms of character and in terms of providing
more male and minority teachers); (2) relieve teacher shortages in math
and science; (3) improve retention in teaching; and (4) improve teacher
quality. The evaluation reports that 90 percent of Troops to Teachers
participants who enter the classroom are male, compared to 26 percent of
the national K-12 teaching force. Similarly, 29 percent of teaching
program\'s alumni are minorities, compared to 13 percent nationally
(NCES, 1997). Twenty-nine percent of program teachers report teaching
mathematics and 24 percent teaching science compared to 13 percent and
11 percent for teachers nationally. There were no data about retention
rates for Troop to Teachers participants in the evaluation. Troops to
Teachers alumni self-reported that they planned to teach until they
retired (67 percent), and more than half (55 percent) reported they
planned to be teaching in five years. There were no data about teacher
quality in the evaluation.

***What the evaluation data tell us about program effectiveness*.** The
evaluation showed the program has been effective in recruiting former
armed forces and civilian employees into teaching. The program was also
effective in recruiting minority teachers and teachers of critical
science and math fields. Troop to Teachers participants are more likely
to be male, and more likely to teach math and science, than
non-participants.

Source: Feistritzer, Hill, and Willett 1998; Defense Activity for
Nontraditional Education Support (DANTES), 1999---unpublished
information packet.

**Outcome Data and Program Effectiveness for Local Examples**

**I. Project Teach**

Project Teach (Teacher Education: A Career Headstart), located at
LaGuardia Community College in New York City, was developed to recruit
community college students for a career in teaching and provide them
with educational, personal, and career support and counseling while they
complete a pre-education curriculum. The project addressed a need to
increase the number of talented individuals teaching in New York City\'s
Public Schools. Established in 1987, by 1990 the program had served 212
community college students.

**Program Description:**

***Recruitment*.** The project\'s recruitment efforts focused on
LaGuardia credit-accruing students who were interested in teaching as a
career. Two main recruitment strategies were employed: 1) the first
identified students early in the process in order to insure that their
advisement was accurate and appropriate. Entering liberal arts students
were notified about Project Teach by mail and those who were interested
joined the project before registration and were advised by Project Teach
staff; 2) the second strategy identified students already enrolled in
classes. Project staff described the project in all Introduction to
Social Science and Freshman Seminar classes, both of which served a
broad spectrum of students.

Additional recruitment activities involved publicizing the project in
adult education career information sessions, which were announced via
brochures and flyers targeted at non-credit continuing education
students and community members. Another recruitment source was the
career counseling seminars offered by the Adult Career Counseling and
Resource Center. Adults interested in teaching who attended career
counseling workshops were referred to Project Teach staff.

***Academic and social support*.** In keeping with the project\'s
emphasis on early advisement, all Project Teach participants received
individual and group counseling services shortly after enrolling.
Students were asked to identify the senior college they wanted to attend
and the area of education they planned to pursue during initial course
advisement sessions. Advisement services included transfer counseling
and course selection based on best transferability. Each quarter all
students attended an advisement meeting. Students near graduation
received assistance in transfer planning.

Participants\' progress was monitored each quarter by a counselor, who
reviewed all transcripts. Students who were in academic difficulty
developed academic advisement plans and participated in academic support
programs, tutoring, learning groups and counseling sessions.

***Academic preparation***. A pre-education career pattern program which
was part of the liberal arts curriculum was developed and implemented
whereby students progressed through the college\'s
teacher-education-related curricula. Students met on a quarterly basis
in study support groups with a group leader who was an education major
from Queens College. These learning groups included academic skill
development and professional issues. These community college
participants were exposed to the programs and atmosphere of a senior
teacher education program through visits to Queens College and meetings
with the College\'s School of Education faculty. LaGuardia and Queens
Colleges developed a relationship as well as an articulation agreement
to help student transfer to Queens College as well as to other four-year
institutions.

**Program Outcomes:**

***Intermediate outcomes*:** An intermediate goal of the project was to
enroll at least 125 students; a related goal was to recruit a diverse
group of participants. By 1990, the year for which data were reported,
the program had enrolled 212 students, or 59 percent over the targeted
goal. Of participants, 72 percent were African American or Hispanic,
which is a much higher percentage of minority teachers than is found in
the general population (13 percent) (NCES, 1997).

Other intermediate goals concerned academic performance. One
intermediate goal, for example was the progression of students through
the required course work. Of 131 who began their studies in basic skills
courses (not described in the report, but we assume these are the entry
level community college courses), 79 (or 61percent) moved through to
higher level pre-education courses within a three-year period. A third
intermediate goal was the high academic achievement of the project\'s
students. Sixty-eight percent of participants had GPA\'s of 2.5 or
higher. Although Project Teach projected that by the third year, 60
participants would have transferred to a four-year teacher education
program, only 45 students actually did.

***Long-term outcomes*.** No long-term outcomes were specified by the
program.

***What the evaluation data tell us about program effectiveness***. 1990
data from Project Teach show that after three years the project was
successful in meeting its recruitment goals and, in fact, had actually
exceeded its goals. Furthermore, the project had succeeded in recruiting
a diverse group of participants. These data suggest that recruitment
strategies used by the program are effective. Academic performance data
suggest that a majority of students in the program made good progress
and attained above average GPAs. This would imply that the support
services provided by the program are effective for the population being
served. It is not possible, however, to ascertain whether these
achievements are above average for students at the community college
because no comparison data were given in the report. Our experience with
this population of students suggests that the GPA attainment is above
average. The transfer rate is lower than that projected by the project
so we can infer that Project Teach was not successful in getting
participants to transfer to a four-year college at the targeted rate.

Source: Schulman, 1990.

**J. The Aide-to-Teacher Project**

The Aide-to-Teacher Project is a teacher recruitment and preparation
project for culturally diverse paraprofessional classroom aides. It was
established at the California State University at Dominguez Hills in
1987 in collaboration with seven local school districts. The program is
designed to provide paraprofessionals with the financial, academic and
personal support they need to continue employment as classroom aides
while completing their undergraduate degree and elementary teaching
credential. The program accepts around 50 classroom aides from the
participating districts to begin the program each year.

**Program Description:**

***Recruitment*.** At each cooperating school district a coordinator
disseminated an announcement describing the program to all district
classroom aides and invited aides to attend an information meeting
conducted by the project director. Applications were distributed at each
meeting to those interested in the program.

***Financial incentives*.** Participants received a stipend to cover the
costs of student fees and books for the academic year. At the end of
Phase II (see below), fellows received financial aid advice on obtaining
university, state or federal aid that could be combined with Aide-to
Teacher funds to provide a stable and more long-term source of
assistance.

***Academic preparation*.** Fellows participated in a four-phase
academic program. Phase I focused on providing noncredit pre-university
basic skills preparation for two semesters. In Phase II, participants
began a one-year academic program of required college-level math and
English courses in which they enrolled as a cohort. These courses were
specifically designed to serve as a bridge for program fellows into
regular upper division course work.

In Phase III, the fellows were integrated into the Liberal Studies
undergraduate degree program, an interdisciplinary major designed for
those who wish to become elementary school teachers. In Phase IV, the
university recommended participants for an internship teaching
credential upon completion of the B.A. degree with a liberal studies
major and passage of the California Basic Educational Skills test
(CBEST). This credential allowed them to teach full-time and
simultaneously enroll in a three-semester postbaccalaureate credential
program. All course work was offered after school or on Saturdays and
classroom teaching performance monitored by university supervisors over
two semesters, in lieu of student teaching*.*

***Academic and support networks*.** A number of academic and support
services were offered by the Aide-to-Teacher project. University faculty
and staff were selected to serve as mentors to participants, with whom
they met on a regular basis for academic advisement and help in
adjusting to the university environment. Participants received
assistance in preparing for the CBEST by taking a practice examination
that helped them assess their strengths and weaknesses. Tutoring was
arranged so that they could work on identified weaknesses.

A number of social support activities were also provided by the project.
Group social activities were included in Phase II, which were designed
to enhance social networking. Family advising sessions were available
when needed as well. By Phase III, fellows were encouraged to join the
Future Teacher Club in order to develop a supportive social network of
peers.

***Employment*.** The seven cooperating school districts in which the
Aide-to-Teacher fellows continued to work as instructional aides were
committed to hiring them as full-time classroom teachers as soon as they
were eligible.

**Program Outcomes:**

***Intermediate outcomes.*** Based on evaluation data from 1990-91 and
1991-92, intermediate outcomes included the retention of students in
Phase I and the progress of students who were in Phases II and III (see
description of program components above). Both of these evaluations were
more formative than summative in that they focused on factors associated
with retention and high progression rates. Based on 1990-91 data, 52
percent of the 48 Phase I students met the requirements for entering
Phase II. (To qualify, students must pass a qualifying exam.) Evaluators
found that students who were successful in qualifying for Phase II were
more likely to have been born in the United States, to have taken an
algebra class prior to entering the Aide-to-Teacher program, and to have
someone in the family already planning to complete a degree. The
evaluation gives no indication as to whether a 52 percent rate in
transitioning from Phase I to II can be considered "successful" or not.

Data from the 1991-92 evaluation show that of the 131 students who
originally started in the Aide-to-Teacher program, 113 remain, for an
attrition rate of 14 percent over a five-year period. (The evaluation
does not mention the number who have completed, so we assume that none
has yet completed the program.) Although no comparison data were
collected, this attrition rate, especially for the population served,
seems low. 1991-92 data also give the class standing and grade point
averages of all students remaining in the program, showing that 60
percent had progressed to junior and senior standing. Average GPA for
all students was 2.80.

***Long-term outcomes.*** Long-term outcomes were not measured by the
evaluations, although the evaluator recommended that follow-up
evaluations be made of students who enter the teacher profession to
gauge the long term effects of the program.

***What the data tell us about program effectiveness.*** The data
collected by the two evaluations that we reviewed measure only
intermediate outcomes. The low attrition and healthy progression rates
suggest that the support services and academic preparation provided by
the program are effective in retaining and facilitating the progress of
participants. This is supported by the above average grade point average
for Aide-to-Teacher students. The absence of comparison data makes it
difficult for us to conclude with certainty that this is the case, but
we feel comfortable in saying that the evaluation data suggest that the
strategies used by the program are effective for encouraging retention
and progress.

Source: Warshaw, 1992.

**K. Dewitt Wallace--Reader's Digest Fund**

**Pathways to Teaching Careers Program**

The Dewitt Wallace--Reader's Digest Fund Pathways to Teaching Careers
Program is a teacher recruitment and preparation program located at 42
sites nationwide. It was established by the DeWitt Wallace--Reader's
Digest Fund in 1989 at a handful of colleges in New York City and, a few
years later, had expanded to 42 sites, representing an investment of
\$50 million by the Fund in 1998. The Pathways model is designed to
provide participants---who include paraprofessionals,
emergency-certified or substitute teachers, and returned Peace Corps
volunteers---with financial, academic and personal support as they
complete the requirements for full teaching certification. Pathways has
served close to 3,000 participants and, thus far, has been evaluated
during a four-year period (1994-98).

**Program Description:**

***Recruitment and selection***. School districts play a prominent role
in recruitment, often taking the lead in identifying and attracting
applicants to the program via mailings; announcements in district
newsletters, local newspapers, radio and television; introductory
meetings of district personnel to publicize the program; and posters in
schools and community associations.

Selection procedures are often carried out by a selection committee that
involves district personnel, faculty at the partner Institution of
Higher Education (IHE), community members, principals, and others.
Individual programs have developed their own specific criteria for
selection, but most require that participants be accepted into the
teacher education program. Applicants must also show commitment to
teaching and, in the case of some programs, a desire to teach in an
urban setting. In addition to criteria such as grade point average, test
scores, and letters of recommendation, selection decisions are based on
interviews and writing samples.

***Financial incentives***. Pathways participants receive two-thirds to
100 percent of their tuition. Some programs also provide stipends for
the purchase of books and other education related expenses.

***Academic and social support*.** All programs offer a range of
academic and social support services to meet the needs of the different
target populations served. Most programs offer orientation, academic
advisement, tutoring, assistance with study and test-taking skills,
monitoring of student progress, child care, cohort support networks,
family support programs, supervised teaching experiences, and mentoring.

***Academic preparation***. For the most part, Pathways participants
must complete the same course requirements expected of any teacher
education student at the partner IHEs. In most cases, some courses have
been tailored to meet the needs of Pathways students. These revisions
include emphasizing the application of theory and incorporating more
hands-on activities; inclusion of topics of interest to the urban
teacher in courses (e.g., family violence, juvenile delinquency,
families in poverty); addition of multicultural aspects of pedagogy; and
other revisions.

**Program Outcomes:**

***Intermediate outcomes:*** Intermediate outcomes specified by the
Pathways evaluation included meeting the targeted numerical recruitment
goals. By the end of the fourth year of the evaluation, Pathways
programs had exceeded their target goals by 115 participants, or 20
percent. The second intermediate outcome was the representation among
Pathways enrollees of a high percentage of persons of color. By the
fourth year of the evaluation, 75 percent of participants were from
racial or ethnic minority groups compared to the national representation
of 13 percent minorities in the teaching force (NCES, 1997). The third
intermediate outcome was the retention of Pathways students in the
teacher education program. At the fourth year mark, the first three
cohorts (participants who entered from 1989 through 1992) had a
completion rate of 80 percent, which exceeds the national completion
rate of 60 percent (National Commission on Teaching and America\'s
Future, 1996) and is significant at the .01 level.

***Long-term outcomes:*** Because the program and the evaluation still
have two years to go, the measurement of long-term outcomes has not been
completed. These long-term outcomes include measures of completion of
certification requirements, placement in teaching, teaching
effectiveness, and retention in teaching. Data have been collected on
effectiveness in teaching for participants who have been in teaching for
two years after certification. These data, in the form of principals'
ratings for 427 Pathways teachers on different aspects of teaching, show
that compared to other novice teachers in their schools, Pathways
teachers received an average rating of 4.3 on a five-point scale where 1
is lowest and 5 is highest, when average performance would be 3.0.

***What the evaluation data tell us about program effectiveness*:**
Evaluation data collected by the Pathways evaluation show that the
program has been effective in recruiting and selecting participants. The
program has met and exceeded its recruitment goals and is able to show a
retention rate that is significantly higher than the national rate of
retention in a teacher education program. Furthermore, the percentage of
minority participants that Pathways has been able to recruit far exceeds
the representation of minorities in the teaching force. The high
retention and completion rate also indicates that the program's
supportive strategies have been effective.

It is still too soon to predict how well the program will do in meeting
its longer-term goals such as placement in teaching, retention in the
teaching force, and completion of certification requirements. Data to be
collected in the fifth and sixth years will determine the program\'s
success in meeting these goals. There is some limited evidence---in the
form of principals' ratings and results of a performance
assessment---that Pathways graduates are effective teachers. This
suggests that the system of support and preparation provided by the
programs has been successful.

Source: Clewell et al., 1997.

**L. Eleven-University Consortium**

An eleven university consortium, whose members include the teacher
preparation program from Austin College, Drake University, University of
Florida, University of Kansas, University of Nebraska, University of New
Hampshire, Oakland University, Texas A & M University, University of
Virginia, University of Rhode Island, and University of Vermont, formed
in 1990 to promote innovations in teacher education. Key strategies
included extended or five-year programs, increased liberal arts course
work, and increased clinical experience. The members also shared an
interest in the follow-up of graduates of their programs to gain
evidence of the performance of their students and the effectiveness of
their programs.

**Program Description**:

Because, with the exception of the above key strategies, the individual
colleges had different characteristics and activities, it is not
feasible to aggregate information on components across colleges.
Unfortunately, the key strategies are not described in any detail in the
*Action in Teacher Education* journal article from which this
information was gathered. So few details are known about the strategies
themselves. The article did, however, contain a good description of the
outcome assessment that was conducted using data for all eleven members
of the consortium.

**Description of Outcome Assessment**

The outcome assessment focused on two basic goals of teacher education:
to place "good teachers" in classrooms, \"good teachers\" being defined
as teachers whose performance is judged positively by the people who run
the schools; and to produce teachers who actively participate to improve
instruction and improve the schools. Four indicators were developed to
assess program success in achieving these goals: 1) entry into the
profession, 2) retention in the profession, 3) classroom performance,
and 4) leadership behavior.

Research questions of interest were as follows:

What are the performance levels of teacher education graduates from the
eleven institutions between 1985 and 1990 as measured by entrance into
the profession (taught at least one year), retention, general assessment
of teaching effectiveness, and leadership behaviors?

Are there differences in performance levels of graduates of four-year
and extended programs as measured by the above four indicators?

Each institution identified a random sample of 300 graduates from the
years 1985 to 1990 and those with fewer than 300 graduates surveyed the
total population. A survey of graduates was returned by 1,430 graduates
(1,390 were usable for analysis), representing an overall 48 percent
rate of return. Six-hundred and eighty-seven graduates who were teaching
(70 percent of total teaching) gave permission for the team to contact
their principals and Teacher Effectiveness Surveys were distributed to
687 principals, 481 of whom returned them for a 70 percent rate of
return.

**Program Outcomes:**

***Intermediate outcomes*.** Evaluation data show that 83 percent of the
entire sample entered teaching and reported teaching for at least one
year. This compares well to national data that show most preservice
programs reporting a 60 percent entry into teaching (Coley & Thorpe,
1986; Feistritzer, 1983).

When five-year programs were compared with four-year programs, the
evaluation found a significant difference (p .001) [^44] in entry rates,
with 90 percent for extended program graduates versus 80 percent for
four-year graduates.

***Long-term outcomes*.** One long-term outcome was the retention of
graduates in the teaching profession. Evaluation data show that 84
percent of those who entered teaching are still teaching (70percent of
the total sample) and that the mean years of teaching is 2.7. Because
the sample consisted of graduates from 1985-1990, this limited the
number of years that retention could be measured to between one and
five. The evaluators make the case that studies of retention on the
national level show high attrition rates for teachers, with most
attrition taking place in the first two years of teaching. The
evaluators also cite studies that have shown as much as 60 percent
attrition within five years of entry (Charters, 1970; Geer, 1966; Mark &
Anderson, 1977) and conclude that given the tight job market and other
factors, their results show a surprising low attrition rate. We find the
evidence as presented by the evaluators to be inconclusive, although it
is probable that if they had disaggregated the data to show retention at
the two and five-year mark and had compared this to national retention
rates, the data would show low attrition.

A significant difference was also found in the percentage of those
remaining in teaching when comparing graduates of four-year and
five-year programs (p .001) Eighty-seven percent of five-year graduates
remained in teaching as compared with 78 percent of four-year graduates.

Classroom performance of graduates was another long-term outcome
measured by the evaluation. Principals were asked to rate graduates\'
performance as teachers "compared to teachers of similar teaching
experience." According to the evaluators, principals assigned 88 percent
of all graduates to the top two performance quartiles (59 percent for
the 1st quartile, 29 percent for the 2nd quartile, 11 percent to the
3rd, and .1 percent to the 4th). Principals also used a five-point scale
to rate teachers\' performance on 35 items describing generally accepted
teaching competencies and attitudes related to good teaching (not
specified in the article). Ratings show that in only six of the 35 items
were less than 75 percent of the graduates rated below high or very high
(four or five) on the five-point scale. These data provided limited
evidence of teaching effectiveness of graduates of the consortium member
colleges.

No significant differences were found in principals\' ratings of teacher
effectiveness between graduates of the two types of programs.

Leadership behaviors were rated by principals in their survey, with the
mean score on the leadership factor being considerably lower than
instructional or interpersonal scores. The leadership mean was 3.9
compared with the interpersonal mean of 4.3 and an instructional mean of
4.2. The evaluators state that it would be not be reasonable to expect
leadership behaviors from beginning teachers and felt that leadership
behaviors would increase after the first few years of teaching. They
tested this assumption by comparing leadership items on the graduate
questionnaire for graduates with one to three years of teaching and
those with four or more years of teaching. They found significance (p
.05) on 17 of the 20 leadership items, with 15 of the 17 being
significant at the p .01 level, suggesting that after three years of
teaching, leadership behaviors increased significantly.

Although no significant differences were found in the principals\'
survey between four-year and extended program graduates, several
significant differences emerged between the two groups on the survey of
graduates. Significantly more four-year program graduates had moved
partially or wholly out of the classroom and into some kind of
administrative or nonteaching position (p .01). Extended program
graduates showed significantly higher leadership scores on three
variables (p. 05): serving as committee heads, serving as workshop
presents, and taking on professional leadership responsibilities beyond
their school.

***What the evaluation data tell us about program effectiveness*.**
Because the data come from 11 institutions that represent great program
variation, it is difficult to make generalizations about most effective
practices. Data do indicate that graduates of extended programs
outperform their four-year counterparts in terms of rates of entry into
teaching, retention in teaching, and some leadership behaviors.

Source: Andrew and Schwab, 1995.

M.  **Houston Independent School District Alternative Certification
    Program**

In 1984 the Texas Legislature approved a bill that allowed the Texas
State Board of Education to provide for the certification of persons
with a bachelor\'s degree who are not graduates of teacher education
programs, thus authorizing the development of alternative certification
programs around the state.

The Houston Independent School District Alternative Certification
Program was first used in 1985. Its two main objectives are to fill
critical teacher shortages and to provide an alternative route to
certification. As of 1999 the program accepts and trains interns in the
areas of bilingual education, english as a second language, elementary
education, secondary mathematics, science, Spanish, English, and special
education.

The Houston program was developed through a collaborative partnership
with the school districts, Region IV Educational Service Center (ESC),
the University of St. Thomas, and Teach for America. After undergoing
training prescribed by the district (described below), interns must
obtain satisfactory ratings on the state-adopted Professional
Development Appraisal System, an assessment conducted by building
administrators. Upon completion of the first school year, the principal
and the program director jointly decide whether the intern should be
certified, placed on a one-year extended status, or dismissed from the
program. Since its inception the program has trained and certified more
than 3,500 individuals as teachers, librarians and bilingual educational
practitioners.

**Program Description:**

***Recruitment and selection.*** The program places advertisements in
newspapers, on television public service announcements, and radio. The
Houston Alternative Certification Program is also publicized through the
district's Administrative Bulletins and in memos to principals.
Informational meetings are held for interested individuals.

Entry requirements for intern candidates include a bachelor degree with
a grade point average of 2.5 on a 4.0 system. The candidate must also
demonstrate minimum basic skills on the Texas Academic Skills Program.
In addition, candidates must have a 2.5 grade point average on a 4.0
scale in the required 24 semester hours in their certification area.
Applications are reviewed by the Office of Staffing in Houston
Independent District and applicants who are deemed eligible are
interviewed using the Gallup Urban Teacher Perceiver.

***Support services.*** Throughout the school year, program interns are
closely supervised and counseled through the efforts of an assigned
program specialist, a mentor teacher, and the building principal.
Mentors are selected by the principal and must complete 12 hours of
mentor training. Mentors are usually experienced, certified teachers in
the same subject area and the same level for which the intern is to be
certified. The program provides a monitoring system that helps program
staff to assist interns in meeting required benchmarks at various points
in the training process. The monitoring system involves computer
tracking, mid-year reviews, and reviews of test scores. Upon the
identification of problems, support and assistance are immediately
provided.

Interns receive a great deal of support and assistance in test
preparation. The program provides mandatory tutorials to interns who
fail required tests, includes test-taking skills in review sessions,
assists interns in scheduling required tests so that they do not
overload their schedules, and disseminates materials and information
relating to testing success.

***Academic preparation.*** Before being placed in a teaching
assignment, interns received 73 hours of training from district
personnel, including one week of field experiences observing master
teachers in the classroom. In addition, interns must complete six to
nine semester hours of university course work provided by the University
of St. Thomas.

After placement, interns must complete another six to nine semester
hours from the University of St. Thomas and 36 clock hours of district
training. They must develop portfolio projects, including videos,
thematic units, projects related to their school improvement plan, and
all of the state proficiencies. They also have release time once a month
in which to participate in professional development opportunities.

**Program Outcomes:**

***Intermediate outcomes***. Data reported in a three-year evaluation
completed in 1999 have been used to determine outcomes data. Since 1986,
the program has trained and certified 3,500 teachers and other education
workers. The minority and male representation in the pool of interns (15
percent African American and 22.4 percent Hispanic and 30 percent male)
is higher than that of the national pool of teachers (13 percent
minority and 27 percent male \[NCES, 1997\]). Although the program did
not have a recruitment goal or a minority enrollment goal, it is evident
that the program is recruiting and certifying a large number of teachers
in shortage areas and that a larger than usual proportion of them are
minorities.

For 1998, scores of interns on the certification exam, Examination for
the Certification of Educators in Texas (ExCET), were compared to those
of teacher candidates from Texas teacher preparation programs
(first-time test takers). The data showing that Houston Independent
School District interns rank 23 out of 62 lead us to conclude that the
interns are generally performing better than over half of the students
from conventional programs and that minority groups are outperforming
more than two-thirds of the minority students in those programs. (Data
also show African American and Hispanic interns ranking 10 and 13,
respectively, out of 62.)

***Long-term outcomes***. The evaluation also compared the performance
of The Houston Independent School District Alternative Certification
Program interns in the classroom after the first year of teaching with
that of other program first-year teachers. The means and standard
deviations of the scores of both groups on the Professional Development
Appraisal System, a formal teacher appraisal instrument, were compared
for a randomly selected sample of 200 (out of 720) program first-year
interns and a randomly selected sample of 200 non-program first-year
interns in 1998. No significant differences were found between the two
sets of ratings.

The evaluation also reports a retention in teaching rate of 85 percent
for the Houston Independent School District Alternative Certification
Program interns, but no time frame has been given so it is difficult to
interpret this statistic.

***What the evaluation data tell us about program effectiveness***. The
recruitment strategies used by the program seem to be effective because
the program is able to recruit and enroll a large number of interns who
fit the required profile. Unfortunately, the retention rate through
completion at the end of the first year is not known from the evaluation
and thus the effectiveness of the eligibility criteria and the selection
process cannot be determined. The data do tell us, however, that the
combination of the eligibility criteria, support services and academic
preparation are effective in producing teacher candidates whose
performance as a group on the teacher certification exam ranks 23 out of
62 when compared with teacher candidates from conventional teacher
preparation programs in the state. For minority interns, the advantage
produced by the program is even higher when compared with the
conventional teacher preparation programs.

The evaluation data also show that the support and preparation provided
by the program produces first-year teachers who perform as well as other
first-year teachers in the district. Unfortunately, because retention of
both groups during the first year is not known, it is not possible to
ascertain whether this is an effect of the program support and
preparation.

Source: Morgan, 1998; Morgan, 1999---in press.

**N. Los Angeles Unified School District Intern Program**

In response to growing concerns about the chronic teacher shortage in
the urban districts of southern California, the California State
Legislature in 1983 included a teacher trainee provision as part of the
Hughes-Hart Education Reform Bill. This legislation allowed school
districts that can verify teacher shortages to hire uncertified
individuals as secondary school teachers and to offer a training program
through which they can become licensed. Participating school districts
would have to create and run a two- to three-year program of
professional training and provide the intern with the support of a
mentor teacher. In 1987 the California legislature authorized expansion
of the program to include elementary and bilingual teachers and renamed
it the District Intern Program.

In 1984, the Los Angeles Unified School District initiated a District
Intern Program designed to recruit academically competent individuals in
areas of subject matter shortage to teach in hard-to-staff schools.
Originally developed to recruit secondary English, mathematics, and
science teachers, the program was extended to include elementary and
bilingual education teachers in 1988. Since 1984, the Los Angeles
district has recruited and trained 1,100 novice teachers, approximately
96 percent of the alternative route candidates trained in California.

**Program Description:**

***Recruitment and selection***. Recruitment efforts are not specified
in article. Individuals who are considered for internships must have a
baccalaureate degree with 20 units in a subject matter major, pass a
state-approved exam in the subject area to be taught, and pass the
California Basic Educational Skills Test (CBEST).

***Support services.*** The program provides mentoring support for two
years from a mentor teacher who is paid a stipend and given 23 days
release time per year to work with interns, during which a substitute is
assigned to their classrooms. Mentors are selected through an elaborate
screening process and must attend a training program. Wherever possible,
mentors work in the same school and same subject area as the intern.

***Academic preparation.*** Interns attend a 15-day preservice training
program that consists of a series of seminars and two days of
observation at a school. Secondary students are grouped by subject
matter specialty and elementary students into regular or bilingual
groups. This training program is explicitly focused on inducting interns
into the district and focuses on 1) procedural knowledge, including
regulations and procedures of the district, 2) subject matter content
prescribed by the state and district, 3) the district's approach to
organizing and planning instruction, 4) survival skills.

Interns participate in a year-round program for two years. This program
consists of two-hour training sessions every Thursday afternoon in one
of three regional training centers. Each 16-hour module is regarded as
equivalent to one college unit and earns the intern a one-point
advancement toward salary. There is a strong focus on multicultural
education in the course work. At the beginning of each session, interns
meet as a group with a program supervisor to discuss problems and issues
that have emerged in their teaching during the week. Because they spend
two years as a cohort, interns tend to form a support group that helps
them deal with the stresses of teaching.

**Program Outcomes:**

***Intermediate outcomes.*** One of the main goals of the program is to
recruit competent individuals to teach specific subjects in
hard-to-staff schools. In the last six years (1984 to 1990), the program
has recruited 1,100 new teachers into the district, with the intern
program now training about 300 new teachers per year. This number is
equivalent to one of the smaller California State University campuses
(Morey, 1983). Although the article does not specify a numerical
recruitment goal for the program, the number of teachers it has been
able to recruit is large; many of them are prepared to teach in shortage
areas such as math, science, and bilingual education; and they have been
placed in hard-to-staff schools. For example, the proportion of all new
teachers in the district's hard to staff schools (called "priority staff
programs" or PSP) who were district interns increased from 5.3 percent
in 1987-88 to 18.5 percent in 1989-90. During the same period the
proportion of emergency certified teachers hired into PSP schools
declined from 43 percent to 32 percent.

The program has been able to reduce the number of marginally qualified
emergency credential teachers working in the district. Among all
district teachers recruited, the percentage in the intern program
increased from 3.7 percent in 1987-88 to 11.4 percent in 1989-90. At the
same time, the percentage of new teachers who had emergency credentials
decreased from 47 percent to 34 percent, but the percentage of
college-trained teachers with clear teaching credentials remained
constant---between 34 and 36 percent.

The Los Angeles Unified School District interns are well prepared
academically in the subject areas in which they teach. Three variables
were used to assess subject matter preparation: number of courses taken
in the academic major, grade point average (GPA) in the academic major,
and institution attended. The majority of district secondary interns
have substantial preparation in the academic disciplines they teach: 52
percent of the mathematics interns, 83 percent of English interns, and
84 percent of science interns completed at least twice the number of
units required (20 semesters or 30 quarter units are required by the
district). GPAs of the secondary interns compare favorably to those of
the college-based teacher education population: 65 percent of science
interns, 61 percent of English interns, and 39 percent of mathematics
interns have GPAs of 3.25 or higher on a four-point scale in their
subject area specialty and only 9 percent of interns have GPAs below
2.75. National statistics for teachers who qualified in 1987 show that
48 percent had GPAs of 3.25 or higher and 14.5 percent had GPAs below
2.75 (NCES, 1990a). Forty-five percent of the interns graduated from
University of California campuses; 27 percent graduated from California
State University campuses and the remaining 28 percent attended
comparable institutions.

***Long-term outcomes***. Attrition for interns in the first three years
of teaching is lower than that shown for a national sample. For example,
retention rates as of 1990-91 for Cohorts IV (1987-88), V (1988-89), and
VI (1989-90) are 18, 7 and 2 percent, respectively. National data
indicate that 40 percent of teachers left teaching after three years
(Schlechty & Vance, 1983) and only 61 percent of newly qualified
teachers who received their degrees in 1985-86 were teaching in 1987
(NCES, 1990a).

***What the evaluation data tell us about program effectiveness***. The
program's recruitment and selection strategies seem to be effective,
because the program has been able to recruit large numbers of district
interns who meet the required characteristics. Unfortunately,
recruitment and selection strategies were not described in the article.
Selection criteria, however, were provided and these seem to have
yielded success in enrolling participants who have remained in the
district for at least three years. The preparation and support of the
interns provided by the program have also proven effective as evidenced
by the high attrition rate during the first three years.

The district's intern program has been effective in meeting its goal of
recruiting academically competent individuals in subject matter shortage
areas to teach in hard-to-staff schools. This is evident from the data
showing the decrease in the percentage of emergency-certified teachers
(while the percentage of district interns increased and the supply of
college-trained teachers remained the same). The data also show that the
interns are well prepared academically in their subject areas.

Source: Stoddart, 1990.

**O. Teach for America**

Teach for America is a national program whose stated mission is to build
a diverse corps of recent college graduates of all academic majors who
commit two years to teaching students in under-resourced urban and rural
public schools. The program, which began in 1989, selects 500 new corps
members a year to undergo a five-week intensive training session in the
summer. At the conclusion of the summer session the new corps are hired
as regular beginning teachers at one of several sites around the nation.
At each site, local program offices help orient corps members to their
new communities and coordinate a support network. Beyond their two-year
commitment, corps members remain connected through an alumni
association. Since its inception, the program has placed almost 5,000
individuals in teaching positions in 13 geographic areas.

**Program Description:**

***Recruitment and selection.*** One hundred campus representatives on
each of Teach for America's target 100 colleges and universities head
local chapters that involve other campus leaders. These chapters plan
and run informational sessions and presentations, distribute information
and flyers, advertise in newspapers and other media, and otherwise
publicize the program. A Teach for America day is held once a year on
each campus, and campuses host students from local public schools for a
day of educational events.

A three-stage selection process is followed during which a team of 12
trained recruiters travel from campus to campus to meet and evaluate all
candidates on the basis of a written application, a standard-format
interview, and a practice teaching session.

***Support services***. All corps members participate in an eight-week
intensive training institute during the summer. The institute runs for
15 hours per day, six days a week. Corps members student teach under the
supervision of institute faculty and participate in discussion groups,
classes, workshops and other professional development activities. Those
who complete the institute are placed in a high-need urban or rural
school where they receive support from local Teach for America offices
in the form of orientation sessions, monthly meetings and newsletters,
and annual interregional conferences. Support of the school principal
and a mentor teacher to provide information and advice is also available
to each corps member. An attempt is made to place corps members in
schools with other corps members or alumni so that they can provide
support. Corps members also receive a deferment of their student loans.

***Academic preparation***. The training institute provides training in
teaching strategies, classroom management, and curriculum development.
Current issues in education and the social context of schools are
discussed. Three overarching themes---professionalism, reflection, and
multiculturalism---characterize the institute's instructional offerings.

**Program Outcomes:**

***Intermediate outcomes.*** Based on data provided by the program for
1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999, the program has placed 2,317 teachers, which
is more than the recruitment goal of 2,000 teachers (at 500 per year
over four years). Graduating corps members in these years had an average
GPA of 3.4 and an average combined SAT score of 1,205. This is in
keeping with the program's goal of recruiting high-achieving college
students. The relatively high percentage of graduating corps members (35
percent) who report that they are racial or ethnic minorities also is in
keeping with a program goal of recruiting minority individuals.

***Long-term outcomes***. The program reported that in 1996 and 1997,
the percentage of corps members who completed their two-year commitment
as teachers was 88 percent and 89 percent, respectively. A July 1999
evaluation conducted by an external evaluator involved interviews and
mail surveys of 434 principals (response rate 67 percent) who had corps
members in their schools. (The evaluation did not specify which cohorts
were being rated.) The evaluation reports that 77 percent of principals
rate corps members' overall effect on students as better than that of
other beginning teachers with whom they have worked; 90 percent of
principals feel that corps members have had a positive effect on
students overall as well as on their academic achievement; 96 percent
think that the net result of corps members' presence has been
advantageous for schools and students; and 92 percent would hire another
corps member given the opportunity to do so.

One of the program's goals is to produce teachers with leadership
potential. The program collected information on this outcome via
year-end surveys of the corps members in the spring of 1999. These
surveys revealed that 82 percent had been involved with one or more
extracurricular activities in their schools and 60 percent reported that
they had led one or more extracurricular activities in their schools.

***What the data tell us about program effectiveness***. The program's
recruitment and selection strategies seem to be effective in attracting
and enrolling the targeted population. The program is able to meet its
recruitment goal and to attract the type of students that the program
wishes to enroll. The minority enrollment, which is three times as high
as the representation of minorities in the teaching force (13 percent)
(NCES, 1997), also provides evidence of the program's effectiveness in
recruitment and selection.

The completion rate (of the two-year commitment) of 88 and 89 percent
attests to the efficacy of the training and support provided by the
program, at least for the short term. The principals' ratings of corps
members effectiveness is problematic because the evaluation does not
specify how the sample of 434 principals was chosen. The leadership data
present a similar problem in that it is not clear how the survey sample
was chosen (how many corps members, what cohorts, etc.) and what
response rate was received.

Source: Kane, Parsons and Associates, Inc., 1999---unpublished
evaluation report; Teach for America Impact Measures, undated.

**P. Teachers for Chicago**

Teachers for Chicago works with the Chicago Teachers Union, nine public
and private colleges and universities and several foundations in the
Chicago metropolitan area to recruit, educate and train new teachers for
the Chicago schools. The program targets individuals with no teaching
experience and at least a baccalaureate degree in a noneducation field,
especially those who work in science, math, and business or have skills
in bilingual and special education. Established in 1992, the program has
enrolled more than 300 participants in the first three years.

**Program Description:**

***Recruitment and Selection*.** The program advertised in local
newspapers and at participating colleges and universities. Because the
program wished to select only teachers who were suited to work in urban
classrooms, the interview and applications process was an important
component. The program used an interview technique developed by Martin
Haberman called "The Urban Teacher Interview Selection Process." This
interview identified individuals who would make good urban teachers by
assessing their persistence, ability to adapt and be flexible, ability
to learn from mistakes, and willingness to try new ways of doing things.
Candidates had to be accepted into one of the nine participating
universities and maintain a minimum grade point average of 2.5.

***Financial incentives*.** Participants received funding from the
Chicago public schools to earn a master's degree in education at a
participating university. The candidates promised to teach in Chicago
schools for two years after completing an internship. Because the
interns received about half the salary of a regular teacher, the
remaining salary went to cover tuition administrative overload.

***Internship*.** While attending a teacher education master's program,
participants worked as interns in Chicago public schools at substitute
teacher rates for two years under the supervision of a mentor teacher.

***Mentoring*.** Teachers for Chicago provided mentoring support for
participants in the classroom. Mentors, who were high school and
elementary school teachers with a master's degree, had a teaching
certificate for the position they would be mentoring, a record of course
work that demonstrated efforts to improve professional skills, and a
commitment to at least two years of service as a mentor. The program
trained mentors via a mentor-training workshop and relieved them of
classroom duties so that they could devote all of their time to
assisting the interns. Mentors, who typically worked with four interns
each, advised them on classroom strategies, paperwork, lesson plans, and
interactions with administrators and parents. They conducted formal
observations and demonstrate effective instructional techniques in the
interns' classrooms.

***Academic preparation*.** Participants completed a master's program
according to the requirements of whichever of the nine participating
universities in which they were enrolled.

**Program Outcomes:**

***Intermediate outcomes.*** Teachers for Chicago's intermediate goals
included a high rate of recruitment and a low rate of attrition from the
program. The program targeted 100 participants a year and, during a
seven-year period enrolled more than 700, thus exceeding its targeted
goal. The program also reported high minority enrollments, which was
viewed as positive, although no data on the actual percentage of
minority enrollees was given and no specific percentage of minorities
was targeted for recruitment.

***Long-term outcomes.*** The program saw a long-term goal the retention
of program graduates as teachers in Chicago Public Schools. According to
data collected in 1999, of the program's first two cohorts (1992-1994),
72 percent were still teaching in the Chicago Public School system.
Therefore, of these two cohorts, 72 percent had been retained in
teaching for either six or seven years. Although the report provided no
comparison data, this is higher than reported by studies at the national
level that show as much as 60 percent attrition after five years (Andrew
and Schwab, 1995).

A second long-term outcome of the program was the completion of a
master's degree by participants. Of the 127 participants in cohorts one
and two, 87.4 percent had completed their master's degree. The program
had not set a target for completion and there were no other data to
which to compare this outcome. Although the evaluation was to have
included student achievement data, none were provided as a measure of
graduates' teaching effectiveness.

***What the evaluation data tell us about program effectiveness.*** The
data provided in the program's evaluation report and articles suggest
that the program has been successful in recruiting sufficient
participants with desirable characteristics, such as minority status and
selecting those who are capable of completing the program without
dropping out. Long-term outcome data also show that the retention rate
of the first two cohorts as teachers in the Chicago Public Schools
exceeds the national five-year retention rate of teachers. This
indicates that the program's selection strategy is successful in
choosing individuals who will remain in teaching in an urban school
setting. The retention in teaching data also suggest that the
preparation and support, which includes financial incentives,
internships and mentorships, provided by the program is effective in
helping teachers stay in difficult urban classroom settings.

Source: Kamin, 1999---unpublished evaluation report; Chesek,
1998---unpublished status report; Gallegos, 1995a; Gallegos, 1995b.

**Q. Loan Forgiveness Program**

The Loan Forgiveness Program was designed to recruit bilingual
individuals in shortage areas in New York City public schools: special
education, school social work, educational evaluation, speech and
hearing handicapped, school psychology, guidance and counseling,
physical therapy, and occupational therapy. The program provides
reimbursement of student loans to eligible bilingual individuals who
meet the New York state teacher certification requirements. In exchange,
all participants are expected to complete ten months of satisfactory
employment with the board of education in a designated shortage area for
each \$2,500 of tuition assistance received. In exchange for their loan
payment, each participant must sign a contract promising one year of
service for every year of loan forgiving.

An evaluation of the program, which was mainly formative, was undertaken
in 1993. Seventeen surveys were sent to participants of which nine were
completed, for a response rate of 56 percent. There was no indication in
the report as to the total number of participants served by the program
or how long the program had been in existence.

**Program Description**:

***Recruitment***. Though not explicitly described in the evaluation
report, some information about recruitment methods can be gleaned from
participants\' responses as to how they heard about the program.
Participants responded that the major sources of information about the
program were: advertisements, brochures issued by the board of
education, and teachers or board of education employees.

***Program requirements***. Candidates were required to have U.S.
citizenship or permanent residency, not be current employees of the
board of education, and possess the minimum qualifications to be
eligible to receive provisional New York state teacher certification and
apply for a New York City license in one of the disciplines mentioned
above. Upon approval, the candidates must apply for and receive one of
these certificates prior to the fall semester following their acceptance
into the program. The candidates must also demonstrate bilingual
proficiency by either passing a state-approved exam or by providing
evidence of bilingual certification.

**Program Outcomes:**

***Intermediate outcomes***. It is unclear how many participants were
recruited by the program or if the program had met its recruitment goal.
Recruitment strategies, therefore, cannot be assessed for effectiveness.
All of the respondents to the survey, however, are still working in the
New York Public School System, none experienced any problems being
hired, and all expect to be rehired in the coming year

***Long-term outcomes***. No data on long-term outcomes were collected.

***What the evaluation data tell us about program effectiveness.***
Little can be learned about program effectiveness from the evaluation
data because of the absence of critical information such as time period
for retention, total number of participants, and targeted recruitment
goals.

Source: Mateu-Gelabert, 1993.

**R. Scholarship Program in New York City**

The scholarship program in New York City was created to provide full
tuition reimbursement to students pursuing study toward the New York
Certification in various shortage areas. In exchange, participants in
the program committed to work in the New York City Public School System
for one school year for every twelve credits that they received. During
the 1992-93 school years, evaluators assessed the effectiveness of the
program in terms of recruitment, training, and other aspects. Although
the evaluation was primarily formative, some summative data were
collected. Although the evaluation does not specify how many
participants were served by the program within what period of time,
questionnaires were sent to 523 individuals.

**Program Description:**

***Recruitment.*** The program targeted individuals accepted as degree
students by a participating college or university in a program approved
by the New York State Education Department. Thirty-one colleges and
universities in the New York City area participated in the Scholarship
Program. To be considered, applicants had to be pursuing graduate study
toward New York state certification in various shortage areas, including
bilingual education. Candidates also had to be permanent residents or
citizens of the United States. and bilingual applicants had to
demonstrate proficiency in a targeted language other than English.

The evaluation report did not describe recruitment practices, but
responses to the survey provide some idea of the main strategies used.
For example, the major sources of information about the program,
according to survey respondents included: the Scholarship Program
coordinator, teachers or Board of Education employees, Board of
Education brochures or circulars, Office of Recruitment personnel,
non-board of education advertisements, and professors or advisors at
participating institutions.

***Other services.*** No description was provided in the report
regarding additional services. Because participants attended a variety
of colleges and universities, most of the services received were
specific to the institutions attended. No description of the scholarship
services were given although participants gave high ratings to these
services. The evaluation implied that the program placed participants in
hard-to-staff schools, but no description was given regarding the
process.

***Program requirements:*** Participants had to have been continuously
enrolled in an academic program to have agreed to take at least 12
credits per school year. In exchange for tuition assistance, each
participant had to sign a contract indicating that he or she would
provide a required number of years of service in a special education
setting within the New York City public school system once they obtained
their certificate. As mentioned above, a minimum of one school year of
service was required for each 12 credits and those with more than 12
credits were required to give two years of service for each they were
enrolled in the program. Hard-to-staff districts and license areas were
given priority during placement.

**Program Outcomes:**

***Intermediate outcomes.*** The evaluation concluded that because most
of the participants of the program were women of various ethnic
backgrounds who spoke different languages the recruiting techniques
targeting minority women were successful (there was no indication
earlier in the report that the program targeted minority women). Of the
respondents to the survey (208 out of 523, a response rate of 41
percent), however, 72 percent were female and 63 percent were minority.
No data were given on attrition from the program, although it was found
that most participants (67 percent) had not yet completed the
Scholarship Program at the time of the evaluation.

***Long-term outcomes.*** Of the 69 participants who had completed the
program, 47 (or 68percent) still had positions in New York City public
schools. It is difficult to link this statistic to program success or
failure in the absence of comparisons data or a time period.

***What the evaluation data tell us about program effectiveness.***
Because the evaluation seemed to be focused on collecting formative data
primarily, little could be learned regarding effectiveness of the
program. The major finding was that the recruitment strategies seemed to
be effective in attracting the profile of participant that the program
was targeting.

Source: Manzo, et al., 1994.

[^1]: See Appendix A for a list of Internet resources that may also be
    useful to Title II Teacher Recruitment program administrators and
    grantees.

[^2]: Conversations with researchers working in the area of teacher
    recruitment and supply and demand confirmed that there were few
    credible evaluations of programs available to the public. The number
    of reports in manuscript, draft form, or in progress on the topic of
    teacher recruitment lead the authors to believe that the coming
    months will see the emergence of a plethora of literature on this
    subject. For example, NPEAT is preparing a paper on the recruitment
    of minority teachers, and the Education Commission of the States is
    preparing descriptions of teacher recruitment activities in selected
    states. The Quality of Education issue of *Education Week*,
    published January 13, 2000 focuses on state teacher recruitment
    efforts.

[^3]: For example, 87.3 percent of teachers are white and 73 percent are
    female (NCES, 1997).

[^4]: Proponents of diversifying the teaching force have argued that the
    absence of teachers of color deprives all students of role models
    (Cole, 1986; Graham, 1987; Mercer and Mercer, 1986). Pedagogical
    arguments have also been cited to the effect that minority teachers'
    attitudes, expectations, placement of students and feedback (both
    positive and negative) can improve the academic achievement of
    racial/ethnic minority students (Irvine, 1988; also, see King, 1993,
    for a review of this literature). Recent studies that draw on
    constructivist approaches to instruction have highlighted the
    necessity for teachers to build bridges between the backgrounds of
    their students and the contexts in which they learn. Because
    teachers of color tend to be knowledgeable about the experiences of
    students of color, they can build bridges between home and school
    for this population (Villegas, 1997). Moreover, teachers of color
    are more likely to be willing to work in urban setting and to remain
    in urban schools than their White counterparts (Adams and Dial,
    1993; Howey and Zimpher, 1996; Natriello and Zumwalt, 1993;
    Stoddart, 1993).

[^5]: Of course, once these two conditions are satisfied, success in
    recruitment becomes a matter of identifying an appropriate pool and
    developing appropriate recruitment strategies to effectively attract
    and retain the target population.

[^6]: Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
    Educational Statistics, Teacher Supply in the United States: Sources
    of Newly Hired Teachers in Public and Private Schools, 1988-1991
    (October, 1995).

[^7]: "State teacher recruitment program" refers to programs that are
    implemented statewide, are sponsored by the state, or are primarily
    administered at the state level.

[^8]: ECS Information Clearinghouse, 1999; Hirsch, et al., 1998; South
    Carolina Center for Teacher Recruitment, 1998a; American Association
    of Colleges for Teacher Education, 1997; ECS, 1999; ECS Information
    Clearinghouse, 1998, Blair, 1999.

[^9]: Calif., Conn., Fla., Ga., Hawaii, Ill., Ind., Kan., Ky., Md.,
    Mass., Miss., Neb., N.C., Okla., Pa., S.C., Texas, Wash., Wis.

[^10]: Ala., AK, Ark., Conn., Fla., Ga., Hawaii, Ill., Ind., Ky., Md.,
    Mich., Minn., Mo., Neb., Nev., N.J., N.Y., N.C., Ohio, Okla., Ore.,
    Pa., R.I., S.C., Tenn., Texas, Va.,Wash.,Wis.

[^11]: Ala., Ark., Ariz., Calif.,Colo.,Conn., Del., D.C., Fla., Ga.,
    Hawaii, Idaho, Ill., Iowa, Ky., La., Maine, Md., Mass., Mich.,
    Minn., Miss., Mo., Mont., Neb., N.H., N.J., N.M., N.Y., N.C., Ohio,
    Okla., Ore., Pa., R.I., S.C., S.D., Tenn., Texas, Utah, Vt., Va.,
    Wash., W.Va., Wis., Wyo..

[^12]: Ala., Ariz., Calif., Colo., Del., Fla., Ga., Ill., Ky., La.,
    Mass., Miss., Mo., Nev., N.J., N.M., N.Y., N.C., Ohio, Okla., Ore.,
    Pa., S.C., Tenn., Texas, Va., Wash., Wis.

[^13]: Md., N.C., S.C., Texas.

[^14]: Ariz., Ark., Calif., Conn., Fla., Ky., Maine, Md., Mass., Minn.,
    Neb., Okla., Ore., Pa., S.C., Texas, Utah, Va., Wis.

[^15]: Ala., Ark., Calif., Conn. Iowa, La., Mich., N.C., Okla., Texas,
    W.Va.

[^16]: Md., Mass., N.Y., S.C.

[^17]: Md., N.C., S.C., Texas.

[^18]: None of the evaluations were from a reentry program.

[^19]: See Appendix B for outcome data from both state and local program
    evaluations.

[^20]: 246 participants responded to both pre- and post- surveys. 1,876
    participants responded to either pre- or post-surveys.

[^21]: Descriptive statistics: A type of statistic that describes a
    sample and may include frequencies, means, medians, modes, and other
    information (refer to the supplemental statistical reference list
    for more information).

[^22]: Experimental design: Research design in which subjects are
    randomly assigned to groups to allow researchers to compare outcomes
    for the treatment group and a no-treatment control or comparison
    group. In a quasi-experimental design the assignment to a treatment
    or control or comparison group is not random. Design commonly used
    in educational settings because random assignment to groups is not
    feasible (refer to the supplemental statistical reference list for
    more information).

[^23]: Regression analysis: a procedure used to identify relationships
    between variables (refer to the supplemental statistical reference
    list for more information).

[^24]: This source is not the evaluation of the Texas programs, but a
    synthesis of evaluation data from programs across the country.. We
    were unable to obtain the unpublished evaluation reports which this
    author cites as her sources but felt that because the outcome data
    showed positive change, the information we did have about the
    evaluation should be included.

[^25]: Because many of the evaluations did not designate outcomes as
    intermediate and long-term, we used our judgment in defining these
    as such.

[^26]: We do not mean that programs targeting middle and high school
    students did not have student-participant outcomes as goals. We
    refer here to the prospect of measuring outcomes of the students
    taught by program alumni to measure the effectiveness of these new
    teachers.

[^27]: In South Carolina, participants in the Teacher Cadet Program have
    SAT scores approximately 100 points higher than the average of
    nonparticipants and 50 points higher than the national average.
    However, the cadet program is targeted to "talented" students;
    students must have at least a 3.0 grade point average to
    participate. Therefore it is expected that the specially selected
    high-achieving participants will out perform their peers on
    standardized tests.

[^28]: Although much more prevalent at the local level, these program
    types are also present at the state level.

[^29]: In general there are two types of evaluations: summative and
    formative. A summative evaluation deals with pre- to post-change:
    what are the measurable changes in participant outcomes that pertain
    to the intervention. A formative evaluation looks at the general
    implementation process of a program. This usually includes feedback
    from program participants on their perceptions of the program. Refer
    to the supplemental statistical reference list for more information.

[^30]: The criteria for evaluations included in the review of local
    programs were the same as those used in the review of state
    programs.

[^31]: See Appendix B for outcome data from both state and local program
    evaluations.

[^32]: Cross tabulation: a calculation of the frequency with which two
    observed values coincide (refer to the supplemental statistical
    reference list for more information).

[^33]: Factor analysis: a procedure used to identify relationships
    between variables (refer to the supplemental statistical reference
    list for more information).

[^34]: Because many of the evaluations did not specifically designate
    outcomes as intermediate and long-term, we used our judgment in
    defining these as such.

[^35]: Additional intermediate outcomes might have been: grade point
    average in the program, progression toward completion of course
    requirements, graduation and certification.

[^36]: Chi-square test: This test is a computational approach which
    measures the degree to which the sample is representative of the
    population from which the sample was drawn (refer to the
    supplemental statistical reference list for more information).

[^37]: T-test: This test measures the significance of the difference
    between two values, in order to assess whether the difference is
    likely due to chance (refer to the supplemental statistical
    reference list for more information).

[^38]: As described in a previous section, these quasi-experimental
    designs involved comparison groups from national databases and
    studies as well as groups of traditionally trained teachers from
    district databases.

[^39]: For example, comparison groups should be matched in terms of
    racial and ethnic composition, socioeconomic status, years in
    teaching, educational level, student demographics, classroom
    resources, classroom context, and other factors.

[^40]: See page 6 for a description of these teacher supply sources and
    a discussion of the shifts in the source of newly hired teachers
    over the years.

[^41]: Little has been done, for example, to increase the percentage of
    teacher education graduates who go directly into teaching after
    graduation, even though 40 percent of these graduates are lost (even
    temporarily) to the profession. A look at the data on teacher supply
    might suggest this group as a target for recruitment programs to
    help them make the transition into the teaching force.

[^42]: For example, if a district identifies a need for bilingual
    teachers, a survey of district employees may show that the largest
    concentration of bilingual employees with teaching experience in a
    bilingual classroom are bilingual teacher aides. The survey may also
    show that a large percentage of these aides already have 60 college
    credits. This information may lead the district to target its
    recruitment efforts on teacher aides employed by the district.

[^43]: Formative evaluations monitor program implementation and
    achievement of goals and objectives. Summative evaluations monitor
    program impact and effectiveness.

[^44]: The difference detected is more than expected through random
    chance. The numeric value is a statistical representation of the
    amount of difference (refer to the supplemental statistical
    reference list for more information).