# Recruitment and Selection of TTT PARTICIPANTS

## Highlights

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

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

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

## Recruitment {#recruitment .unnumbered}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.  Percentage of FY 2002 TTT *Grantees* Who Ranked Each Recruitment
    Method as One of Their Top Three Recruitment Methods

![](media/image1.pct)

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

2.  Percentage of TTT *Teachers*\
    Reporting the Importance of Sources for Learning About TTT

![](media/image2.pct)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.  Percentage of FY 2002 TTT Grantees Reporting\
    Incentives Offered to Participants

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  ![](media/image3.png){width="3.9298611111111112in"
  height="2.1430555555555557in"}

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

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

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

4.  Percentage of Grantees Offering Incentive, Average Amount of
    Incentive Provided and Number of Participants Receiving Incentive,
    as Reported by FY 2002 TTT Grantees for the Third Project Year,\
    by Type of Incentive

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

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

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

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

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

5.  Average Out‑of‑Pocket Expenses for\
    TTT Participants in Their First Year

![](media/image4.wmf)

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

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

6.  Average Out‑of‑Pocket Expenses Reported by\
    TTT Grantees for a Typical Participation Year,\
    by Grantee Recipient Type

![](media/image5.pct)

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

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

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

7.  Percentage of FY 2002 TTT Grantees Indicating Each Element Was One
    of the Top Three Most Attractive Elements to Participants

> ![](media/image6.pct)
>
> Exhibit reads: Seventy‑seven percent of FY 2002 TTT grantees
> identified incentives as one of their top three most attractive
> elements to participants.
>
> Source: Transition to Teaching Annual Performance Report, 2004--05.

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

8.  Percentage of TTT Teachers Reporting\
    Influences on Decision to Participate in TTT

![](media/image7.pct)

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

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

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

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

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

9.  Number of Participants Targeted, Total Applications Received, and
    Total Applicants Determined as Eligible as Reported by FY 2002 TTT
    Grantees for the Third Project Year, by Target Group

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

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

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

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

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

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

10. Percentage of Grantees Reporting Target Groups and\
    Percentage of Year 3 Participants From Each Target Group

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

  Midcareer professionals 87                      59

  Paraprofessionals       52                      14

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

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

## Selection Processes

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

In general, research has shown that less selective programs have no
requirement for GPA and require a simple application and interview and
submission of state assessment passing scores. The most selective
programs require a relatively high GPA (3.0 or greater), fulfillment or
validation of course content, and an extensive interview process that
includes the program administrator, representatives from the district
human resource division, and the school principal who is, in effect,
hiring the teacher (Mayer et al., 2003). For teacher preparation in
general, few empirically tested selection instruments predict the
success of candidates in the program and in teaching. Some TTT projects
and alternative certification programs, in general, are attracted to the
Haberman Star Teachers instrument,[^1] but most teacher education
programs use a variety of selection techniques, such as interviews with
groups of faculty and recommendations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*In order to begin to gather evidence and better refine the selection
process for Transition to Teaching candidates, as well as for the
alternative licensure portfolio route, we plan to begin requiring that
candidates take the Haberman Star Teacher On‑Line Pre‑Screener and
submit the results as part of their application. At first, we will use
this information to gather data and to set a baseline for candidates who
want to participate in our Transition to Teaching program and perhaps,
eventually, who want to earn their license through the portfolio
pathway.*[^2]

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

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

11. Percentage of FY2002 Grantees Indicating the Importance of Various
    Factors in Selecting Applicants for Admission

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

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

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

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

12. **Number of FY2002 TTT Grantees Using Multiple Selection
    Factors**[^3]

![](media/image8.pct)

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

[^1]: This instrument was developed by Martin Haberman to assist
    alternate route projects to select applicants. More information can
    be found at
    <http://www.habermanfoundation.org/newsletter/fall_2003.pdf>,
    obtained on\
    June 12, 2006.

[^2]: The portfolio pathway is the approach used by this TTT project to
    document the ways in which participants have met the state's
    certification requirements. A portfolio consists of evidence of
    satisfactory completion of courses, projects, and professional
    development according to a set of standard categories of skill and
    knowledge.

[^3]: Six factors were: academic course record, GPA, oral skills,
    interview, written skills and prior major or field.