AMERICA’S TEACHER COLLEGES: 

ARE THEY MAKING THE GRADE? 

HEARING

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 21ST CENTURY COMPETITIVENESS 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND 

THE WORKFORCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, MAY 20, 2003 

Serial No. 108-16 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education 

and the Workforce

87-985 pdf 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office 

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 

FAX: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
ii

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

JOHN A. BOEHNER, Ohio, Chairman 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin GEORGE MILLER, California 

CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan 

PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan MAJOR R. OWENS, New York 

HOWARD P. “BUCK” McKEON, California DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey 

SAM JOHNSON, Texas LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California 

JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania RUBEѳN HINOJOSA, Texas 

CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia CAROLYN McCARTHY, New York 

FRED UPTON, Michigan JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan RON KIND, Wisconsin 

JIM DeMINT, South Carolina DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia DAVID WU, Oregon 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois RUSH D. HOLT, New Jersey 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania SUSAN A. DAVIS, California 

PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota 

RIC KELLER, Florida DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois 

TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska ED CASE, Hawaii 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina RAUѳL M. GRIJALVA, Arizona 

TOM COLE, Oklahoma DENISE L. MAJETTE, Georgia 

JON C. PORTER, Nevada CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland 

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota TIMOTHY J. RYAN, Ohio 

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

 MARILYN N. MUSGRAVE, Colorado 

 MARSHA BLCAKBURN, Tennessee 

 PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

 MAX BURNS, Georgia 

 Paula Nowakowski, Chief of Staff 

 John Lawrence, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 21st CENTURY COMPETITIVENESS 

 HOWARD P. “BUCK” McKEON, California, Chairman

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia, Vice Chairman DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan

JOHN A. BOEHNER, Ohio JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin RON KIND, Wisconsin 

MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware DAVID WU, Oregon 

SAM JOHNSON, Texas RUSH D. HOLT, New Jersey 

FRED UPTON, Michigan BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan CAROLYN McCARTHY, New York 

PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland 

RIC KELLER, Florida TIMOTHY J. RYAN, Ohio 

TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska MAJOR R. OWENS, New York 

TOM COLE, Oklahoma DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

JON C. PORTER, Nevada ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey 

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas RUBEѳN HINOJOSA, Texas 

PHIL GONGREY, Georgia 

MAX BURNS, Georgia 
iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

TABLE OF CONTENTS...............................................................................................................iii 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN HOWARD P. “BUCK” MCKEON, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 21ST CENTURY COMPETITIVENESS, COMMITTEE ON 

EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

WASHINGTON, DC...................................................................................................................... 1 

OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MINORITY MEMBER, REPRESENTATIVE DALE 

KILDEE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 21ST CENTURY COMPETITIVENESS, COMMITTEE ON 

EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

WASHINGTON, DC...................................................................................................................... 4 

TESTIMONY OF MRS. LISA GRAHAM KEEGAN, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 

EDUCATION LEADERS COUNCIL, WASHINGTON, D.C...................................................... 7 

TESTIMONY OF MS. KATI HAYCOCK, DIRECTOR, THE EDUCATION TRUST, 

WASHINGTON, D.C..................................................................................................................... 9 

TESTIMONY OF DR. ARTHUR E. WISE, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR 

ACCREDITATION OF TEACHER EDUCATION, WASHINGTON, D.C. ............................. 11 

TESTIMONY OF DR. LOUANNE KENNEDY, PROVOST AND VICE PRESIDENT FOR 

ACADEMIC AFFAIRS, CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE, 

NORTHRIDGE, CALIFORNIA .................................................................................................. 13 

TESTIMONY OF DR. JERRY ROBBINS, DEAN, COLLEGE OF EDUCATION, EASTERN 

MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY, YPSILANTI, MICHIGAN............................................................ 14 

TESTIMONY OF DR. JOYCE R. COPPIN, CHIEF EXECUTIVE, DIVISION OF HUMAN 

RESOURCES, NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, BROOKLYN, NEW 

YORK ........................................................................................................................................... 17 

APPENDIX A -- WRITTEN OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN HOWARD P. 

“BUCK” MCKEON, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 21ST CENTURY COMPETITIVENESS, 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF 

REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, DC ............................................................................. 37 

APPENDIX B -- WRITTEN TESTIMONY OF MRS. LISA GRAHAM KEEGAN, CHIEF 

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, EDUCATION LEADERS COUNCIL, WASHINGTON, D.C.......... 41 
iv

APPENDIX C -- WRITTEN TESTIMONY OF MS. KATI HAYCOCK, DIRECTOR, THE 

EDUCATION TRUST, WASHINGTON, D.C............................................................................ 53 

APPENDIX D -- WRITTEN TESTIMONY OF DR. ARTHUR E. WISE, PRESIDENT, 

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR ACCREDITATION OF TEACHER EDUCATION, 

WASHINGTON, D.C................................................................................................................... 65 

APPENDIX E -- WRITTEN TESTIMONY OF DR. LOUANNE KENNEDY, PROVOST AND 

VICE PRESIDENT FOR ACADEMIC AFFAIRS, CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, 

NORTHRIDGE, NORTHRIDGE, CALIFORNIA ...................................................................... 87 

APPENDIX F -- WRITTEN TESTIMONY OF DR. JERRY ROBBINS, DEAN, COLLEGE OF 

EDUCATION, EASTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY, YPSILANTI, MICHIGAN................ 97 

APPENDIX G -- WRITTEN TESTIMONY OF DR. JOYCE R. COPPIN, CHIEF EXECUTIVE, 

DIVISION OF HUMAN RESOURCES, NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF 

EDUCATION, BROOKLYN, NEW YORK ............................................................................. 131 

APPENDIX H -- THE BROAD FOUNDATION AND THE FORDHAM FOUNDATION 

REPORT ON, “BETTER LEADERS FOR AMERICA’S SCHOOLS: A MANIFESTO”, 

SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY MRS. LISA GRAHAM KEEGAN............................ 139 

APPENDIX I -- QUESTIONS TO WITNESSES SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY 

REPRESENTATIVE MAX BURNS AND RESPONSES FROM DR. JERRY ROBBINS, DR. 

ARTHUR E. WISE, DR. LOUANNE KENNEDY, AND MS. KATI HAYCOCK.................. 215 

APPENDIX J -- WRITTEN STATEMENT SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY 

REPRESENTATIVE BETTY MCCOLLUM ............................................................................ 229 

APPENDIX K -- LETTER SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD FROM DR. DARYAO S. 

KHARTI AND DR. ANNE O. HUGHES.................................................................................. 233 

TABLE OF INDEXES ............................................................................................................... 238
1

AMERICA'S TEACHER COLLEGES: ARE THEY 

MAKING THE GRADE? 

_____________________________________

TUESDAY, MAY 20, 2003 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 21ST CENTURY 

COMPETITIVENESS, 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

 The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2 p.m., in Room 2175, Rayburn House Office 

Building, Hon. Howard P. "Buck" McKeon [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

 Present: Representatives McKeon, Petri, Castle, Ehlers, Tiberi, Cole, Carter, Gingrey, 

Burns, Kildee, Tierney, Wu, Holt, McCollum, McCarthy, Van Hollen, Ryan, Owens, and Payne. 

 Also Present: Representatives Bishop and Davis of California. 

 Staff Present: Kevin Frank, Professional Staff Member; Alexa Marrero, Press Secretary; 

Maria Miller, Coalitions Director for Education Policy; Susan Oglinsky, Coalitions Advisor; 

Deborah L. Samantar, Committee Clerk/Intern Coordinator; Kathleen Smith, Professional Staff 

Member; Rich Stombres, Professional Staff Member; Holli Traud, Legislative Assistant; Ellynne 

Bannon, Minority Legislative Associate/Education; Ricardo Martinez, Minority Legislative 

Associate/Education; Alex Nock, Minority Legislative Associate/Education; and Joe Novotny, 

Minority Staff Assistant/Education. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN HOWARD P. “BUCK” MCKEON, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 21ST CENTURY COMPETITIVENESS, COMMITTEE 

ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF 

REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, DC 

Chairman McKeon. A quorum being present, the Subcommittee on 21st Century 

Competitiveness will come to order. 
2

 We are meeting today to hear testimony on America's teachers colleges: Are they making 

the grade? 

 Under committee rule 12(b) opening statements are limited to the chairman and ranking 

minority member of the subcommittee. Therefore, if other members have statements, they may be 

included in the hearing record. With that, I ask unanimous consent for the hearing record to remain 

open 14 days to allow members' statements and other extraneous material referenced during the 

hearing to be submitted in the official hearing record. Without objection, so ordered. 

Good afternoon. I would like to welcome each of you to the hearing today as the 

subcommittee continues its focus on reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. Today we are 

holding our second hearing on teacher quality. 

 Last October the subcommittee held a hearing on Training Tomorrow's Teachers: Ensuring 

a Quality Postsecondary Education, to learn about the effects of amendments made in 1998 to Title 

II of the Higher Education Act on the quality of teacher education programs in the United States. 

At that hearing we discussed the effectiveness of the competitive grant programs authorized under 

Title II and examined accountability provisions for teaching preparation programs under the act. 

The purpose of today's hearing is to discuss whether teacher colleges and other teacher preparation 

programs are producing a competitive cadre of teachers. 

 The caliber of teacher education programs at institutions of higher education has come 

under increased scrutiny over the past several years. Among other things, teacher preparation 

programs have been criticized for providing prospective teachers with inadequate time to learn 

subject matter; for teaching a superficial curriculum; and for being unduly fragmented, with 

courses not linked to practice teaching and with education faculty isolated from their arts and 

sciences faculty colleagues. 

 In particular, there have been concerns about high rates of failure of recent teacher college 

graduates on initial licensing or certification exams. A recent Congressional Research Service 

report noted that one of the most publicly reported instances of high failure rates was in 1998 when 

59 percent of prospective teachers in Massachusetts failed that State's new certification exam. 

These dismal results raised questions about the quality of the preparation and training prospective 

teachers had received from teacher preparation programs at institutions of higher education across 

the State. 

 In June 2002, the Secretary of Education issued the first full annual report on teacher 

preparation as required under Title II of the Higher Education Act. The report, titled Meeting the 

Highly Qualified Teachers Challenge: The Secretary's Annual Report on Teacher Quality, 

concluded that the teacher preparation system in this country has serious limitations. Not only does 

acceptable achievement on certification assessments differ markedly among the States, the 

Secretary's report found that most States, in setting the minimum score considered to be a passing 

score, set those scores well below the national averages. The data collected for this report suggest 

that schools of education and formal teacher training programs are failing to produce the types of 

highly qualified teachers that the No Child Left Behind Act demands. 
3

 There is widespread awareness that the subject matter knowledge and teaching skills of 

teachers play a central role in the success of elementary and secondary education reform. More 

than half of the 2.2 million teachers that America's schools will need to hire over the next 10 years 

will be first-time teachers, and they will need to be well prepared for the challenges of today's 

classrooms. For these reasons the nation's attention has increasingly focused on the role that 

institutions of higher education and States play in ensuring that new teachers have the content 

knowledge and teaching skills they need to ensure that all students are held to higher standards. 

 Approximately 1,200 institutions of higher education award undergraduate degrees in 

elementary and secondary education. In addition to earning a baccalaureate degree in education, 

other undergraduates get ready to teach by participating in a teacher education program while 

earning a degree in an academic subject area. Still other individuals enter teaching through post 

baccalaureate certificate programs or master's programs offered by institutions of higher education.

Finally, alternative routes to teaching that target, for example, individuals changing careers may 

also involve higher education institutions. 

 Title II of the Higher Education Act includes programs and provisions intended to improve 

the overall quality of teacher preparation programs administered by institutions of higher 

education, hold these programs accountable for the quality of their graduates, and strengthen 

recruitment of highly qualified individuals to the teaching profession. Institutions of higher 

education have a great deal of responsibility in contributing to the preparation of our nation's 

teachers. We are here today to learn whether provisions under Title II of the Higher Education Act 

are working and whether our teacher preparation programs are making the grade. 

 We have a distinguished panel of witnesses today, and I would like to thank you for your 

appearance before the subcommittee today, and I look forward to your testimony and any 

recommendations you may have as we work to reauthorize the teacher provisions of the Higher 

Education Act. 

WRITTEN OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN HOWARD P. “BUCK” MCKEON, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 21ST CENTURY COMPETITIVENESS, COMMITTEE ON 

EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

WASHINGTON, DC—SEE APPENDIX A 

Chairman McKeon. I now yield to Mr. Kildee, Ranking Member of the committee, for his 

opening statement. 
4

OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MINORITY MEMBER, 

REPRESENTATIVE DALE KILDEE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 21ST CENTURY 

COMPETITIVENESS, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE 

WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am very pleased to join my respected friend Chairman 

McKeon at today's hearing on teacher quality and Title II of the Higher Education Act. 

 Having led efforts on this side of the aisle during the last higher education reauthorization, I 

am looking forward to strengthening our teacher preparation programs and increasing the supply of 

highly qualified teachers. Nothing is more critical to the education of a child than the quality of 

that child's teacher. I taught for 10 years and have been guided by that. I really gained from having 

taught with such great teachers at Flint Central High School, many of whom attended Eastern 

Michigan. This makes the work at our nation's schools of education and other programs that 

produce and certify our teachers extremely critical. Without top-notch schools of education, we 

simply can't produce the number of teachers that our children need to learn. 

 Title II of the Higher Education Act plays an important role in improving the quality of our 

teacher preparation programs. The research provided through its grant programs has improved 

teacher certification and reform initiatives at the State level and assured strong partnerships 

between institutions of higher education and high-need local educational agencies. 

 As we look to authorize or reauthorize these programs, we need to make several critical 

changes. First, the definition of high-need local educational agency should be set at a higher, more 

targeted threshold. This will lead to needier school districts being included in partnerships and an 

increased number of disadvantaged children benefiting from improved teaching. 

 In addition, we need to expand our efforts to include all of the high-quality universities in 

Title II programs. This includes expanding opportunities for historically black colleges, Hispanicserving institutions and travel colleges to improve teacher preparation and to work with 

disadvantaged school districts. 

 We also need to examine the accountability provision of Title II to ensure that critical 

information on the performance of schools of education and other teacher preparation programs is 

reported and used to improve quality. The reporting and accountability system we established in 

1998 with Mr. McKeon and I was a very good first start, and in this reauthorization we need to 

improve how States and institutions report data to ensure that we get an accurate picture of how 

many teacher candidates pass initial certification exams. 

 Lastly, I want to comment on the president's loan forgiveness proposal for math, science 

and special education teachers. Loan forgiveness is an important tool to ensure that highly 

qualified teachers can be recruited and retained, especially in our most disadvantaged schools. 

While the president's proposal improves the existing loan forgiveness program that Chairman 

McKeon and I created in the last reauthorization, more must be done. We should not limit 
5

expanded loan forgiveness to just math, science and special education teachers. Instead we should 

increase loan forgiveness to 17,500 for all teachers teaching in Title I schools. In addition, we must 

provide some initial levels of forgiveness in the first five years of teaching in a Title I school. 

 The present loan forgiveness authority requires teachers to teach for five years prior to ever 

receiving any loan forgiveness. This 5-year waiting period reduces the attractiveness of loan 

forgiveness as a retention-based incentive. We should instead be providing an increasing portion 

of forgiveness in each of the first five years a teacher teaches in a Title I school. This change alone 

could make the existing loan forgiveness program a much more attractive retention tool for school 

districts seeking highly qualified teachers. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to close my remarks by thanking the witnesses for their testimony, 

and thank you for holding this hearing. There is no more important task than to assure that our 

teachers are well prepared to help our children learn, and I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Chairman McKeon. Thank you. 

I will now introduce our witnesses. First is Lisa Graham Keegan. Ms. Graham Keegan is 

the chief executive officer and founding member of the Education Leaders Council in Washington, 

D.C. Prior to the Education Leaders Council, she served as the superintendent of public instruction 

in Arizona. I first met her when we went there and held a hearing on charter schools. She was 

elected to the Arizona House of Representatives for two terms. During her tenure she served as 

vice chair and chair of the house education committee. 

 Next we have Kati Haycock. Ms. Haycock is a director of The Education Trust in 

Washington, D.C., and previously served as executive vice president and chief operating officer of 

the Children's Defense Fund. Additionally, Ms. Haycock founded and served as the chief 

executive officer of the Achievement Council, a nonprofit organization that assists teachers and 

administrators in low performing, predominantly minority schools. 

 Then we have Dr. Arthur E. Wise. Dr. Wise is president of the National Council for 

Accreditation of Teacher Education in Washington, D.C., and is the coauthor of A License to 

Teach, which concerns professionalization of teaching. He also served as director of the Rand 

Corporation's Center for the Study of the Teaching Profession. 

 Then we have Dr. Louanne Kennedy. Dr. Kennedy is provost and vice president for 

academic affairs at California State University-Northridge in California; which used to be in my 

district. Prior to this she held the positions of vice president for academic affairs at Keen College 

of New Jersey and associate provost of Baruch College, the City University of New York, and was 

also acting president of the university, I know, for about a year. It is good to see you again. 

 I would like to introduce Mr. Kildee to introduce our next witness. 
6

Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is my great pleasure to introduce Dr. Jerry Robbins, 

dean of the College of Education at Eastern Michigan University. My daughter chose to attend 

Eastern Michigan, not in your school, but in the School of Psychology. Dr. Robbins has 23 years 

of experience as a dean of a college of education, the last 12 years at Eastern Michigan University.

In addition, Dr. Robbins has 15 additional years in other higher educational roles and has served as 

a principal and a teacher. 

 Eastern Michigan University and the college Dr. Robbins have the distinction of being the 

largest producer of educational personnel in the country, in both quantity and quality. In addition, 

Eastern Michigan University is among the largest producers of new teachers. Eastern Michigan 

also has received the NCATE accreditation and represents one of the more innovative examples of 

schools of education. 

 What impresses me most about Dr. Robbins' and Eastern Michigan's focus on preparing 

high-quality teachers, and I stress high quality, is that all of EMU's prospective teachers complete 

an academic major and minor. Graduates from Eastern Michigan know the subject matters they are 

hired to teach. In addition, an EMU graduate must take the State exam prior to being 

recommended for the Michigan Department of Education for licensure. Dr. Robbins is a big reason 

this focus on quality remains a steadfast commitment at Eastern Michigan. This focus on quality is 

exactly what this committee is seeking as we look to reauthorize Title II of the Higher Education 

Act. We are fortunate to have Dr. Robbins before this committee today, and I welcome his insight 

and testimony. 

 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman McKeon. Thank you. 

 I would now like to introduce Mr. Owens to introduce our next panelist. 

Mr. Owens. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to introduce Joyce Coppin, who is the chief executive of 

Division of Human Resources, New York City Department of Education. I have a long biography 

here, but I will not bother to read it. I know Dr. Coppin is an activist and idealist, a person who has 

been on the frontlines in every aspect of education starting with teaching, superintendent of a local 

district and high school superintendent. She is presently part of the massive reorganization of the 

schools in New York City, and we are so glad to have her to help train those businessmen who are 

in charge and keep them focused on education. 

Dr. Coppin was appointed as the Brooklyn High School superintendent more than 14 years 

ago. She served for 14 years in the position as Brooklyn High School superintendent, giving back. 

The magnitude of what that means, in Brooklyn there are 56,000 students, 4,500 staff members and 

a budget of almost $275 million. 

 In 2002, she was appointed to her present position as chief executive for the division of 

human resources. Her office provides service and support to the 130,000 staff members who are 

directly and indirectly responsible for education of children in the city of New York schools. In 

addition, she also oversees the department's teaching recruitment, preparation, professional 
7

development, and retention programs. 

 The last time I saw Dr. Coppin, I think it was at a special reception in honor of her at 

Medgar Evers College, and it is a college where a large number of teachers are educated. They 

have had their problems with their teachers being able to pass examination and get certification, 

and they have made great improvements in that respect. 

 So, Dr. Coppin, it is great to see you here and know that you are close to the top decisionmaking processes as New York City Schools reorganize themselves. 

Chairman McKeon. Thank you very much. 

 Before the witnesses begin, I would like to explain to you a little bit about those lights you 

see in front of you. I know your testimonies will probably be longer than five minutes. Your full 

testimony will be included in the record. When the light comes on green, it means you have five 

minutes. When the yellow comes on, it means you have a minute. When the red comes on, it 

means the world just ended. 

 And we will begin with Ms. Graham Keegan. 

TESTIMONY OF MRS. LISA GRAHAM KEEGAN, CHIEF EXECUTIVE 

OFFICER, EDUCATION LEADERS COUNCIL, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Ms. Keegan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members. I appreciate being here on behalf of the 

Education Leaders Council, which is an organization of State school chiefs, State board members, 

and governors' offices and other officials in education who are committed to standards and 

accountability, to choice in education, and to the quality of teaching in the nation. We are also 

partners with the National Council on Teacher Quality in a project that Secretary Paige initiated 

with us for the development of an American board for teacher certification, which will provide a 

new route for the country for teachers to come into teaching, for us to be able to guarantee that 

young teachers, at least prospective teachers, know their content, know the teaching instructional 

skills that they need to know to be a beginning teacher, and then we will heartily recommend to 

States and follow them through mentoring, mentoring that for us must include the quality of the 

instruction as evidenced in student achievement. So the American Board will follow all of our 

candidates and see how their standards perform. 

 The American Board was put together originally by grant from Secretary Paige, who, as 

you know, has been a strong advocate for bringing quality teachers into the classroom, for knowing 

whether the teachers we have in the classroom are producing quality in terms of students. We 

brought together some of the Nation's most thoughtful advocates of teacher quality, of content 

specialty, and created the standards on which these tests are based. These tests will be available for 

elementary education starting at the end of August of this year for States to adopt and use as one 
8

route to certification. 

 The American Board will not require that the candidate must go through a college of 

education. We will require a bachelor's degree in content. We will require absolutely that the 

candidate has been trained and skilled and has the knowledge and instructional technique required 

to be in the classroom. However, we will not require the traditional route through a college of 

education.

 We believe this is important because no preparation for teaching is easy or efficient or 

quick. It simply isn't possible. To know the content that one has to impart to students is difficult.

Whether that be through a math preparation program, an English language arts preparation, or 

science preparation, all of those studies are extremely difficult at the university level. 

 It is also challenging to acquire the kind of skills that you must have to be able to manage a 

classroom, to understand how students learn, to respond to all groups of students, and primarily to 

have the high expectation which we believe is incumbent in this endeavor that all students in the 

classroom can and will learn the necessary skills. 

 We are in a new environment, thank goodness, of no child left behind, of accountability, of 

a belief in the Nation and an insistence that all children, no matter the way they look, how much 

money they have, or their ZIP code, all of them must be entitled to a certain amount of essential 

knowledge. In order to do that then, in order to teach that knowledge, one must understand that 

certain types of instruction are necessary. 

 There is no question that the predominant view in the preparation of teachers in America 

today is that discovery learning and that students sort of exploring and coming up with the things 

that they need to know has been the predominant view, in addition to the fact that we have far too 

much belief that there are certain students who cannot. At the Education Leaders Council we make 

a weekly event of pointing out a quote from somebody who shares with us the reasons that some 

school cannot succeed because of the nature of the students in the school. We simply must get 

beyond a moment in which we blame a lack of improvement on the students themselves. It is us, it 

is our responsibility. It is an adult responsibility that we think can be answered in the process for 

certification that States and the nation allow. 

 What we believe is that there ought not to be simply one method, one route to the 

classroom; that what we need to judge is whether or not the person who is coming to us as a 

prospective teacher has the skills that they need to be a beginning teacher. No teacher who walks 

into a classroom for the first time is prepared for what they will face, particularly in middle school, 

where my son is right now. It is a very trying, very expertise-laden job to manage 12-year-olds, 

13-year-olds, 14-year-olds who come to us with these really big backpacks and believe we will fill 

it up with the knowledge that they need. 

 It is a difficult job, but it is also a job that must be learned in part based on what the teacher 

knows, and how they deliver that information. There must be unequivocal ability on the teacher's 

part of the content itself; they must know the subject material they are trying to impart to their 

student. We have spent far too long on process. It is not possible to teach what we do not know. 
9

So that needs to once again come to the forefront of this endeavor. 

 In addition, we must change our emphasis so that we look at exactly how far students 

progress and not simply whether or not we have provided process, but whether we provided 

success.

 Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

WRITTEN TESTIMONY OF MRS. LISA GRAHAM KEEGAN, CHIEF EXECUTIVE 

OFFICER, EDUCATION LEADERS COUNCIL, WASHINGTON, D.C.—SEE APPENDIX B 

Chairman McKeon. Thank you. 

 Ms. Haycock. 

TESTIMONY OF MS. KATI HAYCOCK, DIRECTOR, THE EDUCATION 

TRUST, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Ms. Haycock. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice Chairman and members of the committee, for the last 10 

years we have been engaged in this nation in a war of competing claims about teacher preparation. 

On one side are those who argue that teachers need no special preparation in education skills. On 

the other side are those who argue that teachers, like other professionals, need special preparation, 

and to place anybody else in a classroom is criminal. 

 You just heard one side of that argument. When I am done, you will hear the other. In fact, 

I worried a little bit about my placement between these two. Like most matters, however, the truth 

is probably somewhere in between. But the very sad fact is that we do not actually know which 

parts of whose claims are accurate. 

 Fortunately, while that lack of good, solid information has limited what States can do to 

respond to the bold action you asked them to take in No Child Left Behind, the truth is that you 

could set in motion in Title II, the Higher Ed Act, a process that would actually answer these 

questions once and for all. But first a brief reminder of why that is so important. 

 As all of you know, we used to believe in this country that what kids learned was primarily 

a function of them and their families, and that kids who grew up in poverty or in difficult home or 

neighborhood circumstances would not learn no matter what we did. There was, of course, a lot of 

new research that turns those ideas upside down. It says unequivocally that some things that 

schools do matter hugely in whether kids learn or whether they don't, and the thing that 

unquestionably matters most is good teachers. 
10

 Now armed with that knowledge, you set into motion in No Child Left Behind a process for 

refocusing schools and districts and entire States, in fact, on improving teacher quality and in 

making sure that poor children got their fair share of our strongest teachers. The Higher Ed Act, of 

course, is your opportunity to refocus higher education on that objective as well. You started that 

work in 1998. Now is your opportunity to move a bit further. 

 What changes might you consider? The first thing that is important to understand is that 

whether teachers come through schools of education or whether they come through alternate routes 

and, therefore, from academic departments, whole universities are responsible for the preparation 

of teachers pre-K through high school. Yet in a 1998 act you held accountable only the education 

schools. So what could you do about that? 

 Number one, you could require States to ask arts and science faculty members to actually 

review the standards and assessments for teachers to make sure that they are up to the level of 

knowledge that is necessary to get children to State standards. 

 Number two, you could make sure that when candidates fail licensure examinations in 

mathematics, for example, that the mathematics department that did their education is actually held 

accountable as well, not just the education school. 

 Number three; you could target the dollars in your State and partnership grants to engage 

not just education schools, but academic departments as well in tackling two of the biggest 

problems that we face. Number one is both the quantity and the quality of mathematics teachers, 

and number two is both the quantity and the quality of our pre-K teachers. 

 Secondly, let me go back to those vexing questions about what really matters and what does 

not. There, in fact, is a way to answer those questions. It is called value-added assessment, and I 

would strongly urge you to make, as a condition of providing a State grant or a partnership grant, a 

requirement that districts or States install value-added systems or the rough equivalent of those in 

order, in other words, to understand what actually matters in raising student achievement and what 

does not. 

 Third and finally, the matter of who teaches whom. No matter how you measure teacher 

qualifications in field, out of field, certified, uncertified, major, non-major, or actual experience, 

poor and minority children nationally get way more than their fair share of our least well-qualified 

teachers. Again, you focused real attention on that on the K-12 side in No Child Left Behind. The 

question is how you come back around and reinforce that in the Higher Education Act. 

 There are two things in particular that would help. Number one, loan forgiveness helps, 

especially when it is highly targeted to the highest poverty schools, and when it is more generous 

earlier than it is now. The current amounts are not sufficient to provide an incentive to those who 

want to teach in our highest poverty schools. 

 Secondly, it would also help to focus higher education energies if, number one, States were 

asked to include in their accountability systems for higher education institutions not just the pass 

rate measures, but measures of improvement in a number of teachers they produce who actually go 
11

to teach in high poverty schools; and secondly, to do what some States have already done, and that 

is include in the accountability measures targets just as you have for No Child Left Behind to make 

sure that every group of prospective teachers passes a licensure exam in adequate rates. Thank 

you.

WRITTEN TESTIMONY OF MS. KATI HAYCOCK, DIRECTOR, THE EDUCATION TRUST, 

WASHINGTON, D.C.—SEE APPENDIX C 

Chairman McKeon. Thank you. 

Dr. Wise. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. ARTHUR E. WISE, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL 

COUNCIL FOR ACCREDITATION OF TEACHER EDUCATION, 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Dr. Wise. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am honored to be here. NCATE is the 

accrediting agency for colleges that prepare the nation's teachers. NCATE and Congress, through 

Title II of the Higher Education Act, share the important goal of improving teacher preparation. I 

am here today to suggest that we can more effectively achieve the goal together. Rigorous teacher 

preparation is key to ensuring that no child is left behind. 

 Title II brought teacher testing out of the policy shadows and into the sunlight where it is 

now playing a forceful role in upgrading teacher quality and teacher preparation. Education 

schools are now required to report how many of their teacher candidates pass State licensing tests.

In response, education schools and States have changed admissions and graduation requirements. 

They no longer graduate teachers who fail the test. This federal mandate has engaged NCATE to 

incorporate test score results into its accreditation decision. 

 The NCATE is voluntary. Its decisions currently apply to 665 institutions or 55 percent of 

the 1,200 teacher preparation institutions in the U.S. NCATE institutions prepare over two-thirds 

of all the new teacher education graduates. In the last decade 48 States have entered partnerships 

with NCATE. 

 NCATE now requires that education schools not only meet State-mandated pass rates, but 

also a high national pass rate; namely, that at least 80 percent of all candidates pass tests of 

academic content knowledge. 

 Since the enactment of Title II, NCATE has also been working with one national testing 

company to ensure that its teacher licensing tests are aligned with rigorous professional standards.

NCATE has just reached an agreement with that company to establish a high national benchmark 
12

on its teacher licensing tests. This unprecedented benchmark will provide a beacon to States that 

wish to upgrade standards. 

 As important as these steps are, content knowledge is only one indicator of readiness to 

teach. NCATE believes in a comprehensive approach to the development and assessment of 

teacher quality. In 2001, NCATE launched its new performance-based accreditation system, which 

requires multiple sources of evidence that candidates have not only content knowledge, but also the 

ability to teach it so that students learn. 

 In addition to meeting new test score requirements, education schools must take these steps:

They must prepare new teachers to teach to today's higher standards. They must prepare new 

teachers to teach the great diversity of students who are now in America's classrooms. They must 

prepare new teachers to use technology effectively. They must offer more intensive supervised 

experiences in schools, and they must track progress of new teachers from admission to graduation 

and into the first years of teaching. These new requirements are strengthening the programs that 

education schools offer. 

 Based on what NCATE has learned from working with education schools, I have four 

recommendations. First, as I have described, NCATE carries out a comprehensive review of the 

institution, its programs and its candidates; therefore, Congress should revise section 207 of Public 

Law 105-244 to allow NCATE-accredited institutions and States to use NCATE accreditation as a 

substitute for all or some reporting requirements. 

 Second, Congress should amend section 202 to create incentives for States to implement 

comprehensive licensing assessment systems that include measures of content knowledge, teaching 

knowledge and skill, and the ability to teach so that all students learn. 

 Three, Congress should continue to encourage the development of alternate routes to 

licensing, but should tighten the definition of highly qualified teacher to preclude those who are 

still in training. The term "highly qualified" should be reserved for those individuals who have 

mastered a rigorous program of study and who have met all State licensing requirements. 

 Finally, Congress should amend section 203 to encourage professional development schools 

similar to teaching hospitals for medical education. These innovative institutions hold particular 

promise for preparing a new generation of teachers for urban schools. Thank you. 

WRITTEN TESTIMONY OF DR. ARTHUR E. WISE, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL COUNCIL 

FOR ACCREDITATION OF TEACHER EDUCATION, WASHINGTON, D.C.—SEE 

APPENDIX D 

Chairman McKeon. Thank you. 

Dr. Kennedy. 
13

TESTIMONY OF DR. LOUANNE KENNEDY, PROVOST AND VICE 

PRESIDENT FOR ACADEMIC AFFAIRS, CALIFORNIA STATE 

UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE, NORTHRIDGE, CALIFORNIA 

Dr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice Chairman, members of the Subcommittee on 21st Century 

Competitiveness, ladies and gentlemen, we are pleased to be here as recipients of a Carnegie grant, 

which you had asked us specifically to speak about, as we look to moving further on our reform of 

teacher preparation. 

 Research has shown that the most important factor that impacts student achievement in the 

K-12 classroom is the quality of the teacher, even among disadvantaged children. And clearly, 

when students are not achieving, we need to look at the way we are preparing the teachers. 

 What this grant has made possible for us is to focus the attention of members of six 

different colleges, including the College of Education, as has been discussed earlier, to combine 

together to work together to look at the curriculum that is used in preparing the teacher rather than 

having them separated as they had been in the past. 

 We began this project actually with a Title II grant that developed and integrated teacher 

preparation program, integrated between arts and sciences and education, and aligned with the 

California standards. 

 The work under the grant takes as a dependent variable looking at every possible way in 

which we can evaluate pupil performance in the classroom and tie that back to the value added by 

graduates of our program. It has required us to look at evidence of what constitutes good teaching. 

It requires us to watch how that occurs not only in our own classrooms, but also in the K-12 

classrooms. We are partnering now with teachers in the schools, principals, the Achievement 

Council, and the faculty that we have involved right now involves probably between 40 and 60 

individuals, one group looking at evidence, one group looking at partnering with arts and sciences 

in education, and the third group looking at the measures that will be used as we make possible 

having teachers become a clinical practice profession. They are being and we are modeling this 

program on the way in which doctors have been prepared. 

 We follow the teachers through the first two years of their teaching and make possible the 

ability for them to identify the areas where they feel weakest and be able to produce the kind of 

learning, whether it is in pedagogy or in the content area or in what we now refer to as pedagogical 

content knowledge, because it does bring the two together, and it will be able to put together 

quickly the kind of programming they need in those first two years. We need teachers to teach well 

and students perform well, but we have to provide the support to make that possible. 
14

 This work also now has gone in two different directions as well. We are opening a high 

school in 2004 that will be a teaching academy. It is a joint venture with the Los Angeles Unified 

School District. You were there for the transfer of the land, as I recall. And this is a teacher 

academy that has two parts to it that I think are really very special. One is we are now hiring K-12 

teachers with doctorates in content areas into the arts and sciences colleges, and we are hiring arts 

and sciences people as well as K-12 teachers into the college of education, and all of these 

combined together to work to develop our curriculum and to test the models that we are using to 

see whether it is really resulting in the child having a better performance at the end of the time with 

that teacher. 

 We are using standardized tests, normative tests, but our long-time objective is to establish 

an agreed-upon quality of student work that anyone can look at and say that is high-level 

performance in fourth grade math, writing, or English, or any subject whatsoever. 

 That high school opened in 2004. It will be a teaching academy, also focused on health 

sciences, and also focused on entertainment and communications. The three strands, the high 

school of 800, the three stands will be in these areas, and they are all geared toward careers so that 

we encourage students to learn the material, and the curriculum will be designed around learning 

that material as it applies to going on to higher education, but also to career, which is an important 

aspect, particularly getting kids to study mathematics and sciences. 

 We also have a full-inclusion elementary school, the CHIME school, in which we are able 

to demonstrate in K through 8 that full inclusion is possible, that every child can succeed. We are 

working with a number of different agencies, including the Achievement Council, the schools and 

our own six colleges. We think we have a model that will be, can be replicated. We started this 

with a Title II grant. We brought together the faculty there. Those kids are now graduating. They 

are out, able to show that a good teacher matters, it can be produced, and that results in high pupil 

performance. Thank you. 

WRITTEN TESTIMONY OF DR. LOUANNE KENNEDY, PROVOST AND VICE PRESIDENT 

FOR ACADEMIC AFFAIRS, CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE, 

NORTHRIDGE, CALIFORNIA—SEE APPENDIX E 

Chairman McKeon. Thank you. 

Dr. Robbins. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. JERRY ROBBINS, DEAN, COLLEGE OF 

EDUCATION, EASTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY, YPSILANTI, 

MICHIGAN 

Dr. Robbins. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Kildee, ladies and gentlemen of the committee, we 

appreciate this invitation very much. I am not here to speak for or against any particular 
15

legislation, but instead to give you a case study of a teacher preparation program at which most of 

the criticisms that have been directed in recent times do not apply. 

 We are big. We are trying to be very good. We are very well connected with our 

constituencies.

 As the vice chair has graciously recognized, we are indeed the nation's largest producer of 

educational personnel. That is about 2,000 people per year. That includes about 1,000 new 

teachers per year. This number will be increasing rapidly as our admissions have gone up 

approximately 44 percent in the past three years. We are committed to addressing the perceived 

teacher shortage problem. 

 We are working on being good. We are accredited by NCATE, approved by our State 

education agency, and officially recognized by 16 subject area organizations. We are rigorously 

reviewed by each of those every five years. All of our prospective teachers complete an academic 

major and minor that is at least as long and rigorous as that for anybody else. Every teacher must 

take and pass the State's required test in the subject fields before being recommended for licensure. 

 I want to dispel any concern that the teachers prepared at our place are not at least as well 

prepared in their discipline as anybody else at our institution. As a result, our graduates are highly 

recruited. They are very heavily recruited. Each can have his choice of three or four opportunities 

just from our annual job fair. 

 Our alumni have national recognition. One of them is former Congressman Carl Pursell 

from Michigan. We have 24 recipients of the 25,000 Milken Award, a national teacher of the year, 

national superintendent of the year, and many executives and presidents of national education 

organizations. I am most pleased to recognize today one of our recent alums who is in the 

audience.

Mr. Sergio Garcia came to EMU several years ago from south Texas. He completed his 

requirements this past December with a major in one of the sciences and a minor in bilingual 

studies. He is temporarily teaching science while he considers a number of highly attractive 

permanent job offers. After he was admitted to our institution, he had to complete the same set of 

general education requirements that anybody else did at our institution, and all of that course work 

is in arts and sciences. He became eligible for and was admitted to our initial teacher preparation 

program, which is not a trivial screening, because each year more than 200 students who make 

formal application are not admitted. Mr. Garcia was one of the successful ones. 

He completed his major, a strong pattern of course work in the sciences, and his minor, and 

in his professional studies he took a sequence of courses that qualitatively met every requirement 

set by NCATE at the Michigan Department of Education and specialized agencies. In the 

professional studies everything that has been called for in the reform reports in recent years has 

been included. Teaching the technology, classroom management, assessment and evaluation, 

working with students with disabilities, special methods, reading in the content areas, and on and 

on and on, these are all part of our preparation program. 
16

Along the way he had three structured pre-student teaching field experiences to apply these 

new skills, and then to culminate his program after further screening, he was placed with a highly 

qualified cooperating teacher for a full-time, full-semester student teaching experience. 

 This, along with the pre-student teaching field experiences, does provide extensive 

opportunity for our teachers-to-be to apply their knowledge and skills under careful supervision. 

 Because a large portion of our students work and commute to classes, we offer professional 

course work from 8:00 to 10:00 each weekday, on Saturday, on Sunday, online and in six locations 

in southeastern Michigan. In recent times we have admitted to our teacher preparation program 

about 500 career changers per year, and they now make up about one-third of our student body. 

These are people with at least a bachelor's degree, often a graduate or professional degree, who 

have decided to become teachers. 

 We are involved in numerous projects with urban teachers in Detroit and in Flint. We are 

well connected with our education community through consortia with other institutions, with 

involvement with schools in a wide variety of ways, special partnership schools, and special 

funding from State and federal agencies that permit us to engage ourselves in many ways. 

 We are very proud of our work as the university partner for the implementation of the 

Comer schools and Family Initiative in Detroit, where we have been working with 24 inner-city 

schools.

 We are among a relatively small number of institutions in the country that collectively 

prepare most of the new teachers. We are committed to quality. Our new teachers are well 

prepared in general education, in the content areas they will teach, and in appropriate strategies for 

bringing about learning in all children. Our alums are highly successful and much recognized for 

their competence. Our new teachers are highly recruited. The feedback that we get is quite good. 

We have almost every type of external recognitional quality that is available. We intend to remain 

well connected. 

 We agree with the subcommittee that teacher-training programs are the key to improving 

effective K-12 education. Thank you for the opportunity. 

WRITTEN TESTIMONY OF DR. JERRY ROBBINS, DEAN, COLLEGE OF EDUCATION, 

EASTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY, YPSILANTI, MICHIGAN—SEE APPENDIX F 

Chairman McKeon. Thank you. 

Dr. Coppin. 
17

TESTIMONY OF DR. JOYCE R. COPPIN, CHIEF EXECUTIVE, DIVISION 

OF HUMAN RESOURCES, NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF 

EDUCATION, BROOKLYN, NEW YORK 

Dr. Coppin. Good afternoon, Chairman McKeon, Ranking Member Kildee, Congressman Owens, 

Congresswoman McCarthy and Congressman Bishop. 

 I oversee 80,000 teachers in 1,200 schools and administer the largest teacher recruitment 

and preparation program in the nation. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the reauthorization 

of the Higher Education Act and our ongoing efforts to attract, prepare and retain high-quality 

teachers.

 For the current school year, the New York City Department of Education set a goal of 

hiring only certified teachers for positions in elementary schools, social studies and English. We 

accomplished this objective and are now a step closer to satisfying a new State requirement that all 

teachers in our schools be certified by September 2003. We were also able to satisfy the NCLB 

standard of hiring only highly qualified teachers in our Title I schools. Last September, I attended 

a ceremony at the White House where President Bush highlighted our efforts to meet these 

requirements. 

 Securing high-quality teachers for all of our classrooms remains a challenge. We must hire 

11,000 teachers by this September, knowing that as many as 4,000 current teachers may fail to 

meet the new State regulation. The supply of new teachers in New York State is not keeping up 

with the demand. Colleges and universities are not producing enough teaching candidates in math, 

science, bilingual and special education. For example, the city could hire every newly certified 

math teacher in New York State and still could not fill its 1,000 mathematics vacancies. 

 The department has worked aggressively to broaden the pool of qualified individuals who 

want to become teachers. Our efforts have increased the percentage of newly hired teachers with 

appropriate State certification from 43 percent in September 2000 to 86 percent today. This 

increase can be attributed to the following: The establishment of the Teaching Fellows Program, a 

closer working relationship with colleges and universities, an increase in teachers recruited both 

nationally and abroad, a new teachers' contract offering more competitive salaries, and a productive 

relationship with the UFT. 

 Teaching Fellows addresses the fact that traditional teacher preparation programs do not 

produce enough qualified teachers. The department, with partnering IHEs, tailored the program to 

prepare teachers to succeed in urban schools. It seeks highly qualified professionals who want to 

teach in our lowest-performing schools. For this September, this coming September, 3,000 

candidates were selected from among 20,000 applications. Our current fellows include former 

doctors, lawyers, Wall Street financiers, judges, and advertising executives. Over the last three 

years, 3,300 fellows have entered the program, and 2,800 are still teaching in these schools, 
18

including businessmen or Congressmen. 

 Because school districts are solely accountable for student performance, we must play a 

lead role in teacher preparation programs. Congress should recognize the importance of school 

districts in improving teacher quality and update how Title II allocates funds. First, allow 40 

percent of Title II funds to be allocated to partnerships between high-need LEAs and IHEs, with 

LEAs as the lead applicant and fiscal agent. This capacity would support successful districtadministrated programs such as Teaching Fellows. 

 Second, 40 percent of the Title II funds should be allocated to partnerships between a highneed LEA and IHEs to administer three service teacher preparation programs, with the IHE as the 

lead applicant. 

 Third, we recommend the remaining 20 percent be authorized for recruitment purposes.

These revisions will miss their mark unless these funds are better targeted. For example, in New 

York State, the White Plains School District's per pupil expenditure is $16,000, yet it qualifies as a 

high-need LEA because exactly one of its schools meets the current definition. New York City 

also qualifies, with 900 of its 1,200 schools enrolling 50 percent or more children eligible for 

school lunch, and spends less than $9,000 per pupil. 

 We recommend defining a high-need LEA as a district that serves at least 10,000 children 

or 30 percent from below the poverty line. 

 Finally, many prospective teachers are questioning their entry into this profession as they 

see districts across the nation eliminating teaching positions to meet budget cuts. While our current 

budget situation is dire, we have not cut any teaching positions; however, other districts have not 

been as fortunate. Revising HEA in the ways I have suggested and increasing its authorization will 

increase the supply of highly qualified teachers. Congress should also make education funding a 

priority so that struggling schools have the resources needed to educate children during this time of 

State and local budget cuts. 

 I thank you. 

WRITTEN TESTIMONY OF DR. JOYCE R. COPPIN, CHIEF EXECUTIVE, DIVISION OF 

HUMAN RESOURCES, NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, BROOKLYN, 

NEW YORK—SEE APPENDIX G 

Chairman McKeon. Thank you very much. 

I am going to hold my time until the end and at this time yield the time to Mr. Cole from 

Oklahoma. 

Mr. Cole. You caught me unawares, Mr. Chairman. I was going to follow your lead. 
19

 If I may, I would like to ask a couple of questions. This whole issue of teacher quality 

interests me greatly. Let me ask you, each of you, to address in turn something maybe a little bit 

beyond what you testified to. 

 One of the great difficulties I have found in the structure we have in education now is 

simply rewarding quality when you find it. We have a significant resistance to any kind of concept 

of merit pay, significant resistance to looking at educators who are able to increase dramatically the 

scores of children that they are dealing with. So I would like to ask you if there are some reforms 

on the back end of this system so that after we actually found quality, we found a way to reward it, 

both to encourage other people to emulate it, and to encourage people that displayed exceptional 

teaching ability to stay in the profession longer and, frankly, to stay in the classroom as opposed to 

move into the administrative ranks where most of the upward mobility in education tends to be. 

Ms. Keegan. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Cole, it is a perfect question, and I think that without 

any question whatsoever we have got to change the contractual arrangements that we have for 

teachers. In most professions what we do is not simply pay somebody more for a better job, we 

pay them more, and then we add more responsibilities. There is a very constrictive contract at play, 

as you know, in most school settings so that if you want to evolve a system wherein great teachers 

are not only teaching their students, but also mentoring other teachers, you cannot do that readily. 

You cannot pay that individual more for more of her time after school, et cetera, because the 

contract is prohibitive for that. We really are going to have to find new ways to do that. 

 We work with the Milken Family Foundation on something called the Teacher 

Advancement Program that attempts to get around this, but until we are open to those kinds of 

things, I don't think we will have the mentors present that are making enough money to make it 

worth their while to make this change because it is very difficult to do. 

Ms. Haycock. Just a quick addition to that. I happen to share your bias. In my estimation at least, 

if you are going to transform an organization and make it more performance-oriented, you need to 

recognize employee performance when you do that. The great problem with our efforts to do that, 

however, is we have not had a fair way to do that. It has been kind of principals pick or department 

chairs pick. It has not been rooted in analysis of who actually is successfully raising student 

achievement and who is not. 

 So I bring you back to what we talked about earlier, and that is the importance of providing 

incentives for States and school districts to put value-added systems into place so that the things 

that you need to do to reinforce and reward performance are actually based in a fair and impartial 

measure of that rather than on, let us say, the principal selection. 

Mr. Cole. Let me ask if I can get you to expand, anybody can pick on this in addition as you go on 

down, what would be your opinion of peer review in this process, and I mean literally from people 

that are recognized as accomplished educators, accomplished teachers, and not obviously drawn 

from the same school where they have any sort of personal ties with the individual, but some way 

to interject, because, again, I understand the concern if I'm a teacher about all of this process being 

in the hands of administrators and playing of favorites in rewarding and punishment. That is a 

legitimate point. But at the end of the day there has to be some way in which quality can be 
20

recognized and rewarded, and so it can be encouraged.

Mr. Wise. If I may, I have actually studied that in my past life at the RAND Corporation, and we 

have found that peer evaluation systems can work; in fact, they can work especially well when it 

comes to working with teachers who are in difficulty. These peer evaluation systems can be used 

to strengthen the capacity of some teachers, but they can also be used as a means of encouraging 

individuals to leave the profession. And we can cite some examples of that if you would like. 

 I think the general idea of our system right now is highly inefficient in its use of human 

resources. I believe that we should have something like differentiated roles and responsibilities, 

career ladders, team teaching. Having one adult for every 25 children actually keeps us quite 

confined in terms of what we are able to do, both in terms of training and induction and in 

rewarding people who show superior competence on the job. 

Ms. Kennedy. I think one of the issues in order to provide for this reward structure is to 

understand also that it is the school itself that creates the environment for the professional 

development to take place. The evaluation by a peer can be both an evaluation and a coaching of 

that person. To simply put some kind of a test or some other mechanism in without providing the 

opportunity for the teacher to be the best that they can be can be a problem as well. And again, the 

measures that the value added--where did the child start at the beginning of the year, what are the 

opportunities and the climate in the classroom with that teacher as well as the professional 

development in the school itself can make a real difference. And when those pieces are in place, 

the reward structures have to be there for all those who participate in the education of that child. 

Mr. Robbins. Congressman Cole, the only thing that I would add to the many fine comments that 

have been made here, and I do agree with the fact that a peer review system can be made to work if 

it is established properly, I would just add on the reward side of it to keep in mind that many of the 

people who go into teaching are rewarded through psychological rewards as well as tangible 

rewards. This means that we probably should be establishing more kinds of recognition of people, 

improving their working conditions and a number of factors of that sort that may be important to 

many people. 

Ms. Coppin. We have in the New York City Department of Education talked about merit pay, and 

it is still under discussion. The previous speakers talked about all of the issues that are involved. 

But can I say that we have utilized many different approaches for recognizing those teachers who 

are outstanding. They serve as mentors, coaches, and staff developers. Some run teacher centers.

And in many programs we have outstanding teachers working with the colleges and universities as 

adjuncts.

 In addition, the peer review system that we have allows teachers to observe each other and 

rate each other's lessons. We also have a peer intervention program where experienced teachers 

work with those who are weak and about to receive adverse ratings. Both of those programs work 

very well. 
21

Mr. Cole. If I can ask one more question without abusing my time? If I am, that is fine. I can ask 

it later. 

Chairman McKeon. Your time is used. The chair now recognizes Mr. Kildee for five minutes. 

Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just was thinking, looking around this room at the 

witnesses and the audience, that I am convinced that there is no meeting on Capitol Hill taking 

place right now that has more impact upon the future of our country than this meeting right here. 

The preparation of teachers is extremely important. Even before the time of Socrates. Right? We 

think of him. But it is really so important for our future. So this is an extremely important 

meeting, and all of you are involved in that and you can take certain pride in that and a certain deep 

sense of responsibility on that also. 

 I am going to direct this question primarily to Dr. Robbins, but any of you may join in. Dr. 

Robbins, I know you are doing some special work in Flint and in Detroit; Flint being my 

hometown. Certain school districts have high levels of children from low-income families, 

sometimes a high concentration. I think every school in Flint is a Title I school. And, also, certain 

areas have children from families who are struggling to be functional families. How can schools of 

education prepare teachers to provide instructions to children who may be from dysfunctional 

families or families just barely able to function? What can the schools of education do to prepare? 

 You know, if you teach in certain areas of Michigan, you have very functional families, all 

the things that can help a child. In other areas, much of that is lacking. How can you help prepare 

your teachers to deal with this? 

Mr. Robbins. There is not an easy answer to your question, Congressman Kildee. And every 

State represented in the room has urban areas that are suffering from the kinds of problems that 

exist in Detroit and Flint and many other places. 

 Probably our most positive experience along this line has been 10 years of experience in 

Detroit with the generous funding of the Skillman Foundation of Detroit to serve as the university 

partner for an implementation of the Comer Schools and Families Initiative. We have learned from 

that, that school reform in an inner city setting is not something that occurs quickly or easily. It 

takes a lot of time to make it happen. 

 We have discovered that this works best when there is stability with the school building 

leadership. When there is stability with the teaching faculty so that you can set goals, you can 

address those goals over time, you can set out strategies to train teachers, train parents, train other 

school workers, and train the community in how to do things better for the children that happen to 

be involved in this poverty and other at-risk areas. 

 We have also found that nothing works universally. Things that work rather well in one 

setting are difficult to transfer somewhere else. That is an area that requires I think a great deal 

more study to find things that can be made to work in other settings. With a lot of effort and a lot 

of trial and error, and certainly the other States represented here can also give success stories using 

other models where they have been able to demonstrate great accomplishments under highly 
22

adverse circumstances, it can be done. 

 There are some success stories. We are proud of what we have been able to accomplish in 

several Detroit schools. We are now working with Flint to try to bring some of those things that we 

have learned in Detroit to Flint as well. And we will keep you posted on how well we do on that. 

Mr. Kildee. If you can provide us some information on this program in Detroit, that would be 

helpful to the committee. Anybody else, any comments? 

Ms. Keegan. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Kildee, just at the risk of sounding like Katie, I think 

one of the best ways to take a look at who is really succeeding is to look at gain. Oftentimes you 

will have schools whose scores overall are not good at all, but the gain that they have made from 

where those students started is remarkable. Some of the best teachers in the country are in those 

urban settings. If you only look at flat, static scores, they don't look very impressive; but if you 

look how far those children traveled in one year, it is a phenomenal distance. The Education Trust 

keeps that data incredibly well. 

 I think young people or aspiring teachers need to be taught what is possible, taught high 

expectations, and given examples such as the ones we just heard of where it works. Too often they 

are convinced, somehow just sort of passively, that it is impossible, I am afraid. And we have so 

many fabulous examples; thousands of schools all over the country have just beaten the odds. And 

we need to hold those up as what is possible for these kids in difficult circumstances. 

Mr. Wise. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Kildee, we have advocated something called 

"professional development schools" as a bridge between schools of education and particularly 

urban schools. Most teachers, as a statistical matter, come from strong families. We need people 

to go into the city to work with families that are not so strong. The best way to learn how to do that 

is on the job, in a situation, a highly structured situation, working with people who have figured out 

how to do it. And, hence, we believe in this model that will train people as they work in such 

communities. 

Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman McKeon. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Ehlers for five minutes. 

Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Wise, if I heard you correctly, you said that about two thirds of the teachers who 

graduate each year come from NCATE-accredited teacher colleges; is that correct? 

Mr. Wise. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. Ehlers. So that means one third of our teachers come from schools that are not accredited. Is 

that something that this school that is hiring them is taking into account when they hire them? Or 

has NCATE accreditation come to not mean very much to the schools that hire these teachers? 
23

Mr. Wise. NCATE accreditation varies substantially from State to State; from some States which 

require it of all their institutions, to other States which leave it pretty much up to the institutions 

whether or not they wish to seek NCATE accreditation. 

 The evidence is clear that NCATE adds value to those who attend those institutions. We 

can cite statistics that reveal that, without question, individuals who graduate from NCATE 

institutions have a higher probability of passing State licensing exams, for example. 

 As to whether or not school districts choose to favor or disfavor graduates from NCATE 

institutions, that does vary some at local option. 

Mr. Ehlers. And are there States that simply require that all teachers should graduate from those? 

Mr. Wise. Well, they don't necessarily require that all teachers graduate from them, but they do 

require that all institutions be accredited. So, for example, we cite as an instance the States of 

North Carolina, Arkansas, and West Virginia mandated that all of their colleges be NCATE 

accredited. They did that in the late 1980s. Interestingly, by the mid-1990s, scores on the National 

Assessment of Educational Progress, which is a test of school children, climbed disproportionately 

in those States when compared to other States in the Nation. That is just one fact. 

Mr. Ehlers. I guess I was naive. I thought virtually all teaching institutions were NCATE 

certified.

Mr. Wise. No, sir. It is the one professional school on campus that has a choice about whether or 

not it wishes to be professionally accredited. All other professional schools on campus are required 

to be accredited. 

Mr. Ehlers. That is very strange. 

 Let me ask you another question. As part of the NCATE accreditation, what are you 

finding out with regard to science education in the various colleges and universities that produce 

teachers? Are the requirements changing? Are you asking that they be changed? How do you set 

your standards on that score? 

Mr. Wise. Well, we have a regular process of setting standards on a regular cycle. We have 

upgraded our standards recently across the board. We work closely with the National Science 

Teachers Association, which in turn works with most of the other major scientific organizations, so 

that our standards for science education do reflect contemporary thinking in science and effective 

science instruction. 

Mr. Ehlers. Can a school receive your accreditation if it does not have adequate instruction for 

teachers in both the content and the pedagogical methods of teaching science? 

Mr. Wise. Well, we consider as we accredit. We accredit the whole college of education, and in 

so doing we look across the curriculum and generally expect to see strength across all offerings as 
24

we make our accreditation decisions. 

Mr. Ehlers. So if a school is good in everything but not in science, will they get accredited? 

Mr. Wise. It is conceivable that they could be, if that were the only area of weakness. But I have 

not seen an actual example of something like that, but it is theoretically possible. 

Mr. Ehlers. If a college or university were delinquent in the teaching of reading but were good in 

everything else, would they get accredited? 

Mr. Wise. Well, that would be a more fundamental problem that would result in quite pervasive. 

Mr. Ehlers. But that is my point. My point is that they are equally fundamental, particularly in 

today's world, because the jobs of the future do require mathematics and science. 

Mr. Wise. Well, I couldn't agree more, sir. And of course as we look at elementary education, we 

do look very carefully at every component in the preparation of teachers. 

Mr. Ehlers. No. My point is simply that that is today the greatest problem in teaching of all the 

subjects that are normally taught. And it is a subject that has to be addressed. 

Chairman McKeon. Mr. Ehlers, your time has expired based on the questions that I responded to 

Mr. Cole. 

Mr. Ehlers. Okay. 

Chairman McKeon. Okay. 

Mr. Ehlers. May I just make a statement to conclude, then? 

Chairman McKeon. And you may also submit questions for the record that I am sure they would 

be happy to answer. 

Mr. Ehlers. This would be a quickie. 

 In addition to the merit pay issue, I think you ought to establish a practice in academic 

salaries of meeting the market. We live in a free market society. In every instance, employers try 

to match the salaries that teachers could get elsewhere. We are losing the best science and math 

teachers because they can make twice the money elsewhere. They don't expect to get that much 

from the schools, but there has to be a differential in order to keep the good teachers in the schools. 

 Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman McKeon. Thank you. The Chair now yields five minutes to Ms. McCarthy. 
25

Mrs. McCarthy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for having this hearing. I have to tell 

you, it has been fascinating listening to everyone. 

 You know, I kind of look at teaching like nursing. I was a nurse for over 30 years before I 

even came here. And one of the first bills I introduced had to do with teaching and mentoring, 

because I think when I was a nurse we had mentors for over a year before we were allowed to be on 

our own, shall I say. And that bill, you know, was accepted and I have been working on those 

programs ever since. 

 The second part, as far as what we pay our teachers and actually what we pay our nurses, 

again correlate. You know as well as I do that most of your teachers that work in New York City 

are constantly applying for positions out on Long Island only because we pay a heck of a lot more 

out there. 

 The third point, when we talk about urban schools, I live in a suburban area; I have urban 

schools, and I have school districts that will pay $21,000 for each student versus someone else in 

my district that will be paying 9,000, 10,000 per student. So the difference there. But here we go 

back on to teaching. 

 With our universities, especially with the teaching programs, do they test any of those that 

are going into the teaching field to see if they are actually qualified psychologically to go into that 

particular field and have the aptitude to be good teachers? That would be one part of my question, 

because I know they still do that for nursing. You might say it is different, but it is not, because we 

are dealing with, whether it is young people or sick people, you still have to have an aptitude to go 

into it. 

 The other thing with nursing schools also, if nurses fail their State boards, and there is a 

certain percentage each year that repeatedly do not pass their State boards, then that school loses its 

accreditation to become a nurse or teaching nursing course. Do we do that for our teaching 

programs? 

 And I guess what I am trying to get at is, I probably agree that we should be looking for 

really highly qualified people to even go into the profession, and that is going to open up a whole 

round robin. I will agree with Dr. Robbins, I would feel insulted as a nurse if someone gave me a 

merit pay because I am doing my job that I loved. And I think most teachers hopefully are in 

teaching because they love what they do. Other awards, fine. I agree with that. 

How are you going to single out? How is a teacher in Great Neck that is getting 70,000, $80,000, 

and has highly qualified students to even start with, versus my Roosevelt School which is probably 

one of the worst schools in New York State, been taken over by the State, and you have a great 

teacher in there and the student has come up a lot but not to the standard of maybe a school right 

down the block that is in a richer district. So I don't know whether giving somebody a pay is the 

answer to that. 

 But if you could answer the questions on how do you get in to become a teacher? Are there 

qualifications to even come in? I mean, I hear constantly, I can't get in to architectural school, I 
26

can't get in to premed, I can't get in to so many other classes. Get in to the teaching school; there 

are no qualifications, just about, and then go on to what you want to really do. 

Mr. Robbins. There are approximately 1,300 institutions in the country that are preparing 

teachers, and there are probably nearly 1,300 answers to your question there, because the 

requirements for admission are institution-specific. There may be floors that are set by the State 

education agency, but institutions are at liberty to go above that or not go above that as they wish. 

 However, I do believe that you will find that the quality teacher preparations in this country 

perhaps do not use psychological examinations, but they are concerned about the issue and they use 

proxies for that. Some of the proxies that are used for this in the admissions process are the use of 

oral application processes. You must appear before a panel of people to present yourself and you 

are asked questions and you are examined in terms of your interest in and fitness for teaching 

through that sort of thing. Many other institutions have checklists. As people move through the 

program, certain kinds of behaviors are watched for. And if inappropriate behaviors emerge, then 

either remediation or removal from the program occurs. There are many attempts to get at the sort 

of thing, the qualitative issues that you are mentioning. This is fraught with legal difficulties, and 

people are very cautious about what they do. But good places are making attempts to address those 

sorts of approaches. 

Ms. Coppin. Ms. McCarthy, you may be interested in knowing when I made reference in my 

testimony about having 20,000 individuals apply for positions as teaching fellows and we reduced 

it down to 3,000, it was done by just some of the things that you asked. There is rigorous 

examination, quote, unquote, that involves writing, teaching, and demonstration lesson. I mean, 

you know, some oral interaction. And the individuals must come before a panel of current 

teachers, some of whom have been outstanding teachers for years and years and years. So in a 

way, the screening process to come into the alternative certification program in the city of New 

York has, I would say, almost higher standards to get into that program. And we constantly 

monitor them as they go through the 2 or 3 years that they take to meet the certification 

requirements. 

Mrs. McCarthy. And I think that is what I am looking for, because obviously we are going to be 

dealing on the Federal level, which obviously means we are going to be dealing with every State in 

this country. And I do know New York State has already put higher standards in, and yet how are 

we going to compare that to other States that might not have the money or the will to do that? And 

that is hopefully something that we request to do here on the Federal level. 

Chairman McKeon. The lady's time has expired. The Chair recognizes Mr. Gingrey for five 

minutes. 

Mr. Gingrey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

 In a way, as a follow-up or continuation to Mrs. McCarthy's line of questioning, in my State 

of Georgia we have what the teachers like to refer to as property rights and others sometimes refer 

to as tenure. And the way it works in Georgia is the teachers are hired, and their contract is a 

provisional contract for three years, during which time supposedly they are very carefully 
27

mentored. And then a decision has to be made by the local school board and superintendent as to 

whether or not to offer that teacher a fourth contract. And if that contract is offered and accepted, 

then that teacher has so-called property rights or tenure. She or he is no longer an employee at will. 

 And I have always felt that maybe because of this very short provisional period, during 

which time maybe they are not mentored very well, or maybe for the first year or two nobody has 

really paid that much attention to how they are performing in the classroom, and then all of a 

sudden you get close to the spring of that third year and it is time to offer that fourth contract, and 

nobody really knows. And what happens is some bad teachers are offered that contract and then 

the system is sort of stuck with them. 

 And then some good teachers, who maybe were sort of maybe like Michael Jordan. I think 

Michael Jordan was a junior in high school before he made his high school basketball team. I think 

he got cut his freshman and sophomore year. Then I think many good teachers possibly are not 

offered that contract, and we are losing them. And God knows we can't really afford to lose 

teachers.

 We want everybody ideally to go through a regular teacher preparation program. But 

because of the demand, there are all these alternative methods of getting into the system. 

 I want to ask each of you what your opinion is in regard to property rights and tenure. And 

is a provisional period too short? Should we lengthen that a little bit? Maybe instead of three years 

it should be five years so that we don't miss the good ones and get stuck with the bad ones? Not 

that there are very many bad ones, believe me. I honor the teaching profession and most are doing 

an outstanding job. 

 I would like you to comment on that, if you will. 

Ms. Keegan. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Gingrey, I would say that the best way to evaluate the 

quality of any teacher is to look at the progress of their students. And I believe that more and more 

in this country that is possible, certainly in Georgia where there are assessments going on and there 

is that induction period. 

 I think it is important, however, not to simply say or fall prey to the idea that any 

standardized program or any barrier exam that sort of sounds professional is the one that we want 

to apply to teachers. We have the majority of our nation's teachers right now taking a test to 

determine whether or not they will be certified teachers that literally teaches them that whole 

language is a preferred instruction to phonetic instruction. That is part of our system at this point. 

That is an easy one to pick on. It also suggests that direct instruction is not as favorable as 

discovery learning. 

 I think it is very important to back up and look at the content of these barrier moments as in 

at the end of three years, let us look at how the students performed for that teacher; not which 

classes she completed and does she have certifications that look good. What was the result with the 

students? And I think once we do that, we will start insisting on a different quality of preparation 
28

in the first place. 

Ms. Haycock. I may be incorrect about this, but I actually thought Georgia was the one place that 

moved to eliminate tenure. 

Mr. Gingrey. It was put back in this year under a Republican administration, a Republican general 

assembly. 

Ms. Haycock. I mean, let me tell you what I think after a lot of work in schools. We spend most 

of our time in schools around the country working with teachers, and in that experience we 

sometimes see absolutely terrific teaching. Even in the lowest-performing schools we are always 

finding at least some terrific teachers. But we are also finding an awful lot of teachers who have 

just given up on the kids. 

 I actually think, as a fundamental principle, we have to agree that in teaching, like in most 

other work; you don't have a right to a job. It is a right that you earn through producing student 

learning.

 So I would agree, in fact, that we have to revisit our old ideas about security of 

employment. I think that is true at the higher education level as well. Because if we are about 

producing student learning, then we have to be about evaluating whether employees are 

contributing to that or not. 

 And that is why, again, I think it is so terribly important that we take the opportunity 

provided by No Child Left Behind to put fair measurement systems into place that actually look at 

whether young people are learning; where they now provide teachers that aren't producing that 

learning with the help that they need to grow, but act when they are not producing those gains. 

Mr. Wise. I think there are many, many contributing factors to the problems that you describe. 

One of them is the weakness of our licensing assessment process. And we would urge that States 

be much more careful in looking at an individual's ability to teach, their content knowledge, their 

professional dispositions, and really whether they can take what they know and communicate it to 

children, and that that should be a much more serious part of the process for controlling access to 

teaching. 

Chairman McKeon. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Owens for 

five minutes. 

Mr. Owens. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have one question with two parts. Part one is and I 

think Dr. Robbins said you had either 500 people who went into teaching as a result of career 

changes this year or last year? And Dr. Coppin was mentioning the fact that the teacher fellow 

program had a lot of people from outside the teaching profession, including Wall Street financiers, 

whose backgrounds you should have checked carefully before we put them in the classroom. Don't 

take anybody from Enron or WorldCom. 
29

 In times of recession, you have this kind of movement. During the Vietnam War, anybody 

who went into teaching received a draft exemption. We have had experience with people for 

various reasons go into teaching. Can anybody speak definitively at this point about whether it is 

worth encouraging those programs, whether as we pursue a higher education reauthorization we 

should bother wasting resources on those kinds of programs? Have they paid off, or do they really 

just produce a temporary jump in the number of people available for teaching; and quickly, as soon 

as conditions change, these people flee the profession for better paying jobs, and it is just not worth 

neglecting or using limited resources that can go somewhere else in terms of recruiting people who 

really want to teach, and finding ways to encourage and identify people whose aptitudes and 

outlook on life are such that they are going to stay in the profession? 

Yes.

Ms. Coppin. Congressman Owens, we have found it to be very successful in the city of New 

York. We currently have, as I said, 3,300 teaching fellows. The rate of retention among the 

fellows is very similar to the rate of retention for individuals coming through traditional programs. 

Additionally, the teaching fellows have accepted some positions in our more challenging schools. 

They bring a different kind of background experiences to the youngsters, and it has enriched 

schools where we were unable to attract teachers, particularly in our schools that are considered the 

lowest performing. 

Mr. Owens. That program is about how old, three years old? 

Ms. Coppin. That is right, three years old. 

Mr. Owens. Does anybody else have a longer-term experience with alternative teacher 

recruitment? 

Ms. Coppin. Actually, that program. But we have had different alternative certification programs, 

Peace Corps returnees program. 

Mr. Owens. With high retention rates? 

Ms. Coppin. Yes. 

Mr. Robbins. And I would add to that, that of the 500 or so that we have been admitting per year 

for some years now, those people have made a very serious choice to change away from being a 

physician or a lawyer or an accountant or an engineer or a whatever to come into teaching. They 

make that decision, they go through the appropriate preparation program, they go into teaching, 

they stay there, and they are good teachers. 

Mr. Owens. My next question; I am sorry. 

Ms. Kennedy. I just wanted to add that we have considered multiple pathways to the degree and 

the opportunities for students to enter in different parts of their lives rather than the traditional age. 

And we find that the students are retained and retain themselves as teachers, and do well. I don't 
30

have exact numbers on it, but I think it is making certain that there are alternate ways for them to 

do it or maintaining the high exit standards for letting them into the profession. 

Mr. Owens. My next question is closely related but it is a little more difficult. The percentage of 

African American college graduates entering teaching has gone down over the last 10 years. When 

I graduated, at least 60 percent of the graduates were going into teaching. Opportunities have 

opened up. There are various reasons for this. But put aside civil rights considerations, affirmative 

action, anything that is not related to teaching. Just in terms of the scientific approach to teaching, 

pedagogically, psychologically, is it highly desirable to have these large numbers of youngsters in 

our urban schools who happen to be mostly Hispanic or African American go into a school which 

has a diversified staff, which has a greater percentage, not a lesser percentage, a decreasing 

percentage of minority on the staff but decreasing? Is that going to hurt the efforts to improve 

education? To what degree does that have an impact? And is it great enough for us to make a 

special effort in our higher education reauthorization to try to make certain we encourage more 

minorities to go into teaching? 

Ms. Coppin. There is no question about the fact that we do need role models for our youngsters.

As a matter of fact, in New York City we established the Center for Recruitment and Professional 

Development, and one of our goals was to increase the percentage of teachers of African American 

ancestry and Hispanic. As a matter of fact, New York City is such an international school, so we 

are looking for teachers who know Farsi and everything else. 

 Yes. The first and most important thing is that the teacher has to be a high-quality teacher 

who knows his or her subject. Secondly, the teacher has to be caring and empathetic. And, thirdly, 

the teacher has to respond to and know the community and be willing to participate in the 

community and work with the youngsters. And we find many minority teachers who do meet those 

qualifications. 

 The qualifications, I just want to say, Mr. Owens, is very, very important, because I don't 

want an unqualified minority teacher either. But I do think it is absolutely essential that we 

diversify our staff so that our youngsters have role models and have standards to which they can 

aspire.

Chairman McKeon. The gentleman's time has expired. The chair now recognizes Mr. Carter. 

Mr. Carter. My question may be way off the wall; I was not here to hear what everybody had to 

say. However, as I hear us talking about teachers, and I happen to have a teacher in my family; my 

son, and I am certain I live in a different part of the world than you do, some of you. I don't live in 

an inner city area. But we do see mobility in teachers. And what we see a lot of teachers moving 

for is the better environment school. The good teacher wants to go to the school that has given him 

the best environment to be a teacher. And so the inner-city schools in Austin doesn’t have a large 

inner-city population, but the inner-city schools in Austin are moving around in record numbers, 

those teachers because it is a safer environment within which they may operate than in the school 

district that they are in. And it is a pretty good school district down there. 
31

 The Dallas School District, there would probably be car races down I-35 if we recruited up 

in the Dallas School District. 

 Now, would you like to comment on the, if you will, the discipline and safety problems that 

exist in schools and how that has an effect on recruiting teachers to go into the teaching profession 

and staying in the teaching profession? 

Ms. Keegan. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Carter, in our experience you are exactly right when 

you are speaking about an environment that is favorable to the teacher. But we don't see a huge 

difference. The assumption is that in wealthy areas, that is a friendlier environment to teach in. 

What most really fantastic teachers are looking for is the ability to be honored in their decisionmaking, their determination to get these kids to learn. And even in the inner city, so long as the 

teacher is given the ability and the backup to control the classroom and control the environment 

that is a fabulous learning environment. 

 I am afraid what we have done is created a situation where in too many instances we have 

given up on those urban schools in terms of discipline, and the teacher has a disciplinary exercise, 

the child acts out, the teacher acts upon it appropriately, and for whatever reason the child is 

thrown back into the classroom. The lesson was learned by all the kids right there. That is a 

horrible teaching environment. 

 So it isn't so much the atmosphere as much as it is the leadership in these schools. And, 

yes, I think we have a huge problem. We think it is answered by leadership in the teaching corps 

itself, by allowing them to determine how those things are handled, and by strong principal 

leadership as well. That creates a great environment for them. 

Ms. Coppin. This past year we conducted an exit survey among teachers who left in their first 

year of teaching to try to determine why they left. You are quite correct when you were talking 

about an environment. But the environment is not just do you have security guards or is it in a nice 

neighborhood. What they talked about and stressed was do they have support? Are there resources 

to help them? Do they get assistance with youngsters? Is there some follow-up programs? Are 

there some support programs and parent engagement programs? 

 So that the presence of security and uprights and things of that nature wasn't what they were 

looking for. They were looking for a well-organized, well-run school where they were respected, 

and that the leadership of the school knew what he or she was doing. 

Mr. Carter. I am not advocating metal detectors on any school. I don't think there ought to be a 

behavior quality in any school where a metal detector should even be desirable. And, of course, I 

come from a background of 20 years in the judiciary and 19 years as chairman of the juvenile board 

for our county, and I have seen lots of juvenile justice issues. And what I am really talking about is 

discipline within the schools, and a school board and principals and others who will back up 

teachers on those issues. 

 I find there is a shortage of that, and it has nothing to do with dollars. It has nothing to do 

with the rich schools or the poor schools. It has to do with the schools that kind of go back to old-
32

fashioned you are going to behave or you are out of here. And I don't know whether you all 

approve of that or not, but that is where I come from, because I don't tolerate misbehavior and I 

don't think schools, I don't think teachers, should have to tolerate misbehavior. And I think if we 

are not teaching that the administrators need to back up our teachers, then schools need to be 

teaching administrators they need to back up our teachers, and that is where I was coming from. 

 Thank you. 

Chairman McKeon. The gentleman's time has expired. The chair now recognizes Mr. Tierney 

for five minutes. 

Mr. Tierney. I thank the chairman. 

I thank the people on the podium for speaking to us and testifying. 

 Let me ask four questions, if I can. So the first one quickly. Would you tell me in your 

opinion if it is very important, somewhat important, neutral, not very important, or not at all 

important? All right, one through five, how important do you believe it to be that teacher 

preparation programs ensure prospective teachers can use technology as part of their instructional 

technique in the classroom? 

Very? Very? Very? Very? Very all the way across. Thank you. 

Is there a role for teacher preparation programs post-graduation? In other words, I would be 

thinking of some responsibility for the teacher programs in mentoring the professional development 

for the first year to three to five years. And how would we do that? Maybe starting off to my left 

to right, if you would. 

Mrs. Keegan. And I think that is also critically important are those mentoring programs. And we 

are actually working on programs that would create within the school itself the flexibility to have as 

Mr. Tierney. But you think the institutions themselves who are preparing our teachers to teach 

could take on that role out in the community? 

Ms. Keegan. I think it would be the most beneficial because they are working with the kids right 

there.

Mr. Tierney. Thank you. 

Ms. Haycock. 

Ms. Haycock. I am equally clear for the need for mentoring, less clear that it has got to come from 

higher education. I think sometimes the best support for teachers comes from expert peers, just as 

long as they are released a substantial part of the day to actually do that as opposed to just adding 
33

that on. 

Mr. Tierney. Therein lays the problem. And I was thinking maybe we could do something. 

Sir.

Mr. Wise. Mentoring is very, very important. And like Ms. Haycock, I believe it is probably best 

done by school personnel. However, we have required now as part of our accreditation standards 

that our colleges follow the graduates during their first several years of teaching in order that they 

can inform us about how well their graduates are doing. 

Mr. Tierney. Is that working well? 

Mr. Wise. It is just being implemented now. 

Mr. Tierney. Dr. Kennedy. 

Ms. Kennedy. Yeah. I agree. One of the things that do need to happen, I think, from the 

institution, from the higher education institution, is to follow the first two years. And the mentoring 

that is done in those first two years by the higher education is in collaboration with mentor 

teachers. I think the same thing with the CSU, which is 23 campuses, we survey all of our entering 

teachers and the principals who hire them to evaluate how they are doing and, based on that, 

determine the program for them. 

Mr. Tierney. Thank you. 

Dr. Robbins. 

Mr. Robbins. Higher education should have some role in the early years of teaching. It is very 

difficult to make that happen. 

Mr. Tierney. Dr. Coppin. 

Ms. Coppin. I believe that the mentoring should be done by school personnel. However, now, 

alternative programs, there is a collaborative mentoring program. 
34

Mr. Tierney. Thank you. 

 Would you speak just very briefly to the benefit that we have or the value that we would 

have in expanding the loan forgiveness programs that we have or the ones that are proposed to 

include a loan forgiveness program for prekindergarten programs, particularly those within a 

school district, but Early Head Start and Head Start? Do you think that would be beneficial? 

Ms. Haycock. You bet. We are having a terrifically difficult time attracting high-quality people 

into the profession of preschool education, yet the search says we need high quality folks. It is 

unquestionably clear, given the low salaries in that field, the loan forgiveness program would help 

big time. 

Mr. Tierney. Is that generally agreeable? 

 Thank you. 

 And lastly let me ask this: What is the impact of the quality of principals on teachers' 

performance, and ought our teacher preparation institutions also be looking at some principal 

preparation aspects? 

Ms. Coppin. Absolutely. New York State is in the preparation of new regulations to strengthen 

programs for leadership. 

Ms. Keegan. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Tierney, today, this morning, the Broad Foundation 

and the Fordham Foundation actually put a report out on educational leadership, specifically

principals. It was very interesting recommendations, so you might want to get those. 

Mr. Tierney. Mr. Chairman, might we ask that that be placed on the record, the report? 

Chairman McKeon. Without objection, so ordered. 

THE BROAD FOUNDATION AND THE FORDHAM FOUNDATION REPORT ON, “BETTER 

LEADERS FOR AMERICA’S SCHOOLS: A MANIFESTO”, SUBMITTED FOR THE 

RECORD BY MRS. LISA GRAHAM KEEGAN— SEE APPENDIX H 

Mr. Tierney. Thank you. Thank you all very much. 

Chairman McKeon. Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired. 

 Those bells that you heard going off, we are called to a vote, and we will be there for over a 

half hour, so we are not going to ask the panel to stay. We really appreciate your time. 

Mr. Payne has asked if he could have 1 minute. 

Mr. Payne. Maybe Tierney should have asked four questions. 
35

 Let me just say that, what about the fact that if we had a program to also give forgiveness 

for Title I schools, what would you think about that? I see President Bush is proposing for math 

and science, et cetera. Do you think that would help? 

Ms. Haycock. I would strongly encourage. But actually if you did for all Title I schools, you 

would include schools even that have a poverty norm of maybe 10 percent. We would strongly 

encourage you to focus it much more tightly on high-poverty schools so it really helps make the 

difference.

Mr. Payne. And would you know about the New Jersey program? What was the experience of 

bringing in professional people into teaching? Governor Kean did that during his time as Governor 

of New Jersey. 

Ms. Haycock. And that continues. Like many alternate route programs, it has brought in a terrific 

set of talented people. And by the way, one of the things that is important to remember about 

alternate route programs, they are providing us proportionately more teachers of color than our 

traditional route program. So it is a terrific way both to bring in people who actually know the 

answer to the question, why should I learn this, but also to bring in a set of teachers who look more 

like the kids that they teach. 

Mr. Payne. Thank you. 

Chairman McKeon. In the interest of your other colleagues, Mr. Van Hollen would like to make 

one comment. 

Mr. Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know we all have to vote. 

 I want to thank all the witnesses for your testimony, and I have been reading over it as well.

A special welcome to Dr. Wise, my constituent, and thank you for being here. 

 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman McKeon. Thank you very much. Thank you for being here. And this is just the start.

We appreciate if those who didn't get the opportunity to ask questions could submit those in 

writing. If you could get those to us, we would appreciate that. And if you will keep in touch with 

us as we go through this process, we would like to continue to be able to call on you and ask for 

your advice and help.

With that, this hearing stands adjourned. Thank you. 

 [Whereupon, at 3:47 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238

TABLE OF INDEXES 

Chairman McKeon, 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 16, 18, 21, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 35 

Mr. Carter, 30, 31 

Mr. Cole, 18, 19, 21 

Mr. Ehlers, 22, 23, 24 

Mr. Gingrey, 26, 28 

Mr. Kildee, 4, 6, 21, 22 

Mr. Owens, 6, 28, 29, 30 

Mr. Payne, 34, 35 

Mr. Robbins, 14, 20, 21, 26, 29, 33 

Mr. Tierney, 32, 33, 34 

Mr. Van Hollen, 35 

Mr. Wise, 11, 20, 22, 23, 24, 28, 33 

Mrs. McCarthy, 25, 26 

Ms. Coppin, 17, 20, 26, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34 

Ms. Haycock, 9, 19, 28, 32, 34, 35 

Ms. Keegan, 7, 19, 22, 27, 31, 32, 34 

Ms. Kennedy, 13, 20, 29, 33