U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

93–078 PDF 2017

S. HRG. 114–001 

FIXING NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND: SUPPORTING 

TEACHERS AND SCHOOL LEADERS 

HEARING 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, 

LABOR, AND PENSIONS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON

EXAMINING FIXING NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND, FOCUSING ON 

SUPPORTING TEACHERS AND SCHOOL LEADERS 

JANUARY 27, 2015 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/ 

COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee, Chairman 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

SUSAN COLLINS, Maine 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

MARK KIRK, Illinois 

TIM SCOTT, South Carolina 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas 

BILL CASSIDY, M.D., Louisiana 

PATTY MURRAY, Washington 

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS (I), Vermont 

ROBERT P. CASEY, JR., Pennsylvania 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut 

ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts 

DAVID P. CLEARY, Republican Staff Director 

EVAN SCHATZ, Minority Staff Director 

JOHN RIGHTER, Minority Deputy Staff Director 

(II) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS 

TUESDAY, JANUARY 27, 2015 

Page 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Alexander, Hon. Lamar, Chairman, Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 

and Pensions, opening statement ....................................................................... 1 

Murray, Hon. Patty, a U.S. Senator from the State of Washington ................... 4 

Mikulski, Hon. Barbara A., a U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland ............ 6 

Cassidy, Hon. Bill, a U.S. Senator from the State of Louisiana .......................... 39 

Bennet, Hon. Michael F., a U.S. Senator from the State of Colorado ................. 41 

Burr, Hon. Richard, a U.S. Senator from the State of North Carolina ............... 43 

Warren, Hon. Elizabeth, a U.S. Senator from the State of Massachusetts ........ 45 

Isakson, Hon. Johnny, a U.S. Senator from the State of Georgia ....................... 47 

Baldwin, Hon. Tammy, a U.S. Senator from the State of Wisconsin .................. 49 

Franken, Hon. Al, a U.S. Senator from the State of Minnesota .......................... 51 

Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, a U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island ...... 53 

Casey, Hon. Robert P., Jr., a U.S. Senator from the State of Pennsylvania ...... 55 

WITNESSES

Goldhaber, Dan, B.A., M.S., Ph.D., Director, National Center for Analysis 

of Longitudinal Data in Education Research at the American Institutes 

for Research; Director, Center for Education Data and Research at the 

University of Washington, Bothell, WA ............................................................. 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 9 

Holliday, Terry, B.E., M.Ed., Ed.S., Ph.D., Commissioner of Education, Commonwealth of Kentucky, Frankfort, KY ............................................................. 16 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 18 

Hinojosa, Saul, Superintendent of Schools, Somerset Independent School District, Somerset, TX ............................................................................................... 20 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 21 

Rachelle Moore, 1st Grade Teacher, Madrona K–8 School, Seattle, WA ............ 27 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 29 

Handy-Collins, Christine, Principal, Gaithersburg High School, Gaithersburg, 

MD ......................................................................................................................... 31 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 32 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

Statements, articles, publications, letters, etc.: 

Response by Dan Goldhaber to questions of: 

Senator Collins .......................................................................................... 58 

Senator Murkowski ................................................................................... 59 

Response by Terry Holliday to questions of: 

Senator Collins .......................................................................................... 61 

Senator Murkowski ................................................................................... 62 

Response by Saul Hinojosa to questions of: 

Senator Collins .......................................................................................... 62 

Senator Murkowski ................................................................................... 64 

Response by Rachelle Moore to questions of: 

Senator Collins .......................................................................................... 65 

Senator Murkowski ................................................................................... 67 

Response by Christine Handy-Collins to questions of: 

Senator Collins .......................................................................................... 68 

Senator Murkowski ................................................................................... 69 

(III) 

(1) 

FIXING NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND: SUPPORTING TEACHERS AND SCHOOL LEADERS 

TUESDAY, JANUARY 27, 2015 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room SH– 

216, Hart Senate Office Building, Hon. Lamar Alexander, chairman 

of the committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Alexander, Burr, Isakson, Collins, Cassidy, 

Murray, Mikulski, Casey, Franken, Bennet, Whitehouse, Baldwin, 

Murphy, and Warren. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ALEXANDER

The CHAIRMAN. The Senate Committee on Health, Education, 

Labor, and Pensions will please come to order. This morning, we’re 

holding a hearing on Fixing No Child Left Behind: Supporting 

Teachers and School Leaders. 

Ranking Member Murray and I will each have an opening statement. Then we’ll introduce our panel of witnesses. I’ll ask that each 

of our witnesses limit their testimony to about 5 minutes. We have 

your testimony. If you would summarize within 5 minutes—about 

5 minutes—what you have to say, then it’ll give us more chance to 

interact with you. Then the Senators will have a chance to ask 

questions. We’ll conclude the hearing at noon. 

Next week, I think we have a plan for a roundtable. One week 

from today on Tuesday, February 3d, at 10 o’clock, the committee 

will hold a roundtable on Fixing No Child Left Behind: Innovation 

to Better Meet the Needs of Students on how States and local communities are innovating to improve their own public schools. The 

reason we’re doing that is because it will provide a little less formal 

opportunity for Senators to visit with experts and ask questions 

and have a conversation, and we’ll see how that works. 

Today’s hearing is all about better teaching, how we can create 

an environment in which teachers, principals, and other leaders 

can succeed. Governors around the country are focused on one 

issue: better jobs for the citizens in their States. And it doesn’t take 

very long for a Governor, which I once was, to come to the conclusion that better schools mean better jobs and a better life. 

Since no one has figured out how to pass a better parents law, 

it doesn’t take long to figure out how important a great teacher is. 

I certainly came to that conclusion very quickly in 1984 when I was 

2 

Governor of Tennessee and I considered the holy grail of K through 

12 education to be finding a fair way to encourage and reward outstanding teaching. 

I spent a year and a half, 70 percent of my time, persuading the 

legislature to establish a career ladder, a Master Teacher Program 

that 10,000 Tennessee teachers voluntarily climbed. They were 

paid more, had the opportunity for 10 11-month contracts, and our 

State became the first in the Nation to pay teachers more for 

teaching well. Rarely a week goes by that some teacher doesn’t stop 

me and say, ‘‘Thank you for the Master Teacher Program.’’ 

But it wasn’t easy. A year before, I had been in a meeting of 

southern Governors, and one of them said, ‘‘Who’s going to be brave 

enough to take on the teachers’ union?’’ I had a year and a half 

brawl with the National Education Association before I could pass 

our Master Teacher Program. 

Since then, there’s been an explosion of efforts to answer the 

questions that we tried to answer. A great number of States and 

school districts are taking on the questions like: How do we determine what is an effective teacher? How do we relate student 

achievement to teacher performance? Having decided that, how do 

we reward and support outstanding teaching so we don’t lose our 

best teachers? 

In 1987, the Board for Professional Teaching Standards began to 

strengthen standards in teaching. To date, more than 110,000 

teachers in all 50 States and the District have received a National 

Board Certification. 

In 2006, the Teacher Incentive Fund was created to help States 

and districts create performance-based compensation systems. According to the National Center on Teacher Evaluation, last year, 27 

States were requiring annual evaluations for all teachers, 44 were 

requiring annual evaluations for new teachers, 35 required student 

achievement and/or student growth to be a significant or the most 

significant measure of teacher performance. 

When I came to Washington as a U.S. Senator in 2003, most people expected—since I thought rewarding outstanding teaching is 

the holy grail—that I would want to make everyone do it. To the 

surprise of some, my answer was, ‘‘No, you can’t do it from Washington, DC.’’ 

Nevertheless, over the last 10 years, Washington has tried. Here 

is how: No Child Left Behind told States that all teachers of core 

academic subjects needed to be highly qualified by 2006 and prescribed that definition in a very bureaucratic manner. That simply 

hasn’t worked, and I don’t know many people who really want to 

keep that definition. Even Secretary Duncan waived the requirements related to highly qualified teachers when he granted waivers 

to 43 States, the District, and Puerto Rico. 

Unfortunately, the Secretary replaced those requirements with a 

new mandate requiring teacher evaluation systems first in Race to 

the Top, which gave nearly $4.4 billion to States, and, second, in 

the waivers. To get a waiver from No Child Left Behind, a State 

and local school district must develop a teacher and principal evaluation system with seven required elements, such as three performance levels, multiple measures including student growth, 

3 

guidelines and supports for implementation, and each element 

must be approved by the U.S. Department of Education. 

The problem is that after 30 years, we’re still figuring out how 

to do this. Our research work on measuring growth and student 

achievement and relating it fairly to teacher effectiveness may 

have begun in 1984. 

Even today, former Institute of Education Science Director Russ 

Whitehurst told the New York Times in 2012 that States are, 

‘‘racing ahead based on promises made to Washington or local 

political imperatives that prioritize an unwavering commitment to unproven approaches. There’s a lot we don’t know 

about how to evaluate teachers reliably and how to use that information to improve instruction and learning.’’ 

The second problem is that some States just haven’t been willing 

to implement the systems the way the U.S. Department of Education wants them to. California, Iowa, and Washington State are 

examples. They had their waiver requests denied or revoked over 

the issue of teacher evaluations. 

In Iowa’s case, it was because the State legislature wouldn’t pass 

a law that satisfied Washington’s requirements. California simply 

ignored the administration’s conditions when they applied for a 

waiver. Washington State’s waiver, in April, was revoked by Secretary Duncan because their State legislature wouldn’t pass legislation requiring standardized test results to be used in teacher and 

principal evaluation. Instead, Washington wanted to allow local 

school districts to decide which test to use. 

Now, whether or not this Federal interference with State education offends your sense of federalism, as it does mine, it has 

proved impractical. The Federal Government, in a well-intentioned 

way, is trying to say, ‘‘We want better teachers, and we’re going to 

tell you exactly how to do it, and you must do it now.’’ That has 

created an enormous backlash. It has made harder something that 

was already hard to do. 

Even in Tennessee, despite 30 years of experience and nearly 

$500 million in Race to the Top money, the implementation of a 

new teacher evaluation system has been described in an article in 

my hometown newspaper as, ‘‘contentious’’. 

Given all the great progress that States and local school districts 

have made on standards, accountability, tests, and teacher evaluations over the last 30 years, you’ll get a lot more progress with a 

lot less opposition if you leave those decisions there. I think we 

should return to States’ and local school districts’ decisions for 

measuring the progress of our schools and evaluating and measuring the effectiveness of teachers. 

In conclusion, I know it’s tempting to try to improve teachers 

from Washington. I also hear from Governors and school superintendents who say, 

‘‘If Washington doesn’t make us do it, the teachers’ unions 

and the opponents from the right will make it impossible to 

have good evaluation systems and better teachers.’’ 

I understand what they’re talking about. 

After I left office as Governor, the NEA watered down the Tennessee Master Teacher Program. Nevertheless, the chairman’s staff 

4 

discussion draft that we have circulated eliminates the highly 

qualified teacher requirements and definition and allows States to 

decide the licenses and credentials that they’re going to require 

that their teachers have. 

Despite my own support for teacher evaluation, the draft doesn’t 

mandate teacher and principal evaluations. Rather, it enables 

States to use the more than $2.5 billion under title II to develop, 

implement, or improve these evaluation systems. In Tennessee, 

that would mean about $39 million, in Washington State about $35 

million, potentially available for continuing the work that’s underway for evaluating teachers linking performance and student 

achievement. 

In addition, it would expand one of the provisions in No Child 

Left Behind, the teacher incentive fund that Secretary Spellings 

recommended and that Secretary Duncan said in testimony before 

our committee was one of the best things that Secretary Spellings 

has done. And, third, it would emphasize the idea of a Secretary’s 

report card, calling considerable attention to the bully pulpit. A 

secretary or president has to call attention to States that are succeeding or failing. 

For example, I remember when President Reagan visited Farragut High School in Knoxville in 1984 to call attention to our Master Teacher Program. It caused the Democratic speaker of the 

House of Representatives to say, ‘‘This is the American way’’ and 

come up with an amendment to the proposal I had made that was 

critical to its passage into law. President Reagan didn’t order every 

other State to do what Tennessee was doing. But the president’s 

bully pulpit made a real difference. 

The columnist Thomas Friedman told a group of senators recently that one of his two rules of life is that he’s never met anyone 

who has washed a rented car. In other words, people take care of 

what they own. My experience is that finding a way to fairly reward better teaching is the holy grail of K through 12 education. 

Washington will get the best long-term result by creating an environment in which States and communities are encouraged, not ordered, to evaluate teachers. Let’s not mandate it from Washington 

if we want them to own it and to make it work. 

Senator Murray. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MURRAY

Senator MURRAY. Well, thank you very much, Chairman Alexander. 

Thank you to all of our witnesses for being here today. I am especially thrilled to have not just one, but two Washington State 

witnesses on our panel today, Dan Goldhaber and Rachelle Moore. 

Thank you both for coming all the way out here to Washington, 

DC, or what we call the other Washington. We really appreciate 

your traveling all the way here and all of our witnesses for being 

here. 

Today, we are going to address the critical issue of how to best 

support teachers and school leaders. Each day, our Nation’s educators are helping students get ahead and making sure struggling 

students don’t fall through the cracks. 

5 

As I’ve said, one of the major problems with the Nation’s current 

education bill, No Child Left Behind, is to set unrealistic goals for 

schools across the country, but then failed to give them the resources they needed to succeed. Going forward, we need to provide 

adequate and effective support for teachers and school leaders, who 

are so important to a student’s achievement and growth. 

A 2012 study showed that good teachers don’t just help students 

make progress during a particular school year. When a child has 

a highly effective teacher, that student will be more likely to attend 

college and earn higher wages later in life. The same is true for 

school leaders. A study from Stanford University found that in a 

single school year, a highly effective principal can raise the 

achievement of a typical student by between 2 and 7 months of 

learning. 

We also need to recognize it is not an easy time to be a teacher 

or a school leader. When they step into a classroom or school, educators confront innumerable challenges, from helping children who 

are struggling with poverty at home, to teaching students who are 

just beginning to learn English, to meeting higher standards across 

the board. 

Unfortunately, I hear all the time from teachers—three-quarters 

of whom are women, by the way—who feel like they aren’t getting 

the resources they need and who feel like they don’t have a voice 

in the decisions that affect their own classrooms. If teachers and 

principals don’t get the training, resources, and support they need 

to advance their skills and help their students succeed, then very 

little else we do will matter. 

On evaluations, I believe we should have ways to measure how 

educators are doing to make sure students do have access to highquality teachers. I am wary of using them as the sole factor in setting salaries or using testing as the sole indicator in an evaluation. 

There is just so much more going into teaching than test scores. 

I know some of our witnesses will be talking about this issue 

today, and I think this is a very important conversation to have. 

We need to listen to the feedback we’re getting from teachers and 

school leaders and provide them with the resources they need to 

carry out the important work they do. 

I believe that we need to invest more in teachers and pay them 

enough to continue to attract the best and brightest to the profession. Educators need clear pathways to advance and grow in their 

careers in ways that reflect their expertise. 

We should also consider ways to recruit and retain strong and diverse educators and make sure the most successful teachers are 

working with the students who need them the most. Throughout 

their career, teachers and school leaders should have access to 

high-quality professional development so they can continue to hone 

their skills in ways that are relevant to their classrooms. That includes residency and mentorship programs. 

For example, Ms. Moore, I know that your school in Seattle is 

helping new teachers prepare for the classroom by placing them 

with more experienced educators for an entire school year. That 

way, when new teachers begin their first day of the class, they are 

ready to help their students grow and thrive and learn. 

6 

I look forward to hearing more from all of you on this panel on 

more ways to empower teachers and school leaders with a voice at 

the table and with the support and resources they need to tackle 

the many challenges of improving student outcomes. 

If we want to truly fix the badly broken No Child Left Behind 

law, this is something we have to get right, and it should not be 

a partisan issue. Democrats and Republicans should be able to 

work together on something as important as making sure our students have great teachers and can access high-quality education, 

no matter where they live, how they learn, or how much money 

their parents make. 

So, I hope we can have conversations about a truly bipartisan approach in the HELP Committee to fix this very broken law. Thank 

you, and I look forward to hearing from our panel of witnesses 

today. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Murray. Would you like to 

introduce the two witnesses from Washington State? 

Senator MURRAY. I’d be very pleased to do that, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you. 

I want to introduce Dan Goldhaber. He is the director of the Center for Education Data and Research and a Professor at the University of Washington—which happens to be in my hometown of 

Bothell, so it’s great to have you here. His research has focused on 

education reform at the K through 12 level, as well as measuring 

teacher effectiveness and the effects of teacher qualifications on 

student outcomes, among other topics. He is also a former school 

board member in Alexandria, VA. 

Dr. Goldhaber, thank you for taking the time to be here today. 

We look forward to your testimony. 

Mr. Chairman, I’m also very pleased to have on our panel today 

Rachelle Moore. She is in her fifth year of teaching at Madrona K– 

8 in Seattle, WA. I recently had the chance to visit her school and 

saw first-hand how dedicated the teachers are to engaging their 

students and helping them succeed. It was a great day, so thank 

you. 

As I mentioned a moment ago, Madrona has implemented this 

mentorship program to make sure teachers are ready on day 1. I’m 

looking forward to hearing more about that program and how we 

can all better support teachers to be successful in the classroom. 

Thank you very much, Ms. Moore, for being here today as well. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Mikulski, would you like to introduce 

the teacher from Maryland, please? 

Senator MIKULSKI. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. Or the principal. Pardon me. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR MIKULSKI

Senator MIKULSKI. Mr. Chairman and committee members, it’s 

really a delight to introduce Dr. Christine Handy-Collins to you. 

She is a well-recognized educator in really being able to deliver results, closing the disparity gap between minority achievement, and 

actually runs the school. 

She was awarded Maryland’s Principal of the Year in 2006. She 

is currently the principal of Gaithersburg High School, where she 

7 

is the 2014 recipient of the Dr. Edward Shirley Award for Excellence in Administration and Supervision. 

But she doesn’t worry about the awards she gets. She worries 

about what her students get. She’s been known for her outstanding 

work for students across Maryland and the region, especially in increasing minority participation and performances. 

Dr. Handy-Collins took the time out of her busy schedule to attend here today, and I think we’re going to learn a lot from her because she’s actually on the firing line trying to manage a school 

with all of the challenges that go into it. I am pleased to present 

her to you today and look forward to hearing her testimony. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Mikulski. 

We have three other witnesses. Dr. Terry Holliday is here. He is 

the Kentucky Commissioner of Education. He’ll discuss the important work of supporting teachers and leaders in Kentucky. 

Mr. Saul Hinojosa is the Superintendent of Schools for the Somerset Independent School District in Somerset, TX. We welcome 

you. 

I guess those are the only two remaining witnesses. Why don’t 

we start now with 5-minute summaries of your comments. 

Dr. Goldhaber, we’ll start with you and go right down the line, 

and then we’ll go to Senators’ questions. 

STATEMENT OF DAN GOLDHABER, B.A., M.S., Ph.D., DIRECTOR, 

NATIONAL CENTER FOR ANALYSIS OF LONGITUDINAL DATA 

IN EDUCATION RESEARCH AT THE AMERICAN INSTITUTES 

FOR RESEARCH; DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR EDUCATION DATA 

AND RESEARCH AT THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON, 

BOTHELL, WA 

Mr. GOLDHABER. Chairman Alexander, Ranking Member Murray, 

members of the committee, it’s a pleasure to be here today, and I’m 

delighted to be talking about fixing No Child Left Behind and supporting teachers and school leaders. I guess I’d like to begin by saying that I agree that there are, in fact, important fixes that need 

to be made to No Child Left Behind. 

One thing that I hope doesn’t change is the annual testing requirement. I say that because the annual testing requirement has 

facilitated a tremendous amount of learning about educator effectiveness, the variation of educator effectiveness in the workforce, 

and, importantly, the implications of educator effectiveness for student achievement. 

Senator Murray, you mentioned the 2012 study. We now know 

that the differences between teachers have profound implications 

for students in terms of their later academic outcomes and labor 

force outcomes. We also know that the old-style teacher evaluations 

that tend to suggest that all teachers are the same are both wrong 

and totally inadequate for addressing the individual needs of educators. I think that we wouldn’t know those things were it not for 

the annual testing requirement. 

What does research have to say about educational effectiveness 

and its distribution? I’ll begin by talking a little bit about teacher 

preparation. There’s really two different strands of research on 

teacher preparation. One strand of research tends to focus on the 

path of entry into the profession, whether or not you enter through 

8 

a traditional certification route that tends to occur at colleges and 

educations in a traditional teacher preparation program. 

The second alternative route is a route like Teach for America. 

There are actually many different routes, but Teacher for America 

is quite well known. There are a great many studies that look at 

the differences between teachers based on their route of entry into 

the profession, and, in general, they find relatively small differences. 

Now, that has led some to believe that teacher training doesn’t 

matter, and I think that that is the wrong conclusion. It’s at least 

the wrong conclusion in terms of the research base, because you 

don’t know if the differences that exist—or, in this case, the lack 

of differences—have to do with the individuals and the selection of 

individuals into programs or the training that they actually receive 

while they are at programs. 

The second line of research around teacher preparation is much 

newer, and it is in some ways quite encouraging. It focuses on the 

experiences that people have, the features of teacher training, and 

connects those experiences to teachers once they go out into the 

field. There’s some evidence, for instance, that teachers that do 

their student teaching in a more coherent environment and have 

their student teaching experiences match well with their course 

work end up being more effective once they go out into the field 

and assume classroom responsibilities. 

I’ll mention a few things about policies designed to improve educator effectiveness for educators that are in service. Professional 

development is a ubiquitous strategy to try and improve teaching. 

More recently, a lot of school systems—as you, Senator Alexander, 

mentioned—are using performance bonuses to try and increase 

teacher effectiveness. 

Now, the evidence on each of those looks like, independently, 

they don’t work. There’s some really high-quality randomized control trials that suggest that if you just do performance incentives 

tied to student gains on tests, it doesn’t increase the effectiveness 

of teachers. If you just do professional development, it also doesn’t 

increase the effectiveness of teachers. 

Much more encouraging are systems that are more holistic. Last 

week, you heard from Tom Boasberg, and I would actually point to 

the system in Denver as one that is more holistic. I would point 

to the IMPACT system here in DC as one that’s more holistic. And 

there’s good evidence in both of those settings that it’s making a 

difference for educator effectiveness and for student achievement. 

Last, I’ll talk a little bit about teacher distribution. What we 

know is that teachers—whether teacher quality is measured based 

on the attributes of teachers, their credentials, their experience 

level, or whether teacher quality is based on output-based measures of effectiveness, the teacher quality is inequitably distributed 

across students. So disadvantaged students are less likely to get access to a highly effective or a highly qualified teacher than advantaged students. 

Now, that can be ameliorated somewhat by financial incentives. 

Teachers, like most of us, respond to financial incentives, and if 

you pay recruitment or retention incentives, that does seem to 

make a difference for getting teachers to go to or stay in disadvanVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:29 Jan 09, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\DOCS\93078.TXT CAROL
9 

1Students’ success clearly depends a good deal on their experiences at home and in their 

neighborhoods, but teacher quality is arguably the most important schooling factor influencing 

academic outcomes (Goldhaber, et al., 1999; Nye, et al., 2002). 

taged schools. The impact is not huge, and it’s clear that teachers 

also care a great deal about their working conditions, things like 

the quality of school leadership and the collegiality of their peers. 

What does all this suggest about fixing No Child Left Behind? 

Well, I’ll echo my comment about the testing requirement and what 

we have learned from it and what we learn from it about the needs 

of individual educators, and I’ll say, in particular, that I think that 

it’s really important that the test that is used is comparable across 

localities within States so that you’re using a common yardstick to 

make judgments and inform practices to support teachers. 

And, last, I’ll say that I think that there is an important role 

that the Federal Government plays in encouraging innovation. I’m 

hearkened to see that the Teacher Incentive Fund is in the draft 

bill. I think we need innovation on all kinds of areas that govern 

the teacher pipeline from teacher preparation to induction programs, et cetera. 

I will stop there and say I will look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Goldhaber follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAN GOLDHABER, B.A., M.S., PH.D. 

Chairman Alexander, Ranking Member Murray, members of the committee, thank 

you for inviting me to testify today. My name is Dan Goldhaber and I am the director of the National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research 

(CALDER) at the American Institutes for Research and the director of the Center 

for Education Data and Research at the University of Washington Bothell. I have 

been engaged in research on schools and student achievement for about 20 years, 

and much of my work focuses on the broad array of human capital policies that influence the composition, distribution, and quality of teachers in the workforce. 

Let me begin by saying that while these hearings are focused on fixing No Child 

Left Behind (NCLB), it is important to recognize that not all parts need fixing. The 

annual testing requirement of NCLB made possible a great deal of learning about 

the importance of the Nation’s educators. Empirical evidence now clearly buttresses 

intuition that teachers differ significantly from one another in terms of their impacts on student learning and shows that these differences have long-term consequences for students’ later academic (Goldhaber and Hansen, 2010; Jackson and 

Bruegmann, 2009; Jacob and Lefgren, 2008; Kane and Staiger, 2008) and labor market (Chamberlain, 2013; Chetty, et al., 2014; Jackson, 2013) success. There is also 

now good evidence that the quality of our educators has real implications for our 

Nation’s long-term economic health (Hanushek, 2011).1 Research on school leaders 

is far less extensive, but it too suggests that principals, not surprisingly, significantly influence student achievement, in part by affecting the quality of teachers in 

their schools (Branch, et al., 2012; Coelli and Green, 2012; Grissom and Loeb, 2011; 

Grissom, et al., 2013). 

We also know that disadvantaged students tend to have less access to high quality teachers, whether the measure of quality is observable teacher credentials or 

student-growth (Clotfelter, et al., 2011; Goldhaber, et al. in press; Isenberg, et al., 

2013; Sass, et al., 2012). This is problematic from an equity perspective in that public education is probably the single best social equalizer, offering opportunities for 

individuals to improve their socioeconomic status through hard work. A well-functioning education system can and should provide disadvantaged students with ways 

to escape poverty, but an unequal distribution of quality educators implies inequity 

in opportunity. 

A second overarching point is that information about individual educators’ needs 

is fundamental for informing teacher and school leader supports and for learning 

what policies and practices improve educator effectiveness. 

I am worried that a change we might see with reauthorization—a move away 

from a requirement of uniform statewide annual year-over-year testing—would 

greatly shrink and possibly even eliminate our knowledge of educator effectiveness, 

its distribution among students, and its responsiveness to different policies and 

10 

2 Nearly all the research I describe below is about teachers because there is relatively little 

quantitative work on the development and mobility of school leaders. 3See Goldhaber (2013) for a more detailed review and discussion of selection versus training 

effects. 4The study does, however, find a positive relationship between principals’ years of experience 

and having previously served as an assistant principal, and student achievement. 

practices. In short, it would greatly limit the information we need to make schools 

better. 

The reasons are simple. First, the right measure of the impacts of educators is 

one based on progress over time, not achievement at any given point. To be blunt, 

measures that do not track progress simply are not credible. And, second, we can 

compare the learning in one locality to another only when the yardstick measuring 

learning is the same in both. The most important educator policies are controlled 

by States—regulation of teacher education programs, licensure, induction and mentoring, tenure, layoffs, and often compensation. This suggests that States need solid 

information about educator outcomes, including impacts on student achievement, 

that are comparable across localities within a State to make good decisions about 

the policies that influence the entire teacher pipeline—from teacher preparation to 

the pay and status of in-service teachers to determining which teachers probably 

should not continue in the classroom. 

What do we know about supporting teachers and leaders? While many might naturally think about ‘‘support’’ in connection to incumbent educators, I take a more 

expansive view: support also includes pre-service education and policies and practices aimed at attracting and retaining high-quality educators.2 In outlining the research here, I’ll cover three broad categories: (1) teacher preparation, (2) professional development and incentives, and (3) recruitment, retention, and the distribution of teachers. Then I will close with a few thoughts about what this research suggests about fixing NCLB. 

TEACHER PREPARATION

Pre-service teacher training is thought to have a powerful influence on teacher career paths and student achievement (Levine, 2006; NCATE, 2010). Yet, there is very 

little empirical evidence linking pre-service training to workforce outcomes (National Research Council, 2010). A primary reason is that there are few localities 

where one can connect detailed information about the pre-service education experiences of prospective educators to their in-service workforce outcomes. Hence, much 

of the evidence on pre-service preparation focuses on how a teacher enters the profession, i.e., via training in a college or university setting or through an alternative 

certification route (e.g., Constantine, et al., 2009; Glazerman, et al., 2006; Papay, 

et al., 2012; Xu, et al., 2011), or whether there are differences in effectiveness associated with the specific teacher education program attended (Boyd, et al., 2009; 

Goldhaber, et al., 2013; Goldhaber and Cowan, 2014; Mihaly, et al., 2013; Koedel, 

et al., forthcoming). 

The literature referenced here on pathways into the profession suggests that 

shorter programs with varying selection criteria and a practical teaching curriculum 

can produce graduates that are, on average, as effective as graduates from traditional college and university teacher-education programs. However, we do not know 

the extent to which this finding reflects differences in potential teachers’ backgrounds (i.e., who is selected into a program or pathway) versus differences in potential educators’ experiences in programs.3

Only a few studies connect the features of teacher training to the outcomes of 

teachers in the field. That said, evidence is mounting that some types of pre-service 

teaching experiences and pedagogical coursework are associated with better teacher 

outcomes. Some research shows, for instance, that teachers tend to be more effective 

when their student teaching experiences are well-aligned with their methods 

coursework (Boyd, et al., 2009). There is also evidence that teacher trainees who 

student-teach in higher functioning schools (as measured by low attrition) turn out 

to be more effective teachers when responsible for their own classrooms (Ronfeldt, 

2012). Novice teachers with better preparation in student teaching and methods 

coursework are also more likely to remain in the profession (Ronfeldt, et al., 2014). 

To my knowledge, only one study connects principals’ training to student outcomes 

(Clark, et al., 2009), and it doesn’t substantiate a relationship between the two.4

Taken together, studies like these begin to point toward ways to improve teacher 

preparation. With such a thin evidentiary base, we are just beginning to understand 

what makes teacher preparation effective—both the criteria determining selection 

into preparation programs and the education that teacher candidates receive. With 

11 

5See, for instance, Yoon, et al. (2007) for a comprehensive review. For rigorous studies of PD 

using longitudinal observational data, see, for instance, Harris and Sass (2011) and Jacob and 

Lefgren (2004). The most encouraging research on PD suggests that focusing on how students 

learn a content area tends to be more effective than PD emphasizing pedagogy/teaching behaviors or curriculum (Cohen and Hill, 2000; Kennedy, 1998; Rice, 2009). 6Other evidence includes Bridges and Gumport (1984); Tucker (1997). 

7One might also argue that PD would be more likely to pay off under institutional structures 

that reward performance; teachers generally have little besides goodwill at stake when investing 

their time in professional development since they are simply satisfying PD seat time requirements (Rice, 2009). 8One argument for the mixed evidence of pay for performance is that many performance plans 

are not well designed (Imberman and Lovenheim, 2014). The most encouraging experimental 

evidence on pay for performance in U.S. schools comes from a recent study by Fryer, et al. 

(2012) with a very different study design from those described above. Teachers in a treatment 

group received a bonus up-front and were told that they would lose it if their students did not 

make significant test score gains, testing whether they might respond more to loss aversion than 

the potential for financial gain. In this case, student achievement in the performance-incented 

group was higher than in the control group. It is unlikely that this sort of incentive could be 

widely implemented given political and cultural constraints in public schools, but the finding 

does show the potential for policies to affect the effectiveness of the current teacher workforce. 9 Indeed there is evidence (Taylor and Tyler, 2012) that targeted feedback about teacher performance itself helps teachers become more effective. 10My research with a colleague (Goldhaber and Walch, 2012) confirms these findings in Denver. 

roughly 200,000 newly minted teachers entering the profession each year, we need 

to know more. 

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND INCENTIVES

Nearly all school districts use professional development (PD) to try to improve 

teaching. Not surprisingly, therefore, a large number of studies relate both the content and mode of delivery of PD to teacher instructional practices and effectiveness. 

Unfortunately, most research on PD is not terribly rigorous, and few studies suggest 

that it systematically improves teaching.5

Several large-scale, well-designed, federally funded experimental studies do tend 

to confirm that PD has little or mixed impacts on student achievement. For instance, a randomized control trial focusing on a 1-year content-focused PD program 

showed positive impacts on teachers’ knowledge of scientifically based reading instruction and instructional practices promoted by the PD program, but no 

discernable effects on student test scores (Garet, et al., 2008). Another recent randomized control trial (Glazerman, et al., 2010) of the effects of mentoring and induction (a form of profession development for novice teachers) did find some evidence 

that students of teachers who received 2 years of comprehensive induction had higher achievement levels by the third year. 

One argument for professional development’s relatively poor showing is that it is 

rarely targeted to the needs of individual educators. As for why, old-style ‘‘drive by’’ 

evaluations generally yielded little useable information about what individual teachers and leaders need. This was perhaps best captured in The Widget Effect 

(Weisburg, et al., 2009), a study of 12 school districts (in four States) that showed 

that while the frequency and methods of teacher evaluation varied, the results of 

evaluations rarely did—nearly all teachers got a top performance rating.6 If all are 

judged to be the same, targeting professional development to their diverse needs is 

difficult indeed.7

Another way that policymakers have tried to improve educator effectiveness is by 

providing explicit incentives for teacher performance. Unfortunately, much of the 

highest quality randomized control trial evidence on this avenue of reform also suggests that it has limited impacts on student achievement (Yuan, et al., 2013). One 

experiment (Marsh, et al., 2011) showed that $3,000 bonuses for every teacher in 

a given school meeting performance standards had no impact on student achievement relative to control-group schools ineligible for the bonus. Another randomized 

control trial study (Springer, et al., 2010) focused on teacher-level incentives of up 

to $15,000 per teacher also found no consistently significant difference between the 

outcomes of students with teachers in the treatment versus the control group.8

The most encouraging evidence about changing the effectiveness of in-service 

teachers comes from programs that take a more holistic approach, combining comprehensive evaluation with feedback, professional development and performance incentives.9 You heard last week from Tom Boasberg, the Superintendent of Denver 

Public Schools (DPS), about the progress the district has made over the last decade 

using such an approach.10 Findings from a study (Dee and Wyckoff, 2013) of the 

12 

11The study also finds that teachers at risk for termination for poor performance tend to either improve or voluntarily leave the district. 12For a more comprehensive review, see Hanushek and Rivkin (1997). 13 It is of course possible that policies could have impacts on school leadership or culture, but 

this would be more circuitous. For instance, one might require principals receive training to improve their leadership skills, but for it to have an impact on teachers, the training would have 

to change the perceptions that teachers have of a principal’s leadership skills. 

IMPACT system here in the District of Columbia show that teachers deemed highly 

effective (based on a multifaceted performance evaluation system) and eligible to receive large base pay increases if the high rating continue, increase their performance in the next year.11

RECRUITMENT, RETENTION, AND THE DISTRIBUTION OF TEACHERS

As noted above, teacher quality is inequitably distributed across students. This 

finding is related to both the recruitment and retention patterns of teachers—not 

surprising since research shows that schools serving disadvantaged students face 

greater challenges hiring new teachers (Boyd, et al., 2013; Engel, et al., forthcoming) 

and that teachers are more likely to leave schools serving disadvantaged students 

for other schools or other professions (Borman and Dowling, 2008; Goldhaber, et al., 

2011; Hanushek, et al., 2004; Scafidi, et al., 2007). 

There is evidence that teachers making employment choices respond, as would be 

expected.12 Studies of recruitment incentives, for instance, find that offering bonuses increases the likelihood that teachers will take a position in schools offering 

the incentive. Glazerman, et al. (2013) study an experiment in which high-performing teachers are offered $20,000 bonuses to transfer to a low-achieving school 

for at least 2 years and find large recruitment effects. Steele, et al. (2010) study a 

policy that provides prospective teachers with a $20,000 scholarship for teaching in 

a low-performing school for 4 years and get much the same result. Of course, the 

design of these financial incentives is also important: these policies do not provide 

ongoing inducements to stay in high-needs schools and neither study found evidence 

that targeted teachers stayed at high-needs schools longer. 

Much of the empirical evidence does show that higher permanent salaries reduce 

teacher attrition. Much of this evidence comes from investigating differences in salaries between districts in the same geographical area (e.g., Hanushek, et al. 2004; 

Imazeki, 2005; Lankford, et al., 2002). Of particular note is research on retention 

incentives for schools serving high-poverty and low-achieving schools. Studying a 

program that awarded $1,800 bonuses to math, science, and special education teachers in high-poverty schools, Clotfeler, et al. (2008) find that the bonus policy reduced 

the turnover of targeted teachers by about 17 percent. Springer, et al. (2014) assess 

a program providing highly rated teachers in low-achieving schools $5,000 bonuses 

and find that the bonus improved teacher retention by 10–20 percent. 

While financial incentives appear to be a viable tool for affecting the distribution 

of teachers, teachers clearly also care about their working conditions. Such factors 

as the quality of school leadership and workplace collegiality also affect teachers’ decisions and some scholars (Boyd, et al., 2011; Johnson, et al., 2012; Ladd, 2009) suggest that such factors matter far more than salary in determining whether teachers 

choose to teach in a particular school. This finding poses a challenge since there is 

not a direct policy control over such working conditions.13

FIXING NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND

Given current research, what is the connection between supporting a high quality 

teacher and school leader workforce and fixing No Child Left Behind? First consider 

that the NCLB testing requirement ushered in a new era: we now pay far more policy and research attention to the effects of schools and educators on student learning—an outcome focus—rather than making judgments about the quality of education students receive, or the equity of educational resources, based on schooling 

inputs (class size, teacher credentials, etc.). The shift has been significant and, to 

my mind, appropriate. Parents should care more about how much their students are 

learning in schools than, for instance, about teachers’ specific backgrounds and educational credentials (though the two may certainly be related). 

This new focus on educational outputs means that any changes to NCLB should 

preserve our ability to garner accurate information about the outputs of teachers 

and school leaders. Here I echo my initial point that this information is key to determining what kind of support individual teachers and leaders need so they can improve, which leaders and teachers we want to stay in public schools, and what policies and practices lead to improvements in educator effectiveness. 

13 

To be sure, States left to their own devices might decide to continue with a testing 

system that allows for credible information across localities in educator effectiveness. Recall here that in the decade or so before NCLB passed, only a handful of 

States had year over year testing of all students. My fear is that, given the difficult 

politics associated with testing, many States would return to systems that would not 

permit measures of student growth that are comparable across school systems in a 

State. 

I’ll end by touching on a final issue about the Federal role in influencing the effectiveness of the Nation’s educators. While NCLB has been in place for well over a 

decade, the national focus on effectiveness of individual educators, and the institutions that prepare them, is far more recent. The country is in the midst of a large 

experiment in reforming the way educators are evaluated. Just since 2009, 49 

States and the District of Columbia have changed their evaluation systems, and in 

many cases these changes are being fully implemented only now (Center on Great 

Teachers and Leaders, 2014). Many of these changes entail using information on individual educators to inform important policies (e.g., regarding teacher preparation) 

and personnel decisions (compensation, professional development, tenure, licensing, 

etc.), and, as noted above, new evidence shows that this can make a difference for 

educator effectiveness. We are now just on the cusp of learning about how these 

changes affect the quality of the educator workforce and sound policy must rest on 

such knowledge. 

Throughout I have emphasized a focus on information on the effectiveness of individual educators. This is appropriate given what we have learned over the last decade about the important variation in effectiveness between teachers and school leaders, and because most States now have policies designed to act on what we learn 

about educator effectiveness. However, I very much doubt that we would have seen 

much State experimentation with pre-service and in-service policies were it not for 

the role of the Federal Government in incenting such change. I think we can do better when it comes to supporting teachers and school leaders, and learn more about 

the policies and practices that result in a more effective educator workforce. Significant improvements will require more innovation, and the Federal Government can 

play an important role in nudging, not mandating, States and localities to innovate 

(for instance in the realm of teacher preparation) through competitive grant programs, like the Teacher Incentive Fund, that encourage experimentation with the 

systems and institutions that govern the teacher pipeline. The public education enterprise has to get smarter about how to deliver education, and figuring out how 

to improve educator effectiveness is arguably the best way to improve the future of 

the Nation’s children. 

REFERENCES

Aaronson, D., Barrow, L., & Sander, W. (2007). Teachers and student achievement 

in the Chicago Public High Schools.’’ Journal of Labor Economics 25, no. 1 (2007): 

95–135. 

Borman, G. & Dowling, N. (2008). Teacher attrition and retention: A meta-analytic 

and narrative review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 78(3), 367– 

409. 

Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2008). Who Leaves? 

Teacher Attrition and Student Achievement. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of 

Economic Research. 

Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Ing, M., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2011). The 

influence of school administrators on teacher retention decisions. American Educational Research Journal, 48, 303–33. 

Branch, G.F., Hanushek, E.A., & Rivkin, S.G. (2012). Estimating the effect of leaders 

on public sector productivity: The case of school principals. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. 

Bridges, E. & Gumport, P. (1984). The dismissal of Tenures Teachers for Incompetence. Stanford, CA: Institute for Research on Educational Finance and Governance, 1984. Technical Report. 

Center on Great Teachers and Leaders State Evaluation Policy Database (2014). Retrieved on 1/24/2015 from http://resource.tqsource.org/stateevaldb/. 

Chamberlain, G. (2013). Predictive effects of teachers and schools on test scores, college attendance, and earnings. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 

110(43), 17176–82. 

Chetty, R., Friedman, J.N., & Rockoff, J.E. (2014). Measuring the Impacts of Teachers II: Teacher Value-Added and Student Outcomes in Adulthood. American Economic Review, 104(9), 2633–79. 

14 

Clark, D., Mortorell, P. & Rockoff, J. (2009). School principals and school performance. CALDER Working Paper 38. 

Clotfelter, C., Glennie, E., Ladd, H., & Vigdor, J. (2008). Would higher salaries keep 

teachers in high-poverty schools? Evidence from a policy intervention in North 

Carolina. Journal of Public Economics, 92:5, PP. 1352–70. 

Clotfelter, C., Ladd, H., & Vigdor, J. (2010). Teacher credentials and student 

achievement in high school: a cross subject analysis with fixed effects. Journal of 

Human Resources 45: 655–81. 

Clotfelter, C.T., Ladd, H.F., & Vigdor, J.L. (2011). Teacher mobility, school segregation, and pay-based policies to level the playing field. Education Finance and Policy, 6(3), 399–438. 

Coelli, M. & Green, D.A. (2012). Leadership effects: school principals and student 

outcomes. Economics of Education Review 31(1), 92–109. 

Cohen, D. & Hill, H. (2000). Instructional policy and classroom performance: The 

mathematics reform in California. Teachers College Record, 102(2), 294–343. 

Constantine, J., Player, D., Silva, T., Hallgren, K., Grider, M., & Deke, J. (2009). 

An evaluation of teachers trained through different routes to certification. Final 

Report for National Center for Education and Regional Assistance, 142. 

Dee, T.S. & Wyckoff, J. (2013). Incentives, selection, and teacher performance: Evidence from IMPACT. CALDER Working Paper 102. 

Engel, M., Jacob, B., & *Curran, F.C. (forthcoming) New Evidence on Teacher Labor 

Supply. American Educational Research Journal—Social and Institutional Analysis. Fryer, R., Levitt, S., List, J., & Sadoff, S. (2012). Enhancing the Efficacy of Teacher 

Incentives through Loss Aversion: A Field Experiment. NBER Working Paper No. 

18237. 

Fulbeck, E. S. (2014). Teacher Mobility and Financial Incentives: A Descriptive 

Analysis of Denver’s ProComp. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 36(1), 

67–82. 

Garet, M.S., Cronen, S., Eaton, M., Kurki, A., Ludwig, M., Jones, W., Uekawa, K., 

Falk, A., Bloom, H.S., Doolittle, F., Zhu, P., & Sztehjnberg, L. (2008). The impact 

of two professional development interventions on early reading instruction and 

achievement.’’ American Institutes for Research and MDRC. NCEE 2008–4030. 

Glazerman, S., Mayer, D., & Decker, P. (2006). Alternative routes to teaching: The 

impacts of Teach for America on student achievement and other outcomes. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 25(1), 75–96. 

Glazerman, S. Protik, A., Teh, B., Bruch, J., & Max, J. (2013). Transfer incentives 

for high-performing teachers: final results from a multisite randomized experiment 

(NCEE–2014–4033). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation 

and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of 

Education. 

Glazerman, S. and Seifullah, A. (2010). An evaluation of the Teacher Advancement 

Program (TAP) in Chicago: Year two impact report. Mathematica Policy Research. 

Goldhaber (2013). What do value-added measures of teacher preparation programs 

tell us? Carnegie Knowledge Network Knowledge Brief. Published online at 

http://www.carnegieknowledgenetwork.org/briefs/teacherlprep/. 

Goldhaber, D., Brewer, D. & Anderson, D. (1999) A three-way error components 

analysis of educational productivity. Education Economics, 7(3), 199–208. 

Goldhaber, D., Gross, B., & Player, D. (2011). Teacher Career Paths, Teacher Quality, and Persistence in the Classroom: Are Public Schools Keeping Their Best? 

Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 30(1), 57–87. 

Goldhaber, D., Lavery, L., & Theobald, R. (2014). Uneven Playing Field? Assessing 

the Teacher Quality Gap Between Advantaged and Disadvantaged Students. Educational Researcher, in press. 

Goldhaber, D. & Walch, J. (2012). ‘‘Strategic pay reform: a student outcomes-based 

evaluation of Denver’s ProComp teacher pay initiative.’’ Economics of Education 

Review, 31(6): 1067–83. 

Grissom, J. A., & Loeb, S. (2011). Triangulating Principal Effectiveness: How Perspectives of Parents, Teachers, and Assistant Principals Identify the Central Importance of Managerial Skills. American Educational Research Journal, 48(5), 

1091–1123. 

Grissom, J. A., Loeb, S., & Master, B. (2013). Effective Instructional Time Use for 

School Leaders: Longitudinal Evidence From Observations of Principals. Educational Researcher, 42(8), 433–44. 

Hansen, M. (2009). How career concerns influence public workers’ effort: Evidence 

from the teacher labor market. CALDER Working Paper #40. 

Hanushek, E. A. (2011). The economic value of higher teacher quality. Economics 

of Education Review, 30(3), 466–79. 

15 

Hanushek, E. & Rivkin, S. (2007). Pay, working conditions and teacher quality. Future of Children, 17(1), 69–86. 

Harris, D. & Sass, T. (2011). Teacher training, teacher quality, and student achievement. Journal of Public Economics, 95, 7–8: 798–812. 

Hill, H.C., Umland, K. L. & Kapitula, L.R. (2011). A validity argument approach 

to evaluating value-added scores. American Educational Research Journal 48, 

794–831. 

Ichniowski, C. & Shaw, K. (2003). Beyond incentive pay: Insiders’ estimates of the 

value of complementary human resource management practices. The Journal of 

Economic Perspectives 17(1), PP. 155–80. 

Imazeki, J. (2005). Teacher salaries and teacher attrition. Economics of Education 

Review, 24(4), 431–49. 

Imberman, S. & Lovenheim, M. (2014). Incentive strength and teacher productivity: 

evidence from a group-based teacher incentive pay system. The Review of Economics and Statistics. Published online at http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/ 

10.1162/RESTal00486#.VMP2sHYeVjU. 

Ingersoll, R. & Strong, M. (2011). The impact of induction and mentoring programs 

for beginning teachers. Review of Educational Research 81:2, PP. 201–33. 

Isenberg, E., Max, J., Gleason, P., Potamites, L., Santillano, R., Hock, H., & Hansen, 

M. (2013). Access to effective teaching for disadvantaged students (NCEE 2014– 

4001). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional 

Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. 

Jackson, C. (2013) ‘‘Non-Cognitive Ability, Test Scores, and Teacher Quality: Evidence from 9th Grade Teachers in North Carolina’’, NBER Working Paper No. 

18624. 

Jackson, C. & Bruegmann, E. (2009). Teaching students and teaching each other: 

the importance of peer learning for teachers.’’ American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 1(4): 85–108. 

Jacob, B. & Lefgren, L. (2004). The impact of teacher training on student achievement. Journal of Human Resources, 39:1, PP. 50–79. 

Jacob, B. & Lefgren, L. (2008). Can principals identify effective teachers? Evidence 

on subjective evaluation in education. Journal of Labor Economics 26(1), 101–36. 

Johnson, S., Kraft, M., & Papay, J. (2012). How Context Matters in High-Need 

Schools: The Effects of Teachers’ Working Conditions on Their Professional Satisfaction and Their Students. Teachers College Record, Volume 114 Number 10, 

2012, p. 1–39, http://www.tcrecord.org ID Number: 16685, Date Accessed: 1/24/ 

2015 2:48:06 PM. 

Kane, T. & Staiger, D.O. (2008) Estimating teacher impacts on student achievement: An experimental evaluation. Cambridge, MA, NBER. 

Kennedy, M. (1998) Form and substance in teacher inservice education, Research 

Monograph No. 13 (Madison, WI, National Institute for Science Education, University of Wisconsin-Madison). 

Koedel, C., Parsons, E., Podgursky, M. & and Ehlert, M. (forthcoming). Teacher 

preparation programs and teacher quality: are there real differences across programs? Education Finance and Policy. 

Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2002). Teacher sorting and the plight of urban 

schools: A descriptive analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy, 24(1), 37–62. 

Levine, Arthur. (2006). Educating School Teachers. The Education Schools Project. 

Marsh, J., Springer, M., McCaffrey, D., Yuan, K., Epstein, S., Koppich, J., Kalra, 

N., DiMartino, C., & Peng, A. (2011). A big apple for educators: New York City’s 

experiment with schoolwide performance bonuses. RAND Corporation. 

Mihaly, K., McCaffrey, D., Sass, T. R., & Lockwood, J. R. (2013). Where You Come 

From or Where You Go? Distinguishing Between School Quality and the Effectiveness of Teacher Preparation Program Graduates. Education Finance and Policy, 

8(4), 459–93. 

Murnane, R., Singer, J., Willett, J., Kemple, J., & Olsen, R. (Eds.). (1991). Who will 

teach?: Policies that matter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2010). Transforming 

Teacher Education Through Clinical Practice: A National Strategy to Prepare Effective Teachers. Report of the Blue Ribbon Panel on Clinical Preparation and 

Partnerships for Improved Student Learning. 

National Research Council. (2010). Preparing teachers: Building evidence for sound 

policy. Committee on the Study of Teacher Preparation Programs in the United 

States. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. 

Nye, B., Konstantopoulos, S. & Hedges, L.V. (2004). How large are teacher effects? 

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 26:3, 237–57. 

16 

Papay, J.P., West, M.R., Fullerton, J.B., & Kane, T.J. (2012). Does an urban teacher 

residency increase student achievement? Early evidence from Boston. Educational 

Evaluation and Policy Analysis 34(4), 413–34. 

Rice, J. (2009). Investing in human capital through teacher professional development. In Goldhaber, D. and Hannaway, J., ed. Creating a New Teaching Profession. The Urban Institute. 

Rivkin, S., Hanushek, E. & Kain, J. (2005) Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. Econometrica, 73(2), 417–58. 

Rockoff, J. (2004) The impact of individual teachers on students’ achievement: Evidence from panel data. American Economic Review, 94(2), 247–52. 

Ronfeldt, M. (2012). Where should student teachers learn to teach? Effects of field 

placement school characteristics on teacher retention and effectiveness. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 34(1), 3–26. 

Ronfeldt, M., Schwartz, N., & Jacob, B. (2014). Does pre-service preparation matter? 

Examining an old question in new ways. Teachers College Record 116(10), 1–46. 

Sass, T. R., Hannaway, J., Xu, Z., Figlio, D.N., & Feng, L. (2012). Value added of 

teachers in high-poverty schools and lower poverty schools. Journal of Urban Economics, 72(2–3), 104–22. 

Scafidi, B., Sjoquist, D. & Stinebricker, T. (2007). Race, poverty, and teacher mobility. Economics of Education Review, 26(2), 145–59. 

Springer, M., Hamilton, L., McCaffrey, D., Ballou, D., Le, V., Pepper, M., Lockwood, 

JR, & Stecher, B. (2010). Teacher pay for performance: experimental evidence 

from the project on incentives in teaching. National Center on Performance Incentives Working Paper, Vanderbuilt University, Nashville, TN. 

Springer, M.G., Rodriguez, L.A., & Swain, W.A. (2014). Effective teacher retention 

bonuses: Evidence from Tennessee. Nashville, TN: Tennessee Consortium on Research, Evaluation, and Development. 

Steele, J., Murnane, R., & Willett, J. (2010). Do financial incentives help low-performing schools attract and keep academically talented teachers? Evidence from 

California. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 14780. 

Taylor, E. & Tyler, J. 2012. The effect of evaluation on teacher performance. American Economic Review, 102(7): 3628–51. 

Tucker, P. (1997). Lake Wobegon: Where all teachers are competent (or, have we 

come to terms with the problem of incompetent teachers?) Journal of Personnel 

Evaluation in Education 11:103–26. 

Weisberg, D., Sexton, S., Mulhern, J. & Keeling, D. (2009). The widget effect: Our 

national failure to acknowledge and act on differences in teacher effectiveness. New 

York, NY: The New Teacher Project. 

Yoon, K.S., Duncan, T., Lee, S.W.-Y., Scarloss, B., & Shapley, K. (2007). Reviewing 

the evidence on how teacher professional development affects student achievement 

(Issues & Answers Report, REL 2007—No. 033). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education 

Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest. 

Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs. 

Yuan, K, Le, V, McCaffrey, D.F., Marsh, J.A., Hamilton, L.S., Stecher, Brian M., & 

Springer, M.G. (2013). Incentive Pay Programs Do Not Affect Teacher Motivation 

or Reported Practices Results From Three Randomized Studies. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 35(1), 3–22. 

Xu, Z., Hannaway, J., and Taylor, C. (2011). Making a difference? The effects of 

Teach For America in high school. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 

Vol 30(3), 447–69. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir. 

Dr. Holliday. 

STATEMENT OF TERRY HOLLIDAY, B.E., M.Ed., Ed.S., Ph.D., 

COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION, COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, FRANKFORT, KY 

Mr. HOLLIDAY. Chairman Alexander, Senator Murray, and members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to testify about 

the importance of supporting teachers and school leaders through 

reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. 

First, I’ll express my thanks to the Chairman and Ranking Member and committee members for their work on reauthorization. 

Please continue this important work. We must have a stable FedVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:29 Jan 09, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\93078.TXT CAROL
17 

eral law to support our States and schools, and I can assure you 

my fellow chiefs really support the work that you’re currently engaged in. 

As a former teacher, principal, local superintendent, State superintendent, and past president of the Council of Chief State School 

Officers, I’m more certain today than ever before that the success 

of public education is directly related to the quality of instruction 

in every classroom and leaders in every school building. With over 

43 years of this work, I offer three points for your consideration as 

you look to reauthorize ESEA. 

Point 1: To adequately address teacher and leader development 

in our public schools, we must look at a systemic approach. We 

cannot try fixing one part of the system without looking at and addressing the entire system. This means we must address teacher 

and leader preparation programs, recruitment of teachers and leaders into the profession, professional development, evaluation, retention, and working conditions. 

Here are just a few examples of how States are taking the lead 

and may not need the Federal guidelines to be too strict. The Council of Chief State School Officers board has recently developed priorities for ESEA reauthorization that include the following measures of a quality system. It must have multiple measures of teacher 

and leader performance, not relying solely on just tests. We need 

to make meaningful differentiation of performance of teachers and 

leaders, and we need to provide actionable information to inform 

professional development. 

I was honored to be co-chair of the task force that developed the 

standards for the new Commission on Accreditation of Teacher 

Preparation Programs. I can assure you that these national accreditation standards are very rigorous and will require significant improvements in teacher and leader preparation programs. 

Kentucky and other States are currently requiring programs in 

our States to meet these new national accreditation standards. 

Kentucky worked with Learning Forward and five other States to 

establish best practice guidelines for professional development. 

These guidelines focus on customizing professional development 

that moves toward professional learning to meet the needs of 

teachers and students. Also, these guidelines focus on measuring 

the impact of professional learning on student outcomes. 

Kentucky, like many other States, has been working to improve 

its low performing schools and close achievement gaps. We have 

found a model that seems to work well in these schools. The model 

is an intensive diagnostic review of the instructional program in 

the school to identify areas for improvement. We then provide onsite math, literacy, and principal coaches to provide just-in-time 

support to improve instruction. We have seen schools move from 

the bottom 5 percent in Kentucky to the top 10 percent with this 

model. 

Point 2: This systemic work must be done with teachers and not 

to teachers. In Kentucky, we have developed strong relationships 

with teachers’ unions, leadership associations, and other key stakeholders. 

Our teacher and leader effectiveness system took years to develop, and we are continuing to improve the system. As a former 

18 

teacher, I am very concerned that teachers across this Nation feel 

that they are under attack due to the current education reform efforts around teacher evaluation. 

Point 3: In order to create a system of support for teachers and 

leaders, we, as State leaders in education, do not need review or 

approval from the U.S. Department of Education. In Kentucky, we 

have built a successful system because it was done by Kentuckians. 

It was our teachers, our school leaders, and our community that 

decided what worked best for us. I want the same for my fellow 

State chiefs. 

Thank you for this opportunity to speak to you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Holliday follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TERRY HOLLIDAY, B.E., M.ED., ED.S., PH.D. 

Chairman Alexander, Senator Murray, and members of the committee, thank you 

for inviting me to testify about the importance of Supporting Teachers and School 

Leaders through the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education 

Act (ESEA). 

First, I express my thanks to the Chairman, Ranking Member and committee 

members for their work on reauthorization. Please continue this important work. 

We must have a stable Federal law to support our States and our schools. It is critical for us to have that certainty to move forward and make continued progress in 

our schools. 

As a former teacher, principal, local superintendent, State superintendent and 

past president of the Council of Chief State School Officers, I am more certain today 

than ever before that the success of public education is directly related to the quality of teachers in every classroom and leaders in every school building. Over the last 

43 years of doing this work, I offer three fundamental points for your consideration 

as you look to reauthorize ESEA. 

Point 1: To adequately address teacher and leader development in our public 

schools, we must look at a systemic approach. We cannot look at trying to ‘‘fix’’ one 

part of the system without looking at addressing the entire system. This means we 

must address teacher and leader preparation programs, recruitment of teachers and 

leaders into the profession, professional development, evaluation, retention and 

working conditions. Here are just a few examples of how States are taking leadership in this systemic work: 

• The Council of Chief State School Officers’ board has recently developed priorities for ESEA reauthorization that include the following measures of a quality system for supporting teachers and school leaders: 

• Multiple measures of teacher and leader performance; 

• Meaningful differentiation of performance; and 

• Actionable information to inform professional development and support. 

• The Council of Chief State School Officers recently published a report titled 

‘‘Our Responsibility: Our Promise,’’ which provided key recommendations to States 

on how to improve teacher and leader preparation programs. Kentucky and several 

other States are now working to implement those recommendations that focus on 

program approval, licensure, and data systems. 

• As co-chair of the task force that developed the standards for the Commission 

on Accreditation of Educator Preparation Programs (CAEP), I can assure you that 

these national accreditation standards are very rigorous and will require significant 

improvements in teacher and leader preparation. Kentucky and other States are requiring preparation programs to gain national accreditation through CAEP. 

• Several States, including Kentucky, require 1- to 2-year internships prior to 

teaching candidates receiving their teaching license. 

• Kentucky worked with Learning Forward and five other States to establish best 

practice guidelines for professional development. These guidelines focus on customizing professional development that moves toward professional learning to meet the 

needs of teachers. Also, these guidelines focus on measuring the impact of professional learning on student outcomes. 

• Kentucky provides 24/7 online access to all teachers and leaders in Kentucky 

to thousands of hours of high-quality professional development. This access ensures 

teachers and leaders in our rural and poverty communities have equal access and 

opportunity to high-quality professional development. 

19 

• Kentucky has implemented a teacher and leader evaluation system that focuses 

on continuous professional growth and improving student learning. This evaluation 

system is housed electronically so the school, district and State can analyze and 

identify areas for improvement which in turn inform preparation programs on areas 

of improvement. 

• Kentucky borrowed heavily from the great work in North Carolina with regard 

to National Board Certification and the Working Conditions Survey. We have 

learned that teacher retention is strongly correlated with the strength of leadership 

in the school building. 

• Kentucky, like many other States, has been working to improve its low-performing schools and close achievement gaps. We have found a model that seems to 

work well in these schools. The model is an intensive diagnostic review of the instructional program in the school to identify areas for improvement. We then provide onsite math, literacy and principal coaches to provide just-in-time support and 

coaching to improve instruction. We have seen Kentucky schools move from the bottom 5 percent to the top 10 percent in the State using this model. 

• Kentucky has worked with the Harvard Strategic Data Project to analyze current distribution of teachers across schools. Through this work, we have identified 

improvement areas and measures that we will use to hold schools and districts accountable for equitable distribution of effective teachers. 

• Finally, Kentucky is working to develop specific career pathways to provide 

multiple pathways for teachers to become leaders. Many teachers want to gain leadership roles without giving up the ability to teach. Kentucky is working to model 

what the most successful systems in the world provide to teachers for career pathways. 

Point 2: This systemic work must be done WITH teachers and leaders and not 

done TO teachers and leaders. In Kentucky, we have developed strong relationships 

with teachers’ unions, leadership associations, and other key stakeholders. Our 

teacher and leader effectiveness systems took years to develop and we are continuing to improve the systems. As a former teacher, I am concerned that teachers 

across the country feel that they are under attack due to the current education reform efforts around teacher evaluation. 

Point 3: In order to create a system of support for teachers and school leaders, 

we as State leaders in education, do not need review or approval from the U.S. Department of Education. In Kentucky, we have built a successful system because it 

was done by Kentuckians. It was our teachers, our school leaders and our community that decided what worked best for us. I want the same for my fellow State 

Chiefs. 

If the Federal Government does play a role in evaluations, it should be to ensure 

these systems are strong and effective. Congress should reauthorize ESEA to give 

States the ability to use ESEA funds, such as title IIA, more effectively to develop 

and implement State systems. 

Through a State-led approach, we can accomplish several things: 

• First, we will remain committed to ensuring that all students are taught by— 

and all schools are led by—excellent educators. We can do this in a way that makes 

the most sense for each State. Every State has a different timeline and method for 

implementation. It cannot be dictated by a Federal timeline, but must be decided 

by stakeholders working together within a State. 

• Second, we will remain committed to using information about teacher performance to determine how to support educators and ensure that disadvantaged students 

receive high-quality instruction. If this data remains in the control of States, and 

efforts to act on the data is led by States, we can better use this information to support teachers and principals. If we find it is not working well, we can quickly make 

mid-course corrections to better assist those in the field. If this is a part of Federal 

law, I fear we will be working to meet reporting deadlines, rather than working to 

support teachers. 

• Third, we will maintain State control in developing evaluation and support systems and in determining how it coordinates across districts. These systems will be 

designed by educators in each State, for educators in each State. We will determine 

the best systems to meet the needs of our educators and roll them out on a timeline 

that meets the needs of our teachers, principals and students. 

I appreciate the opportunity to speak with the committee today and look forward 

to your questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Dr. Holliday. 

Mr. Hinojosa. 

20 

STATEMENT OF SAUL HINOJOSA, SUPERINTENDENT OF 

SCHOOLS, SOMERSET INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, 

SOMERSET, TX 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Chairman Alexander, Ranking Member Murray, 

and members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to testify 

today. I am the superintendent of the Somerset Independent School 

District in Bexar and Atascosa County. 

Briefly, my district, established in 1922, is located in Somerset, 

TX, which is 15 miles southwest of downtown San Antonio. There 

are 3,956 students enrolled in our seven campuses from age 3, comprising of Head Start students, through 12th grade. 

When you look at our demographics, 86 percent of our students 

are Hispanic, 78 percent are economically disadvantaged, and 59 

percent are considered at-risk. Also, 53 percent of our teachers 

have 5 years of experience or less, and most travel across several 

districts through San Antonio, which has traditionally presented a 

significant challenge to retain teachers. 

I am here today to tell you about my experience using a Teacher 

Incentive Fund grant to support substantial improvements in 

teaching and learning in the district. While I clearly saw the need 

for improvements in classroom teaching and better support for 

teachers and school leaders in the district, the TIF grant provided 

me with the resources, momentum, and partnerships to build support for the kind of leap forward that was needed. 

My district has embedded these changes in our budget and processes and will work to sustain these improvements after the grant 

ends. In my view, we must recognize and reward teachers who accelerate student learning, take on the most challenging assignments, and serve in leadership roles, rather than basing teacher 

pay solely on years of experience and degrees earned. 

Beginning in 2010, we partnered with the National Institute for 

Excellence in Teaching, which oversees a national teacher effectiveness reform called TAP, The System for Teacher and Student Advancement. We applied for a Federal TIF grant with the goal of 

putting our teachers and principals at the heart of efforts to drive 

higher levels of instruction in every classroom. 

Using TIF funds, we piloted TAP at our middle school, which had 

been rated academically unacceptable under the accountability system then in use in Texas. We later expanded TAP to our high 

school—it was also failing—and last year rolled it out district-wide. 

All six of our campuses met State standards this time for the 

first time since 2011, including three that were rated as ‘‘improvement required’’ in 2013. In addition to district-wide gains, we made 

progress closing achievement gaps with our special education and 

English language learner students. 

We had to try something new, and we wanted to find an approach that our teachers and principals could strongly embrace. 

Our system includes performance-based compensation, but also focuses on best practices utilizing student data to align staff development with student and teacher needs. 

New evaluation instruments provided more accurate, timely, and 

useful information on teacher instruction. Teacher leaders are part 

of the team that conducts evaluations and provides support for imVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:29 Jan 09, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\93078.TXT CAROL
21 

provement. At Somerset ISD, we had over 70 percent of our staff 

vote yes to this new approach. 

When these measures are implemented with fidelity, you can see 

improvement. But the real credit lies with the teachers and principals who are in the trenches doing the work. 

The power of this teacher-centered approach is described by one 

of our veteran teachers, Joshua Harrison, who credits the feedback 

for his improved math teaching at Somerset’s Junior High. Last 

year, 158 of 160 eighth graders passed the State algebra test, 

which included special needs and English language learners. ‘‘One 

of the reasons I stay here is because of TAP,’’ he says. ‘‘With the 

four observations, we can find out how to improve within the year. 

It’s helped us push our thinking.’’ 

We change our approach based on data and our own student 

needs. We now have in place a powerful structure for ensuring consistent delivery of strong instruction in every classroom. 

I encourage you to authorize the Teacher Incentive Fund to allow 

other districts and States to benefit as we did. 

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hinojosa follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SAUL HINOJOSA

Chairman Alexander, Ranking Member Murray, members of the committee, thank 

you for inviting me to testify today. My name is Saul Hinojosa, and I am superintendent of the Somerset Independent School District in Bexar and Atascosa County, TX. 

Briefly, my district—established in 1922—is located in Somerset, TX which is 15 

miles southwest of downtown San Antonio, TX. There are 3,956 students enrolled 

in our 7 campuses from age 3 comprising of Head Start students through 12th 

grade. When you look at our demographics 86 percent of our students are Hispanic, 

78 percent are economically disadvantaged and 59 percent are considered at-risk. 

Fifty-three percent of our teachers have experience of 5 years or less and most travel across several districts through San Antonio which has traditionally presented a 

significant challenge to retain teachers. 

I am here today to tell you about my experience using a Teacher Incentive Fund 

TIF grant to support substantial improvements in teaching and learning in my district. While I clearly saw the need for improvements in classroom teaching and better support for teachers and school leaders in my district, the TIF grant provided 

me with the resources, momentum and partnerships to build support for the kind 

of leap forward that was needed. My district has embedded these changes in our 

budget and processes and will work to sustain these improvements after the grant 

ends. 

As you know, research shows that teacher quality is the most important schoolrelated factor in determining student achievement growth. We simply cannot close 

the achievement gap without aggressively improving both the overall effectiveness 

of teachers who work in schools, and the supports to those teachers, who serve large 

numbers of underprivileged children. 

In my view, we must recognize and reward teachers who accelerate student learning, take on the most challenging assignments, and serve in leadership roles, rather 

than basing teacher pay solely on years of experience and degrees earned. 

Beginning in 2010, we partnered with the National Institute for Excellence in 

Teaching (NIET) which oversees a national teacher effectiveness reform called TAP: 

The System for Teacher and Student Advancement. We applied for a Federal TIF 

grant with the goal of putting our teachers and principals at the heart of efforts 

to drive higher levels of instruction in every classroom, even those of our most effective teachers. 

Using TIF funds, we piloted TAP at our middle school, which had been rated ‘‘academically unacceptable’’ under the accountability system then in use in Texas. We 

later extended TAP to our high school—it was also failing—and last year rolled it 

out district-wide. 

All six of our campuses met State standards this year for the first time since 

2011, including three that were rated as ‘‘improvement required’’ in 2013. That 

22 

came even as the Texas Education Agency set the accountability bar for schools 

higher. Five of Somerset’s campuses had failed at least once in the previous 3 years. 

Somerset had been using the Texas Professional Development Appraisal System, 

or PDAS, to evaluate our staff. PDAS is a yearly 45 minute observation that is 

scheduled with the teacher. This model was implemented in Texas in 1997 and 

many educators dismiss it as weak and outdated. It certainly wasn’t working for us. 

We had to try something new, and we wanted to find an approach that our teachers and principals could strongly embrace. The TAP System, and the TIF grant, requires support and buy in from the faculty before implementation. When these new 

measures are implemented with fidelity, you can see improvement. But the real 

credit lies with the teachers and principals, who are in the trenches doing the work. 

In the past, teachers in my district did not want to teach the classes with the 

highest numbers of struggling students. The way TAP is structured; it leads your 

best teachers to want to work with the students that are struggling the most which, 

traditionally have been our special education and English Language Learner students. They are able to show significant growth and improvement, and they are supported by a team of colleagues. The chart below exhibits Somerset ISD improvements in these subgroups: 


93078-1.eps
23 

As you know, TIF was established by Congress in 2006 to encourage States and 

districts to develop comprehensive programs to support effective classroom teaching 

and increased student academic achievement growth in high-need schools. 

What TAP did for us and what it does for others is create: 

• New teacher leadership roles and a school leadership team; • School-based professional development; • Accurate evaluation of performance; and • An opportunity for teachers to earn additional compensation. 

Here’s how it works and why it’s so successful. 

The TAP system increases the skills of all teachers by using teacher leaders in 

that school to raise instructional excellence across the faculty. Teacher leaders in 

each school form a leadership team with administrators that are responsible for setVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:29 Jan 09, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\93078.TXT CAROL

93078-2.eps 93078-3.eps
24 

ting school goals, providing school-based, job-embedded professional development, 

and conducting multiple performance evaluations of each teacher. Educators have 

the opportunity to earn additional compensation based on their own classroom performance, the performance of their students, the performance of the campus, and 

for taking on new leadership roles and responsibilities. 

This model creates a more cohesive and coherent approach to professional evaluation and development based on the needs of our students, and takes into account 

the specific instructional needs of their teachers. Perhaps the most important aspect 

of this approach is the way it enables teachers themselves to lead the effort to redefine instructional excellence at a higher level and to embed these higher standards 

in school culture, conversations and practices. 

Within each school’s leadership team, we have one master teacher for every 15– 

20 classroom teachers, and one mentor for every six to eight classroom teachers. 

Teachers must apply for these positions, and demonstrate effective instruction 

themselves, as well as an ability to coach and support other adults. They have ongoing training and accountability to ensure that they are providing high quality support for their peers. Most critical of all, we use time within the school day for professional learning ‘‘clusters’’ and ongoing coaching in classrooms, so that professional 

growth is a part of everyone’s job. Standards for teaching are spelled out and used 

in both evaluation and professional support, creating a common language around excellent instruction. 

In my district, principals are supported in developing distributed leadership 

teams that involve teacher leaders in analyzing data, setting school goals, planning 

how to meet those goals, supporting teachers in classrooms to make measurable 

progress, evaluating instruction and measuring whether goals have been met by 

meeting weekly with district instructional teams. 

This approach is working, not just in my district, but in schools across 10 States 

that have received support through TIF that are demonstrating significant, sustained increases in teacher skill and student achievement growth compared to comparable schools. We looked carefully at TAP and at schools and districts in other 

States using this approach as we considered using it. 


93078-4.eps
25 

The power of this teacher-centered approach is described by one of our veteran 

teachers, Joshua Harrison, who credits TAP feedback for improving his math teaching at Somerset’s junior high campus. Last school year, 158 of his 160 eighth-graders passed the State algebra test, including special-needs students and English-language learners. 

‘‘One of the reasons I stay here is because of TAP,’’ he said. ‘‘With the four observations, we can find out how to improve within the year. It’s helped push our thinking.’’ 

There are many other teachers such as Joshua Harrison who have pushed their 

thinking and accepted the TAP model. As a result, we improved our teacher retention rate at the junior high and high school. Surveys have illuminated that teachers 

appreciate the level of support they receive from district and campus staff to help 

them improve their craft. This support comes in the form of weekly cluster meetings, walk-throughs, and collaboration with colleagues to discuss research-based 

methodologies on how to improve their performance based on student data. 

In a national survey of across a broad range of schools using this approach, teachers strongly support the TAP System. I have found similar support among my faculty. 


93078-5.eps
26 

Principals report that this approach results in more effective teaching in their 

schools. Our results are similar to the national results. 

There is a real difference in results between TAP evaluations and current practice. To get such different results, you cannot just tinker around the edges. To 

achieve these results, you have to completely reset expectations. No longer can 90 

percent of teachers in a school be far above average. Resetting expectations is a 

critically important step and requires buy in and the active engagement of teachers. 

These reforms must be done with teachers and not to teachers. In TAP we have 

found that the system must have two goals—to measure performance and to support 

improvement. These two goals represent two distinct levers for change—one is to 


93078-6.eps 93078-7.eps
27 

produce sound data on teacher effectiveness for performance decisions, and the 

other is to provide individualized and intensive support to teachers to improve their 

instruction. Increases in teacher effectiveness then derive not only from attracting 

and retaining talented teachers but also from growing the talent of every teacher, 

every year. 

TAP’s instructional rubric is designed to be used to measure teacher practice and 

to guide improvements in that practice. The specificity of the rubric indicators provides teachers with a clear understanding of what is expected, and creates a conversation about good practice. Evaluators undergo 4 days of training as a team, with 

principals, master and mentor teachers training together, to become certified evaluators. This calibration process is essential in laying the foundation for accurate, 

consistent and reliable evaluations. 

TAP is not a one-size-fits-all, in fact, TAP helps us to create the scaffolding or 

structure into which we layer our own unique needs and priorities. We change our 

approach based on data and our own student needs. We now have in place a powerful structure for ensuring consistent delivery of strong instruction in every classroom. The approach we are using as a result of the TIF grant has provided an onthe-ground case study for other districts and the State as they move to support more 

effective instruction and revise teacher evaluation and support systems. I encourage 

you to authorize the Teacher Incentive Fund and allow other districts and States 

to benefit as we did. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir. 

Ms. Moore. 

STATEMENT OF RACHELLE MOORE, 1ST GRADE TEACHER, 

MADRONA K–8 SCHOOL, SEATTLE, WA 

Ms. MOORE. Thank you, Chairman Alexander, Senator Murray, 

and distinguished committee members, for the opportunity to speak 

today. My name is Rachelle Moore, and I am a National Board Certified Teacher and a proud member of the National Education Association. 

I have been teaching first grade at Madrona K–8 in Seattle for 

the past 5 years. At Madrona, the majority of my students are minorities, lack early educational experiences, and live in poverty. 

I grew up wanting to be a teacher like my dad, who has been 

teaching high school arts for the past 35 years. I decided to follow 

my childhood dreams and become a teacher, hoping to close the 

achievement gaps and empower the youth of the future—no easy 

feat, for sure. 

Every one of us supports the goal of student success and achievement. I would argue that those of us working directly in the field 

of education or in government shaping education policy have an 

even greater investment. It begins with asking: What is success? 

What is achievement? We also need to consider the unique challenges and circumstances of each student’s life. 

There is no way to measure the intangibles in a student’s life. 

There is no average student. Each student is shaped by individual 

experiences, and those experiences must be taken into consideration when shaping policies geared toward improving student success. 

Research shows that teachers are the most important schoolbased influence on student learning. Accordingly, every student deserves to be taught by an excellent teacher. To ensure that this is 

the case, we must do a better job of preparing and retaining highquality educators. The best way to do that is to invest in the continuum that includes teacher induction, professional growth, and 

teacher leadership. 

28 

I am pleased to say that unions, in conjunction with their school 

districts across the country, are working to enhance student learning with teacher induction programs based on the successful medical model. These programs pair novice teachers, or residents, with 

experienced teachers, mentors, for an entire year. Such programs 

not only strengthen the teacher pipeline, but they also provide rich 

professional development for all teachers. 

For the past 2 years, I have been a mentor with the Seattle 

Teacher Residency, which is unique in that it is driven by teacher 

voices. The residency program was created by the Seattle Education Association, the University of Washington, the Alliance for 

Education, and the Seattle Public Schools. This partnership identifies the unique needs of our district and makes sure that they are 

taking steps to support incoming teachers so that they can best 

serve our diverse population of students. 

A major goal of the residency is to keep participating residents 

in our school district in high-need schools for at least 5 years, thus 

providing continuity for our students and schools. Novice teachers 

are often placed in high-need schools in communities that lack key 

resources and, as a result, where the students face many challenges. 

Back in 2010, I was one of five new hires in my school. I have 

seen more than a dozen K–8 teachers hired since then. In 5 years, 

we have retained just three of the teachers that I started with in 

2010. Imagine how difficult it is to gain traction as a school and 

provide consistency for your students when each year you have to 

start fresh with a new batch of teachers. Imagine that half of those 

teachers have no prior teaching experience. 

Those are the realities in high-needs schools like mine and why 

it is so important to create and expand teacher residency programs, 

including opportunities for mentoring, professional development, 

and leadership training. 

Last year, I mentored a novice teacher named Kristen. I shared 

my knowledge of first grade content with her, and I demonstrated 

how to manage a classroom, engage students in academic discourse, and modify my instruction based on student learning. I 

served as Kristen’s coach, asking her questions and pushing her to 

reflect on teaching and learning. I made my decisions as a teacher 

visible by thinking aloud and providing the reasoning for what I 

was doing. 

In a lesson, if Kristen was observing me, I would often press 

pause and engage her in discussion about what was happening in 

a lesson and then what accommodations and adjustments I was 

making. Kristen now teaches kindergarten in a school with 7 of the 

22 graduates from the Seattle Teacher Residency Program. The 

principals and her peer teachers who work with them rave about 

how well-prepared they are. 

Students benefit greatly from this co-teaching model in which 

two teachers are committed to their success. The student-teacher 

ratio is lower, which allows us to differentiate instruction and 

spend more time working one-on-one with individual students. 

I am hopeful that all parties here today will work together on 

ESEA reauthorization to ensure that all students have equal educational opportunities and to provide the necessary resources to 

29 

support and retain great teachers. Ultimately, ESEA should invest 

in the continuum that includes teacher induction, professional 

growth, and teacher leadership. Professional learning opportunities 

are essential to keeping great teachers in the classroom and helping them to be data-driven, to identify what their students have 

mastered, what they need help in, and what kinds of help they 

need. 

Teachers are as unique as the students they serve. We adjust our 

lessons to help our students learn. We see what works and we see 

what does not work. We develop relationships within our schools, 

our school districts, and our States to help formulate the most effective teaching and learning practices. 

We are the ones in direct contact with students day in and day 

out. We are the ones most invested in student success, and we are 

highly trained and committed professionals. Invest in us. Trust and 

support us. 

Thank you for your time. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Moore follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RACHELLE MOORE

Thank you Chairman Alexander, Senator Murray, and distinguished committee 

members for the opportunity to speak today. 

Good morning, everyone. My name is Rachelle Moore and I am a National Board 

Certified Teacher and a proud member of the National Education Association. I 

have been teaching first grade at Madrona K–8 in Seattle for 5 years, where the 

kids do not have the opportunities I have been fortunate to have. At Madrona, the 

majority of students are minorities, lack early educational experiences, and live in 

poverty. 

I grew up wanting to be a teacher like my dad, who has been teaching high school 

arts for the past 35 years. As a child, I was fortunate to be afforded opportunities 

that helped prepare me to be a successful student, as well as for my career as a 

teacher. During my undergraduate years at the University of Washington, I took a 

detour and pursued a pharmacy career like my mom. Then I volunteered at 

Madrona and decided to follow my childhood dreams and become a teacher, hoping 

to close achievement gaps and empower the youth of the future—no easy feat for 

sure! 

Every one of us supports the goal of student success and achievement. I would 

argue that those of us working directly in the education field or in government 

shaping education policy have an even greater investment. It begins with asking: 

What is success? What is achievement? One measure of success is an individual student’s growth over the course of an academic year, but that is just part of the story. 

We also need to consider the unique challenges and circumstances of each student’s 

life. 

There is no way to measure the intangibles in a student’s life. There is no ‘‘average’’ student. Each student is shaped by individual experiences. Those experiences 

must be taken into consideration when shaping policies geared toward improving 

student success. 

Research shows that teachers are the most important school-based influence on 

student learning. Accordingly, every student deserves to be taught by an excellent 

teacher. To ensure that is the case, we must do a better job of preparing and retaining high-quality educators. And the best way to do that is to invest in the continuum that includes teacher induction, professional growth, and teacher 

leadership. (Source: Linda Darling-Hammond, The Flat World and Education: How 

America’s Commitment to Equity Will Determine Our Nation’s Future, 2010). 

I am pleased to say that unions in conjunction with their school districts across 

the country are working to enhance student learning with teacher induction programs based on the successful medical model. These programs pair novice teachers 

(residents) with experienced teachers (mentors) for an entire year. Such programs 

not only strengthen the teacher pipeline, they provide rich professional development. 

For the past 2 years, I have been a mentor in the Seattle Teacher Residency, 

which is unique in that it is driven by teacher voices. This residency program was 

created by the Seattle Education Association, the University of Washington, the AlVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:29 Jan 09, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\93078.TXT CAROL
30 

liance for Education and the Seattle Public Schools. The National Education Association has given a grant for the past several years to help support this program. 

This partnership identifies the needs of our school district and takes steps to ensure 

that incoming teachers have the training and support they need to serve our diverse 

population of students. For example, when mentors found that residents lacked assessment knowledge, we took action to change coursework and fill the gaps. In collaboration, we provide monthly training within our mentor group to help them develop into teacher leaders. 

A major goal of the Seattle Teacher Residency—shared by our network of community partners—is to keep participating residents and mentors in our school district 

for at least 5 years, thus providing continuity for our students and schools. Doing 

so is important because high-needs schools like mine often have difficulty retaining 

experienced and highly effective teachers. Novice teachers are often placed in highneed schools in communities that lack key resources and, as a result, where the students face many challenges. It’s a very challenging environment to be placed in 

without proper support from more experienced colleagues. 

Back in 2010, I was one of five new hires. I have seen more than a dozen K–8 

teachers hired since then. In 5 years, we have retained just three of the teachers 

I started with in 2010. Imagine how difficult it is to gain traction as a school and 

provide consistency for students when you have to start fresh with a new batch of 

teachers each year. Imagine that each year, half of those new teachers have no previous teaching experience. Imagine having a new administrator each year. Those 

are the realities in high-needs schools like mine and why it is so important to create 

and expand teacher residency programs, including opportunities for mentoring, professional development, and leadership training. 

I chose to be a mentor because I believed in the investment the program makes 

in all teachers and wanted to help prepare new teachers to be accomplished in their 

practice. The co-teaching model our program uses also addresses student outcomes. 

Using student work as the basis for instruction, we help novice teachers develop 

their skills in planning, teaching, and assessing student progress. We also reflect 

on ways to improve teaching and learning, gradually releasing responsibility to 

those we mentor. 

Last year, for example, I mentored a novice teacher named Kristen. I shared my 

knowledge of first-grade content with her and demonstrated how to manage a classroom, engage students in academic discourse, and modify instruction based on student learning. I served as Kristen’s coach, asking questions and pushing her to reflect on teaching and learning. I made my decisions as a teacher visible by thinking 

aloud and providing the reasoning for what I was doing. When Kristen observed me, 

I often pressed ‘‘pause’’ and engaged her in discussion about what was happening 

in a lesson and the adjustments I was making. Kristen saw how I encouraged student participation and used assessment to analyze student growth and adjust instruction to meet our students’ needs. I also helped Kristen learn to navigate the 

school district bureaucracy—everything from taking attendance to finding a substitute teacher. All of this helped smooth her transition from student to teacher. 

Kristen now teaches kindergarten in a school with 7 of the 22 graduates of the Seattle Teacher Residency Program. The principals and peer teachers who work with 

them rave about how well-prepared they are. 

Students benefit greatly from the co-teaching model in which two teachers are 

committed to the success of each student. The student-teacher ratio is lower, which 

allows us to differentiate instruction and spend more time working one-on-one with 

individual students. Instead of providing individualized instruction for just some of 

our students each day, with co-teaching we can meet the needs of all 20 of our students every day. Just last week, for example, my current resident Ben and I employed a strategy called parallel teaching: splitting the class in half to provide more 

opportunities for student participation and gathering data used to plan future lessons. 

I am also proud of my work with National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. Both the residency program and board certification have provided invaluable 

learning experiences for me as a teacher, helping me grow in my practice as I strive 

to make the invisible visible to novice teachers. I have opened the doors of my classroom to colleagues and engaged in authentic discussions of teaching and learning. 

I have become an instructional leader in my school and district, and helped improved student learning beyond my own classroom. 

I am hopeful that all parties will work together on ESEA reauthorization to ensure all students have equal educational opportunities. I am also hopeful that reauthorization will provide the resources necessary to support and retain teachers, such 

as investing in residency models and mentoring programs. Ultimately ESEA should 

invest in the continuum of the education profession that includes teacher induction, 

31 

professional growth, and teacher leadership. Professional learning opportunities are 

essential to keeping great teachers in the classroom and helping them use data effectively: to identify what their students have mastered, where they need help, and 

what kinds of help they need. That means providing resources and support for the 

whole child—like good nutrition and health care—not just investing in high-quality 

teaching. 

Teachers are as unique as the students they serve. We adjust our lessons to help 

our students learn. We see what works and what does not. We develop relationships 

within our schools, our school districts, and our States to help formulate effective 

teaching and learning practice. We are highly trained and committed professionals, 

the ones most invested in student success, the ones in direct contact with students 

day in and day out. Listen to our voices. Invest in us. Trust and support us. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Dr. Handy-Collins. 

STATEMENT OF CHRISTINE HANDY-COLLINS, PRINCIPAL, 

GAITHERSBURG HIGH SCHOOL, GAITHERSBURG, MD 

Ms. HANDY-COLLINS. Chairman Alexander, Ranking Member 

Murray, and committee members, thank you for inviting me here 

today to discuss how ESEA can better support teachers and school 

leaders. My name is Christine Handy-Collins, and I am the proud 

principal of Gaithersburg High School, a comprehensive diverse 

high school with more than 2,200 students and 250 employees in 

Montgomery County, MD. 

My 16 years as a high school principal include leadership in 

large urban and small rural schools, prior to which I spent 10 years 

as a special education teacher. I also serve on the board of directors 

for the National Association of Secondary School Principals and 

would like to speak on behalf of my fellow middle and high school 

leaders. 

My experience, the experience of my colleagues, and 10 years of 

rigorous research by The Wallace Foundation prove one large reality: school leadership matters. A nation must invest in the recruitment, preparation, and ongoing support of principals if we 

want each student in every school to succeed. The reauthorization 

of ESEA gives Congress the perfect opportunity to provide that 

support to school leaders. 

It takes at least 5 years to create real, sustainable school improvement, and leadership continuity is an essential condition for 

student success. But because of lack of support, one-fourth of principals leave after 1 year, and one-half of all principals leave after 

just 3 years on the job. That means most high school principals are 

not in place long enough to see their freshman class graduate. 

Our Nation’s students and schools are already paying a significant cost as a result of this high turnover. Resources would be far 

better spent on the front end to develop and support principals so 

they are ready on day 1 and stay on the job to see their initiatives 

through. States and school districts must be directed to exert greater efforts to recruit, prepare, and retain principals, especially for 

high-need schools. 

I am proud to say that we get it right in Montgomery County 

with two crucial elements of principal preparation. First, a 1-year 

principal internship program to allow promising leaders to gain 

hands-on instructional leadership experiences. Second, an intensive 

mentorship and professional development program to ensure candidates are prepared to lead schools. 

32 

These district efforts are reinforced by the Maryland State Department of Education and its promising Principals Academy, a 

year-long experience in which statewide cohorts of aspiring principals work with accomplished school leaders to build leadership 

skills. Unfortunately, my colleagues across the Nation do not all 

have the same opportunities. 

For this reason, Congress should provide dedicated funding for 

professional development for principals. Title II is the primary resource of Federal funds to improve principal quality. ESEA bundles 

principal development in a vast assortment of allowable uses of 

funds. 

The reality is that principal professional learning and growth 

competes with teacher development, class-size reduction, and other 

priorities once Federal funds arrive to the district. As a result, the 

U.S. Department of Education found that districts use only 4 percent of title II dollars for principal professional development. The 

ESEA draft currently under discussion makes the conditions worse 

by adding even more allowable uses for title II funds. 

I have benefited enormously in my professional life from the 

guidance and development from my district and from our State and 

national principal organizations. As State budgets tighten, that 

professional development becomes less and less accessible. 

Congress recently instructed the Department of Education to provide guidance to States to support specialized principal development opportunities. The Nation’s leading principal organizations 

have proposed a 10 percent set-aside for principal professional development. I encourage the committee to take that recommendation 

to heart. 

Not only does Congress need to provide direction on principal 

professional development, but principal evaluation as well. An educator’s evaluation must be more informative than punitive. The 

new principal evaluation systems being developed by States and 

districts rely far too heavily, as much as 50 percent, on student 

achievement data and not factors under their direct control. 

Of course, the ultimate goal of our work is to improve student 

performance. When we fast forward directly to a test score, we miss 

the opportunity to evaluate and develop principals in other areas 

that lead to school success, such as school culture and the support 

and engagement of teachers and parents and the community. 

Limiting achievement data to 25 percent of a principal’s evaluation, as the research suggests, and tying the evaluation to a professional growth plan in these areas will increase the chances for genuine school improvement. 

Thank you for the opportunity to share these comments, and I 

look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Handy-Collins follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHRISTINE HANDY-COLLINS

FIXING NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND: SUPPORTING TEACHERS AND SCHOOLS LEADERS

Chairman Alexander, Ranking Member Murray, and members of the committee, 

thank you for inviting me here today to discuss how the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act (ESEA) can better support teachers and school leaders. My name is 

Christine Handy and I am the proud principal of Gaithersburg High School in Gaithersburg, MD. I also serve on the board of directors for the National Association 

33 

of Secondary School Principals (NASSP) and would like to speak on behalf of my 

fellow middle and high school leaders. 

I was a special education teacher for 10 years before beginning my career as a 

school leader. I have served as a high school principal for the past 16 years in a 

charter school, a small rural school, and presently, a large, diverse, comprehensive 

public high school in Montgomery County, MD. Gaithersburg High School has more 

than 2,200 students and 250 employees. 

I attended The George Washington University’s Education Leadership program to 

prepare for my first school leadership experience. The preparation program concluded with an internship experience where I had the opportunity to oversee a summer school program at a public middle School in Norfolk, VA. I continued in the 

doctoral program at The George Washington University and while my classwork focused largely on being an effective school leader, my research focused on leadership 

at the superintendent level. My preparation for being an effective school leader has 

depended primarily on professional development offered by the school district, the 

State department of education, and State and national principal associations where 

I have had the opportunity to attend in-person conferences, participate in online 

professional development, and learn by networking with colleagues from across the 

State and the Nation. 

Montgomery County Public Schools values professional development for school 

leaders and teachers and has allocated funds and staffing dedicated for this purpose. The district has a principal internship program to allow promising leaders the 

opportunity to serve as principals to gain valuable experience. Assistant principals 

also go through an intensive training program with mentors and receive ongoing 

professional development to ensure that they are prepared to lead schools. 

At the State level, the Maryland Department of Education has dedicated Principal 

Academies for new leaders and ongoing teacher and principal summer workshops. 

The Maryland Association of Secondary School Principals, Maryland Association of 

Elementary School Principals, and their affiliated national organizations demonstrate a dedication to professional development by offering ongoing workshops 

and conferences that are committed to the vision of providing excellent school leaders in every school. 

IMPORTANCE OF SCHOOL LEADERSHIP

Great schools do not exist apart from great leaders, and strong school leadership 

is essential for ensuring student success. For more than a decade, the Wallace Foundation has sponsored rigorous research on school leadership, which has led to the 

finding that there is an ‘‘empirical link between school leadership and improved student achievement.’’ Principals are recognized for their ability to influence a variety 

of factors that indirectly affect student outcomes and directly influence schools, including their ability to support teachers and create the conditions necessary for 

high-functioning schools. The research from the Wallace Foundation about successful schools is clear: A great teacher gets great results in a classroom, but only a 

principal can lead a school to success in all classrooms for each students’ success 

and create the culture for sustaining long-term improvements. 

ESEA REAUTHORIZATION

Principals respectfully request that Congress work to refocus the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act to help put in place State and local education systems that 

will provide robust, meaningful accountability together with sufficient supports for 

educators and schools. The law is in dire need of this redirection to provide highquality educational opportunities and improved outcomes for all students. 

SUPPORT FOR PRINCIPALS

Today’s principals are expected to be visionary leaders, instructional experts, 

building managers, assessment specialists, disciplinarians, counselors, social workers, community builders, and more; they are also held directly responsible for student achievement in our Nation’s schools. With the growing demands, changing demographics, and increased accountability to prepare students to be college and 

career-ready, the job imposes excessive demands on time and burnout is common. 

If principals are to meet the growing and evolving expectations of this demanding 

position, they must be provided ongoing personalized professional development to 

meet their individual and school needs. This is true for all school leaders, regardless 

of their initial preparation or their length of service. To meet these demands, ongoing mentoring, job-embedded professional development, and the time to participate 

in professional learning communities to learn from their peers are necessary to support all school leaders. 

34 

RECRUITMENT AND PREPARATION

States and districts must be directed to put in place more rigorous efforts to recruit and prepare principals and assistant principals to be instructional leaders and 

improve student academic achievement in high-need schools through research-based 

programs. In recruiting the next generation of profession-ready school leaders, Federal policy should support State and school districts efforts to ensure that: 

• School districts put structures in place to ensure a principal continuum. 

• Prospective principals commit to work in high-need schools in both urban and 

rural environments. 

• Prospective principals reflect the increasing racial, ethnic, and economic diversity of our Nation’s students. 

To ensure that new principals or assistant principals are profession-ready, candidates should have an advanced degree and demonstrated record of success as a 

teacher and teacher leader. Individuals with strong instructional backgrounds make 

better instructional leaders and are better able to relate to and lead teachers, as 

well as identify and model effective classroom practices. 

Congress should enact policies to ensure that every principal and school leader 

enters a school with the skills and qualities necessary to effectively lead a school. 

Legislation should support principal preparation programs that require candidates 

to demonstrate leadership competencies through an assessment prior to entry into 

a qualified principal preparation and certification program that includes partnerships between districts and local preparation programs. This will help ensure that 

the preparation programs, including curriculum and residencies, are clearly aligned 

with the realities of school leadership and the ‘‘critical success factors’’ of an effective principal. Furthermore, qualified school leader candidates must complete a 1- 

year principal residency program under the guidance of an accomplished school 

leader. Additionally, upon completion of their preparation program, aspiring principals should demonstrate a deep understanding of the domains of effective school 

leadership and related competencies through a performance-based assessment before commencing work as school leaders. 

NASSP strongly supports the School Principal Recruitment and Training Act, and 

we’re very pleased that Senator Franken will be reintroducing the bill this Congress. The level of preparation required by grantees in the bill is critical for every 

principal to enter the profession ready and properly equipped to improve student 

achievement and to be an effective instructional leader. 

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Professional development for principals has been largely overlooked by States and 

local districts, because the primary source of funds for principal development—title 

II—bundles principal development in a vast assortment of ‘‘allowable uses of funds.’’ 

As a result, according to a 2013 Department of Education survey, districts use only 

4 percent of title II dollars for principal professional development, falling far short 

of what States and districts should be doing to support principals to meet the increased demands as instructional leaders of schools. Meanwhile, a majority of the 

funds have been spent by districts to reduce class size, which some may say has 

little effect on teacher and principal quality—the named purpose of this section of 

the law. Research and evidence over the past 10 years substantiate the role of principals and prove that they have an impact on student performance, second only to 

teachers in the classroom. 

Given their importance as the key catalysts for school improvement, ESEA and 

title II funds must be refocused on providing professional development for principals 

and assistant principals in a manner that effectively supports their role as instructional leaders. This is even more imperative for those school leaders serving in highneed schools so that they have the knowledge, skills, and resources necessary to improve school and student achievement, and support and improve the instructional 

practice of educators in the classroom. Furthermore, the law must afford principals 

proper training to help them improve teacher quality in their schools. 

NASSP, together with the National Association of Elementary School Principals 

(NAESP), released policy recommendations in 2013 to better support principals in 

implementing new teacher evaluation systems. The report found that there has been 

insufficient training to complete teacher evaluations that will allow principals to differentiate performance and engage in a high level of instructional coaching, provide 

meaningful feedback to teachers, and use evaluation results to inform decisionmaking in their schools. 

We respectfully encourage you to include robust provisions in a reauthorized 

ESEA that will support principal professional development, including a requirement 

35 

that districts who receive title II funding allocate no less than 10 percent of the 

funds available for professional development for elementary, middle, and high school 

principals to improve instructional leadership. This must be a separate section of 

the reauthorized law to ensure that principals are afforded the recognition and proper support in executing their leadership role in schools successfully. 

PRINCIPAL EVALUATION

Principals are concerned about the new evaluation systems that are being developed by States and districts that were a condition for receiving ESEA flexibility 

waivers. We feel that Congress has a responsibility now to provide guidance to State 

and local efforts in order to support effective principal evaluation systems that will 

lead to improved performance. An effective evaluation system is collaboratively developed; provides meaningful feedback to the individual principal; is based on multiple measures; and takes into account student growth as well as evidence of effective school leadership practices. According to the latest research related to principal 

evaluation, the Nation’s most prominent principals organizations recommend that 

no more than a quarter of a principal’s evaluation be based on student achievement 

and growth. Further, any principal evaluation system must be tied to professional 

improvement plans for principals and have a strong focus on six key domains of 

leadership responsibility within a principal’s sphere of influence. These domains are 

school leadership; student growth and achievement; school planning and progress; 

school culture; stakeholder support and engagement; professional qualities and practices; and professional growth and learning. 

PATHWAYS FOR PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP

In a reauthorized ESEA, Congress must provide support for school districts to enhance leadership capacity through a full range of leadership roles for assistant principals, early career principals, and veteran school administrators. In order to develop strong instructional leaders to mentor and support the pipeline of future 

school leaders, accomplished educational leaders must be supported to: 

• Cultivate their understanding of leadership and school improvement processes 

to meet high levels of performance; 

• Help novice principals gain a clear vision of instructional leadership; 

• Engage stakeholders in developing and realizing excellence in instructional 

leadership; and 

• Participate in meaningful community engagement and advocacy on behalf of 

their students, teachers and schools. 

Sustained improvement in schools takes no less than 5 years to put in place, and 

leadership continuity during those 5 years is absolutely essential. Yet the most recent data indicates that one-fourth of principals leave after 11⁄2 years, and half of 

all principals, leave after 3 years on the job. That means most high school principals 

are not in place long enough to see their freshman class graduate. More important, 

those principals are not in place long enough to see their school improvement efforts 

all the way through. Efforts are rebooted with the arrival of each new principal. I 

submit that States and districts are already paying a significant cost for unfulfilled 

improvement efforts as a result of principal turnover. Those resources would be far 

better spent on the front end to support principals so they will stay on the job long 

enough to see their initiatives through. That leadership continuity is an essential 

condition for student success. It is a condition the Federal Government is uniquely 

positioned to advance with its next reauthorization of ESEA. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Dr. Handy-Collins, and thanks to all 

of you for being here. We’ll now begin a series of 5-minute questions. 

Dr. Holliday, let me begin with you. Since I only have 5 minutes, 

I’m going to ask short questions, and let me see if I can elicit some 

short answers. You’re a former president of the Chief State School 

Officers, right? 

[No verbal response.] 

The CHAIRMAN. For the last 30 years or so, you’ve been working 

together to development—the Chief State School Officers—to develop standards, tests, accountability systems. Am I correct about 

that? 

Mr. HOLLIDAY. Yes, sir. 

36 

The CHAIRMAN. You said in your testimony that you don’t think 

Washington should—well, let me ask you this. If you were reauthorizing No Child Left Behind, do you favor keeping the 17 Federal tests? 

Mr. HOLLIDAY. Yes, sir. The chiefs favor annual assessment, but 

there are different ways you can get at annual assessment. We 

support annual assessment with some innovation ability to look differently at something other than just an annual multiple choice 

test. 

The CHAIRMAN. Do you favor the disaggregation of the results? 

Mr. HOLLIDAY. Absolutely, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. So you favor that. Then we get to the question, 

which is sometimes contentious, about who decides whether a 

school or a teacher is succeeding or failing, and what are the consequences of that. We call that the accountability system. Now, 

Kentucky, I gather, has its own accountability system. 

Mr. HOLLIDAY. Yes. We were able to be a little creative with the 

waiver. Now we’re getting a little micromanagement with the waiver. 

The CHAIRMAN. What would you say to those people who believe 

that if we have the Federal tests and if we disaggregate the results, we can’t trust Kentucky or other States to come up with their 

own ways to decide whether a school or a teacher is succeeding or 

failing and what the consequences should be? Some people say that 

would be moving backward. 

Mr. HOLLIDAY. They’re definitely stuck in the 1980s, because the 

chiefs now—if you look at the work in the last 5 to 10 years, you 

see dramatic change in responsibility and accountability from the 

chiefs. And don’t forget, I serve on the NAGB board, and every 2 

years you get the truth. So States might be able to—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Which is the National Assessment of—— 

Mr. HOLLIDAY. That’s right, National Assessment of Educational 

Progress. You get a State-by-State ranking. You get the breakouts 

by the demographics. It’s a treasure trove of data to hold States accountable. 

The CHAIRMAN. Kentucky began some time ago its work on 

teacher effectiveness. Why do you not think that the U.S. Department of Education should approve—or do you think it should approve what you do about teacher effectiveness in Kentucky? 

Mr. HOLLIDAY. Oh, it was the issue of guiding principles becoming micromanagement. We worked for 3 years to get a matrix system at our unions and had buy-in from everybody. We sent the 

waiver in, and one cell in one little page—‘‘Oh, we’re not going to 

approve your waiver again if you don’t fix that.’’ That’s micromanagement, and that’s what the chiefs are very much against. It 

usually happens when you move from general principles to actually 

monitoring and overseeing the waivers. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Moore, in April, Washington State’s waiver 

was revoked by Secretary Duncan because that State legislature 

wouldn’t pass legislation requiring standardized test results to be 

used in teacher-principal evaluation systems. Instead, the law in 

Washington allows local school districts to decide which tests they 

use. 

37 

Now, you’re a proud member of the National Education Association. What would you say to those who say that if we just turn it 

all back to Washington that the teachers’ union will stop good 

teacher evaluation systems in your school district or in your State? 

Ms. MOORE. Well, I believe—I mean, we definitely need measures to indicate student growth and to identify gaps and to make 

sure that there is accountability. From my own experience, I know 

that there’s a number of other indicators that can be used beyond 

just testing. 

I know what my expectations are in order to make sure that a 

first grader is prepared to go on into second grade successfully and 

so forth. I would also say that—— 

The CHAIRMAN. If I may interrupt, who do you think should be 

making those decisions? Do you think those should be made here, 

or do you think Washington State or Tennessee or Texas or Kentucky should be developing their own standards for whether teachers are succeeding or failing and what the consequences are? 

Ms. MOORE. I guess I believe in the ground-up idea that we’re 

really listening to teachers’ voices and that it should be a more personalized system where teachers have some buy-in in that. We 

should be able to trust the system and believe in it, knowing that 

it’s part of a larger professional growth system. 

As teachers, we’re professional, and we’re committed to this 

work. We want to grow, and we want our students to learn. I 

would argue that teachers should have some say in that, and that 

it should be knowing the students in the area that you’re teaching 

in. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Hinojosa, my time is up. I simply want to underscore and 

thank you for your comments about the Teacher Incentive Fund 

which Secretary Spellings recommended and Secretary Arne Duncan has strongly endorsed and which is an important way, I believe, to help local school districts come up with their own ways of 

evaluating teachers and relating student achievement to teacher 

performance. 

Senator Murray. 

Senator MURRAY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Moore, I know that teaching in a high-poverty school, you 

and your colleagues face some real challenges on a daily basis. 

Now, you have decided to continue teaching at your school, even as 

a lot of the colleagues that you mentioned have left. And because 

you’re a terrific teacher, you’ve been chosen to be a mentor to support new teachers that you talked about as they get into the classroom. 

Can you talk about how the support you received enabled you to 

stick with teaching in your school, including being able to take a 

leadership role in the profession? 

Ms. MOORE. Well, I would just say that, definitely, all of those 

professional learning opportunities and opportunities to become a 

teacher leader have been something that I invested in myself in 

order to advance myself as an educator. It all goes back to the student learning piece, where I want to stay in the school because I 

see the changes that I’m able to make with students. 

38 

I’ve been invested in by the local union, whether that be through 

my National Board Certification—they provided me with opportunities to be a part of a cohort and go through that process with a 

mentor who had done National Boards, as well as the Washington 

Education Association provided jump start preparation programs. 

Seeing that buy-in from the State and the local level has really 

shown me that they’re very invested in accomplished practice, and 

that has helped me continue to believe that I’m going to be able 

to do great things and, hopefully, encourage others, such as in the 

mentoring program, to become teacher leaders themselves and be 

on that board trajectory toward board certification one day. 

Senator MURRAY. So that extra investment and attention support 

was critical in you staying in a very tough environment? 

Ms. MOORE. Absolutely, yes. 

Senator MURRAY. Dr. Goldhaber, in your testimony you highlighted research on teacher quality showing that any way you cut 

the data, poor kids, kids of color, get less than their fair share 

when it comes to effective instruction. Can you describe those findings to us on this committee and talk about why it’s so important 

that we change those patterns? 

Mr. GOLDHABER. Well, describe the findings—there are studies 

that look both within States—Washington State being one of 

them—and across States and look at the probability that a student 

of a particular race or ethnicity or a student who is eligible or not 

eligible for free or reduced-price lunch is likely to be taught by a 

more experienced teacher or a teacher who is nationally board certified or a teacher who seems to produce large student learning 

gains on standardized tests. 

No matter how you cut the data, the probability is lower that minority students and economically disadvantaged students are likely 

to have access to those more experienced, more effective teachers. 

Why is it important? It’s important because we now know the impact that teachers have on long-term academic and labor market 

success. I think that it’s part of an equal opportunity society and 

realizing the American dream that the public institutions we have 

should do the best job they can to give disadvantaged students an 

opportunity to succeed. 

Senator MURRAY. And the best way to do that is with a highly 

effective teacher. 

Mr. GOLDHABER. There are lots of things that affect student 

achievement. My read on the education literature that among the 

things over which schools have control, the best way to do it is a 

highly effective teacher. 

Senator MURRAY. Dr. Handy-Collins, I have heard from principals in my State that they are not receiving the professional development and support that they need. I know I don’t need to tell 

you that effective school leaders play a really critical and important 

role in students’ academic success, especially in our high-need 

schools. 

How important is it that we provide a dedicated source of funds 

to support and retain effective principals? 

Ms. HANDY-COLLINS. It is very important that we provide funding for professional development for our school leaders, because we 

are in a time where our schools are more diverse, we have change 

39 

in accountability as well as different assessments, and we’re preparing students for the 21st century. We want all of our students 

to be college- and career-ready, and to lead those efforts in a school 

today requires a different kind of training. 

It’s important that we provide professional development at the 

local levels, at State levels, and also it’s important for our leaders 

to learn from each other and be able to participate in a professional 

learning community, not just at the local level but on the State and 

national levels as well. 

Senator MURRAY. So at the Federal level, if we don’t have a dedicated source of funding for funds to support and retain effective 

principals, what would happen? 

Ms. HANDY-COLLINS. Well, I think that we can only ensure 

that—we won’t know that States are consistently implementing 

professional development for our school leaders. It gets hidden in 

one of those things that you can use for—what you can use the 

funds for—rather than what you must use the funds for. So we’re 

advocating for dedicated funding toward principal and school leader 

professional development. 

Senator MURRAY. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thanks, Senator Murray. 

Senator Cassidy. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR CASSIDY

Senator CASSIDY. Dr. Goldhaber, a couple of things. I’m not a 

teacher. Well, I am a teacher. I teach with a medical school, and 

so I have some experience. Pobably my main experience is that my 

son graduated from an inner city school, 80 percent minority, kind 

of a tough neighborhood sort of thing, with an occasional murder 

off the block. 

How do you define access? Where my son attended school, there 

were great teachers. He’s now at an Ivy League school. Yet it was 

an 80 percent minority school and probably didn’t do very well in 

the standardized testing. Is access defined as the child actually 

being in the classroom with the teacher, or having the option to be 

in the classroom with the teacher? Do you follow what I’m saying? 

How do you define access? 

Mr. GOLDHABER. I want to be really clear that what I’m talking 

about is probability. Certainly, I don’t want to suggest that disadvantaged students never or rarely have access to effective or 

highly credentialed teachers. That’s not true. 

Senator CASSIDY. So you’re looking at macro data? 

Mr. GOLDHABER. I’m talking about probabilities, and access is defined, in terms of the studies I’m thinking of, at the classroom 

level. 

Senator CASSIDY. I got you. If the child is in the classroom. 

Mr. GOLDHABER. That’s correct. 

Senator CASSIDY. Second, I’ve read several things that the annual testing poorly correlates between a teacher and a child’s performance. And yet you suggest that, no, you’re quite able to evaluate a teacher with longitudinal data in terms of how that child 

does. Is that a fair statement? You seem to find value where others 

do not. 

40 

Mr. GOLDHABER. I think that the research is pretty definitive, 

that any form of evaluation is imperfect, and that one way that we 

can evaluate teachers is based on their contribution to student 

learning gains on standardized tests, so-called value-added—— 

Senator CASSIDY. Please be brief. We have limited time. 

Mr. GOLDHABER. I do think that there’s evidence suggesting that 

that measure is connected to students’ later success. 

Senator CASSIDY. So you must have regression analysis within 

that. Can you give me your top four, actually give me the top two. 

What are the top two predictors on regression analysis, independent variables, on a student’s success, a teacher’s success, and 

a school’s success? Can you do that? 

Mr. GOLDHABER. No, because I’m not quite sure I understand the 

question. 

Senator CASSIDY. If you put in a variable, if you have a child who 

is of a certain demographic in a suburban school, but he does well, 

and you put the same child of the same demographic in an urban 

school and he does well, you have to correct for the demography of 

that child. So that’s the only way you would know whether or not 

the teachers were doing well, et cetera. What are your top two predictors of those? 

Mr. GOLDHABER. I would say that if you’re going to predict student success, probably the best predictor is a measure of family income or mother’s or father’s education level. Then when you start 

to look into schooling variables—— 

Senator CASSIDY. Is there a second variable you would throw in 

there? Because that was not correlated with the teacher. 

Mr. GOLDHABER. I would say family—I’m sorry. I thought you 

wanted to know the predictors of student achievement. 

Senator CASSIDY. Yes, I did. But it’s not the teacher. It’s not the 

principal. It’s not the school. It’s the parents’ educational level? 

Mr. GOLDHABER. That would be my top predictor. 

Senator CASSIDY. And your second? 

Mr. GOLDHABER. Parents’ income level. My third would probably 

be the quality of educators that students have. 

Senator CASSIDY. Now, with teachers, what are the top two variables? 

Mr. GOLDHABER. The top two variables predicting how successful 

they are as a teacher? 

Senator CASSIDY. Yes. 

Mr. GOLDHABER. I think the best prediction of how successful 

someone is going to be is how successful they’ve been in the past. 

Senator CASSIDY. OK. Past is prologue. Now, you mentioned how 

Teach for America really has very little difference from someone 

who goes through formal training. Teach for America goes into 

urban schools, really bad schools. I’m impressed. After one of the 

hurricanes in New Orleans, a couple of them stayed in my house, 

and we had a long conversation. 

Now, if you correlate the student achievement of a child in a TFA 

classroom versus someone in the same school, presumable same demographics, is there a difference between those TFAs and the 

teachers who are more traditionally trained? 

Mr. GOLDHABER. There are relatively little differences. Some 

studies suggest that Teach for America teachers tend to be more 

41 

successful, particularly at the secondary level in mathematics. The 

studies vary. I would say—I would characterize the research as a 

whole as suggesting relatively little difference between TFA teachers and traditionally trained teachers. 

Senator CASSIDY. I’m going to go back to my regression analysis, 

because if the TFA student is in the toughest school, you would 

want to be comparing that teacher to a teacher in that same tough 

school with the same demographics, the same parental education 

and income levels. Do the studies do that? 

Mr. GOLDHABER. Yes. That is exactly what you would want to be 

doing. The studies that I’m talking about do, in fact, adjust for the 

circumstance in which teachers are teaching. 

Senator CASSIDY. Again, you find some improvement in mathematics, but otherwise, these highly motivated kids with great 

verbal skills are still little able to impact kids who are otherwise 

anchored down by a terrible family life or a less advantageous family life, et cetera. 

Mr. GOLDHABER. I wouldn’t characterize it as little able to impact. I would say that when I’m describing how effective one program is or one path of entry is relative to another that it is relative 

to another. That does not suggest that the teachers are not having 

an impact on student learning. It suggests that it’s comparable. 

Senator CASSIDY. I got you. Thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Cassidy. 

Senator Bennet. 

Senator BENNET. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and—— 

Senator MIKULSKI. Senator Bennet, could you just hold 1 second? 

Senator BENNET. Yes, of course. 

Senator MIKULSKI. Mr. Chairman, I ask the indulgence of the 

committee that I be excused. We’re about to lose 500 jobs in Salisbury, MD, and I’m going to meet with the CEO of the company to 

try to save those jobs. I’m for you, but I’ve got a couple of other 

things—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Mikulski, and thanks for 

coming today on such a busy day. 

Senator Bennet. 

Senator BENNET. I have no idea who the CEO is, but I like your 

chances, Senator Mikulski. 

[Laughter.] 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR BENNET

Mr. Chairman, thank you. I want to say to you and to the Ranking Member thank you so much for the way you’re approaching this 

work. To me, as I sit here, I think about all the teachers across the 

country that are teaching right now, including teaching the three 

Bennet girls in the Denver Public Schools today, and the work that 

they are putting in and the fact that this Congress—not just this 

Congress, but a sequence of Congresses have been unable to fix 

this law for now 7 or 8 years while they are doing everything they 

can try to do to drive student achievement. It’s a national embarrassment. 

It is my hope—and I know that the Ranking Member and the 

Chairman feel the same way—that finally, this time, we can get a 

result and we can actually make a small contribution to actually 

42 

driving achievement in this country. Everybody in this room should 

bow down to Ms. Moore, because there isn’t anybody in the country 

that has a harder job than somebody who’s teaching in a highpoverty school. 

I can tell you the members of this panel don’t have a job remotely as hard as the job that she’s doing. Yet we have been unable to fix this law, and it is time for us to do it, because the stakes 

are really high. 

All of you have touched on some elements that have made it better for teachers in this country. If you’ve got a great principal, that 

helps. If you’ve got a committed faculty that is rowing in the same 

direction, that really helps. If you’re paid respectfully, that helps. 

But we’re swimming against the tide. I think the chairman 

raises very important questions about who’s responsible for what 

part of this, and I agree that it’s something that we ought to work 

on. As a Nation, whoever’s responsibility it is, we have fallen down 

on the job. 

We have a system of training teachers, of recruiting teachers, of 

hiring teachers, of giving teachers professional development, of 

paying teachers that belongs to a labor market that discriminated 

against women and assume that we get the ones that decided not 

to be nurses. The likelihood was that you’d get the best British literature student in her class to be a teacher, but that likelihood is 

gone, thank goodness, because many people—women are able to do 

many other things. 

The idea that somebody is going to come and teach for 30 years 

at a ridiculously low compensation compared to what anyone else 

in her college class would be paid for the benefit of a pension that’s 

not going to be there 30 years from now is completely illusory. 

Here’s what I’d like to ask you guys. 

If this country really wanted to attract the best folks in their college class to teaching, what would we do? Would we say to them, 

‘‘If you come and teach in a high-poverty school, your student debt 

is forgiven, and you don’t have to pay us back’’? Would we pay 

starting teachers dramatically more than what we pay them? 

There’s a lot of attention paid to whether we should get rid of 

lousy teachers, and I’ll stipulate that I think we should get rid of 

lousy teachers. We don’t spend any time—or very little time—on 

the question of how we deal with the fact that we’re losing 50 percent of the teaching workforce in the first 5 years of the profession. 

That’s not going to result in good outcomes for our kids. I would 

just turn it over to the panel—anybody who would like to answer 

that. 

Ms. Moore, I’ll call on you first. 

Ms. MOORE. Well, I would just say that there’s obviously—— 

Senator BENNET. And I will bow down to you. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. MOORE. Thank you. There’s some inherent goodness in wanting teachers to work in schools and to work with students. That’s 

always been something that I wanted to do growing up with a dad 

as a teacher, and then I actually had—my mom, who is here today, 

is a pharmacist, and for a while, when I was at the University of 

Washington, I was going to pursue pharmacy, because that did look 

43 

more—I’d get better pay and what-not. Deep down, I always cared 

and wanted to work with students. 

I would just say that from a teacher’s standpoint, the reason why 

teachers maybe aren’t staying and we’re seeing retention problems 

in my school is because they’re feeling so overwhelmed by all of the 

stuff that we’re trying to do. We talk about—a kid can come into 

the classroom. The moment they walk in the door, some kids have 

a complete disadvantage compared to their peers. 

I know that in my school, sometimes we feel like we’re doing the 

job of a social worker and a teacher. I’m constantly trying to support that whole child, because until I can have them come into the 

classroom and feel like they are ready to learn, they’ve been well 

fed, and they feel safe—that’s a whole job in and of itself beyond 

teaching. 

Senator BENNET. Dr. Goldhaber, I’m almost out of time. Do you 

have anything you’d like to add? 

Mr. GOLDHABER. Well, ultimately, I think we need to do things 

to elevate the status of teachers. In this country, one of the ways 

that status is established is with salary. I think that salary is a 

real key. I’m a data-driven guy, so I would urge you to take a look 

at research on the Teacher Equity Project Charter School in New 

York City, because I think that they’re doing some interesting 

things. 

What they’re doing is they’re paying starting teachers a great 

deal of money, $125,000, and they’re doing it within the existing 

school budget by reallocating other resources in the school. The initial results from the study of the Teacher Equity Project looked 

very promising. 

Senator BENNET. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Bennet. 

Senator Burr. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR BURR

Senator BURR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m going to go off of 

Senator Bennet’s statement. 

Ms. Moore, let me ask you. Do you think we should get rid of 

lousy teachers? 

Ms. MOORE. Well, I definitely wouldn’t want to pass my students 

along to a teacher who I didn’t feel was well-prepared. That’s something that—as a teacher leader in my building, I really strive toward accomplished practice so that now I can work with the peers 

around me. The second grade teacher who is above me—I want to 

be there to support her, because, ultimately, I’m going to pass my 

students along, and I want to be able to trust that she is just as 

highly qualified. 

Senator BURR. If it bothers you, imagine what a parent thinks. 

And I get back to what Dr. Goldhaber said, that parents are a big 

motivating factor—their education level, their income level, but 

also their involvement in their child’s education. If they believe 

that they got a lousy teacher—the lottery went the wrong way— 

they sort of count the days for the school year to be over and hope 

that they get a better one. 

44 

Now, that sort of gets into you, Dr. Handy-Collins, because the 

question is: Why aren’t principals making those decisions? Now, 

you were very specific about we need to mandate certain things 

funding-wise for principal development. You don’t know me. I don’t 

think you really trust me to do that. I’m not sure I trust me to understand exactly what the need is. 

I do trust your school. I trust the parents of the students. I trust 

who you’ve chosen as a superintendent, and the superintendent has 

chosen the principals. One of the things we do in this bill is we 

take 67 Federal programs in title II and title IV and we put two 

pots of money. Locally, you can determine how you use those pots 

of money. The requirement is to better educate teachers, and you 

can shift from II to IV if, in fact, you feel compelled. 

Title I is left alone. Title II is funded at a higher level. There’s 

actually the ability—and I go back to Ms. Moore—there’s actually 

the ability for teachers to be involved, for teachers to say, ‘‘If we 

had this, we could do this.’’ No longer do you look down a list of 

67 things and say, ‘‘This is not on that option list.’’ If it’s not on 

the option list or your school system doesn’t embrace it, you lose 

the money. 

Now we’re saying let’s open up the money to everybody, and let’s 

open up everybody within the system to contribute to what changes 

we should make that actually educate kids to a better level. 

Doesn’t that make sense? Is there anybody that objects to that? 

I understand that if we did that, we’re not prescribing to the 

school system exactly how much should go to principals and how 

much should go to this. We basically say, ‘‘Apply it where you think 

it makes the best impact on the outcome of our children.’’ 

Ms. HANDY-COLLINS. I want to say that what we’re advocating 

for today is dedicated funding to professional development, because 

what we’re seeing across the Nation is not that dedicated funding 

and that States—— 

Senator BURR. Are you telling me that in your system, in your 

school, that is the No. 1 challenge that you’re up against? 

Ms. HANDY-COLLINS. I won’t say it’s the No. 1 challenge, but it’s 

certainly—— 

Senator BURR. Is there a challenge you can think of that’s greater than that? 

Ms. HANDY-COLLINS. Greater than professional development? I 

think professional development is one of our answers in helping 

our teachers and our school leaders to support having students 

college- and career-ready. 

Senator BURR. Then under the—the way it’s written in this bill, 

then you can use it for that. Dr. Holliday doesn’t have to. If his determination is that putting that money into something different is 

more important for student outcome, he can do that, and maybe 

he’s chosen principals a different way. Now you’re Kentucky, so the 

superintendent is down the line. 

I’m only suggesting this, that we’ve tried this system for a long 

time, and I don’t think anybody is coming here today telling me 

that, ‘‘Geez, elementary and secondary education—it works perfect. 

You guys found the right formula.’’ Why don’t we look at what’s 

happening around us, that some are doing things differently? 

45 

I don’t have time, Dr. Goldhaber, to talk about KIPP Academy. 

They’re the biggest utilizer of Teach for America teachers. They go 

into the most at-risk communities. I can take you to one in Charlotte, NC, that’s located one block from an elementary school. 

The demographic makeup of both schools is exactly the same. Yet 

the expectations out of the KIPP Academy are totally different 

than the expectations out of the elementary school beside it. Teachers, resources, social economics, parental education—I don’t know 

what it is, but it’s something. We don’t tie their hands as to how 

they use their money. 

My time is up. The chairman has been generous. We’ve got a 

deep interest in getting this right, and I think getting this right, 

Ms. Moore, actually is including you. It’s including principals. It’s 

including superintendents. It’s taking the shackles off and saying, 

‘‘Create whatever works for you.’’ 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Burr. 

Senator Warren, then Senator Isakson, and then Senator Baldwin. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR WARREN

Senator WARREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m just going to 

pick up where Senator Burr left off. 

Recent studies from the National Bureau of Economic Research 

have found that teachers have a greater impact on student achievement than any other factor in school, and that students with effective teachers are more likely to attend college and to have higher 

lifetime earnings. In other words, one of the best investments in 

our kids is to invest in their teachers. 

Dr. Handy-Collins, there are a lot of ways that we can invest in 

our teachers and principals. Do you see anything in the Republican 

draft proposal that requires that a single dollar of Federal aid be 

used to improve teaching? 

Ms. HANDY-COLLINS. Well, what we see is a list of allowable uses 

of funds under title II, and what we’re advocating for, I’ll say once 

again, is dedicated funding to professional development for our 

teachers and for our school leaders. 

Senator WARREN. Right. I understand that there’s a list, but 

nothing that requires that any of it be spent on teachers. 

Mr. Hinojosa, is that your reading as well? 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Yes. What I’m hearing is that it is very difficult 

in areas of poverty to get highly effective teachers. We have a responsibility to train teachers, to develop these teachers, because 

these are the ones that are in our communities. I’m competing 

against 16 other districts locally in San Antonio. We have to work 

with these teachers in providing an environment where they’re 

going to want to stay. 

We’ve been very effective. I mentioned the junior high. We had 

a retention rate of over 90 percent. Again, this was because of the 

fact that we put things into place, that we were going to support 

our teachers, that they weren’t going to feel when they came in 

that it was going to be daunting and that they were not going to 

be supported. It’s very important that we do support our teachers 

to be highly effective. 

46 

Senator WARREN. Thank you. As I read the Republican draft proposal, States and districts would no longer be required to invest 

title II funds in teachers, in leaders. Maybe it will happen sometimes, but nothing in this draft requires the States to spend a single Federal tax dollar on strengthening teachers. This is a huge 

concern for me. 

We keep asking more and more and more of our teachers, but 

this Republican draft proposal doesn’t do a single thing to make 

sure that the States will actually use this Federal money to help 

teachers do their jobs. Giving billions of dollars in Federal aid to 

States without requiring them to spend a dime of that money on 

helping our teachers is not a responsible use of Federal tax dollars, 

not good enough for our teachers and sure enough not good enough 

for our kids. 

Now, I want to ask about something else as well, and I want to 

start with the point that Senator Bennet made at last week’s hearing that really struck me. For the first time, poor children will be 

the majority of public school children in America. The law that became No Child Left Behind was originally enacted back in the 

1960s as part of President Johnson’s war on poverty. We have to 

ask ourselves how we can make this law a more powerful weapon 

against poverty. 

Ms. Moore, do you have all the resources you need to combat the 

effects of poverty in the school where you work? And if not, what 

additional resources and support would help you with your work? 

Ms. MOORE. No, I don’t believe that I have all of the supports 

that I need. While I have the teacher preparation, I think that a 

lot of other things have a direct impact on learning—our students 

in the classroom. In my case, there’s a lot of students who are dealing with the effects of trauma, whether that be domestic violence, 

abuse, homelessness, poverty. So we really need to look at the 

whole child and take into consideration all those other things beyond just the academic piece. 

For instance, in my school, our funding for a nurse—her FTE has 

gone down each year, and we have to rely on outside funds, such 

as our PTSA, to provide days for her to be at the school. Without 

a nurse, without the healthy snack programs and things like that, 

I’m not sure that my students would even come into the classroom 

feeling like they were ready to learn. I would argue that those 

would be things that we would need to take into consideration. 

Senator WARREN. Ms. Moore, are you confident that without any 

guidance or any accountability in the Federal statute that every 

State will target Federal funds to the classrooms and the students 

who need those additional resources the most? 

Ms. MOORE. Without hearing teacher voices, I would worry that 

they wouldn’t know what needs we have. Without really getting 

into the classrooms and talking to the teachers and figuring out 

what your students need in order to be successful in the classroom, 

I’m not sure that they would know what those are. 

Senator WARREN. Well, thank you. 

I think that Ms. Moore reminds us that there’s a lot going on 

outside the classroom in the lives of our vulnerable children, and 

we need to make sure that these children have access to the full 

range of services that they need to learn and to succeed. This 

47 

means school nurses and counselors and making sure that our kids 

can see the board in class, that they aren’t hungry, that they have 

the healthcare they need. 

Education is about building opportunity, and that’s about making 

sure that Federal dollars go to the kids who most need the help to 

have a real chance to succeed. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Warren. 

Senator Isakson. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR ISAKSON

Senator ISAKSON. Well, thank you, Chairman Alexander, and 

thank you for your focus and leadership on kids, on No Child Left 

Behind, and on flexibility. 

I have to ask Mr. Hinojosa a question. I’ve known two great 

Hinojosas in education. One of them is named Reuben in the House 

of Representatives, and the other is Michael, who is the superintendent of schools in Cobb County, GA. You’ve got to be related 

to one or both of them. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Not to my knowledge. I’ve met both of them. I 

know who they are, but—— 

Senator ISAKSON. Well, if you’re as good as they are, you’re awfully good, then. Thank you for being here today. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Thank you. 

Senator ISAKSON. You know, Chairman Alexander, I’ll make this 

confession. I’m one of the two guys left that wrote No Child Left 

Behind. I want you all to know that in full disclosure. The other 

one is Speaker Boehner. The rest of them have retired from Congress or are gone. 

We had a meeting the night after it passed in the basement of 

the Capitol—it was Ted Kennedy, myself, Mike Castle, John 

Boehner, and some others—and talked about, 

‘‘If this works, we’re going to be in trouble come 6 years from 

now because if it works, it’s going to be harder and harder to 

make AYP. People are going to go into needs improvement, 

even though they’re doing better, and we’re going to go from 

an attitudinal shift from positive to negative.’’ 

And that’s what’s happened, all right? 

It is time we fix No Child Left Behind and we reauthorize ESEA, 

and I think the chairman’s move toward flexibility is exactly how 

to do it. Schools understand now that disaggregation is important. 

They understand that measuring the quality of the product is important. They also recognize that doing it their way is important. 

I want to make a couple of points. My belief in Federal involvement in education lies in two areas: Title I and 94–192 for special 

education in 1978. Those are specific statutory involvements of the 

Federal Government in education K–12. The balance of it is done 

at the local level. The maximum flexibility we can give with good 

leadership and guidance, the better off we’re going to be. 

There are two areas I’d like to focus on. I guess that I’d ask— 

is anybody a special ed teacher? 

Ms. HANDY-COLLINS. I was a special education teacher. 

Senator ISAKSON. You looked kind of special. I’m married to one. 

48 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. HANDY-COLLINS. Thank you. 

Senator ISAKSON. You know, when we disaggregated kids, we 

disaggregated them with disabilities as well—by race, by language, 

by learning level, but also by disabilities. If you were a special 

needs kid, you were assessed and disaggregated like other groups 

or other areas. When we assess them, we assess them with a onesize-fits-all test with only a 1 percent exception for cognitive disability. Yet there are a plethora of disabilities of children in public 

schools today. 

I tried 2 years ago when we brought this subject up to bring up 

an idea of alternative assessment where the assessment of special 

needs children, instead of being a specialized, one-size-fits-all test, 

would be a test chosen in the IEP by the parent and the faculty 

member. What do you think about that idea? 

Ms. HANDY-COLLINS. Well, I certainly think that one-size-fits-all 

has not been effective, and we’re finding that in our schools. I certainly agree with what you just said, in that if we had some alternative assessments that our parents and our communities would 

agree upon, that would certainly be a great option. 

Senator ISAKSON. Dr. Hinojosa, you were nodding your head. 

Isn’t the student’s parent and the teacher better equipped to determine how to assess that child than a standard test? 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Absolutely. Again, we did have that local control 

in Texas at one time. Recently, the law changed, so we’re not able 

to do that. I’d just like to say, the State accountability system itself 

is under a lot of scrutiny at times, but we are—there’s businesses, 

there’s newspapers, and so forth who are always looking at our successes. 

So aside from Washington, we do have an accountability system 

in Texas that makes us accountable to our constituents, our parents, and so forth. They know what’s going on in our communities, 

and it is publicized. 

Senator ISAKSON. Ms. Moore, you’re a National Board Certified 

teacher. Is that correct? 

Ms. MOORE. Yes, that’s correct. 

Senator ISAKSON. Congratulations, and thank you for your commitment. 

Ms. MOORE. Thank you. 

Senator ISAKSON. I have a question for you on teacher certification. When I first was elected to Congress in 1999, President 

Clinton was President of the United States, and one of his promises in the State of the Union was to hire 100,000 teachers for local 

boards of education. There was only one problem. If there were 

100,000 teachers out there to be hired, they would have already 

been working. There weren’t 100,000 who were qualified and ready 

to be hired. 

We learned that the teacher shortage was not just because there 

weren’t that many people who wanted to teach. It was because 

there weren’t that many people willing to teach who had the qualifications to do so. 

What do you think about alternative certification for a teacher 

being able to teach? In other words, if someone—in the military, we 

have some programs already, where specialists out of the military 

49 

go from troops to teachers, and that’s worked pretty well in Georgia. I think some flexibility in terms of certifying teachers based on 

their life’s accomplishments gives us a lot bigger pool to draw from. 

Would you agree with that or disagree with that? 

Ms. MOORE. I would just say from my own experience in working 

with the residency model that the more hands-on experience and 

the time being in a classroom is going to lead to better preparation. 

While I might not have gone through an alternative route of certifying, I’ve seen the effects that having been in a classroom for an 

entire year can provide one person. 

My novice teacher from last year, Kristen, knew exactly what to 

do to set up a classroom and to develop those relationships with 

families and students early on. She knew which procedure she 

needed to make sure she taught those first few weeks of school. I 

can’t say that there’s anything better than having more time doing 

that experience. 

We always say that with our students, you learn best by doing. 

You learn best by teaching. The more time that someone has had 

in the classroom, the better. I would have been lost if I hadn’t had 

a yearlong preparation program myself when I entered my classroom, because I wouldn’t have known—what do I do this first day 

when all these different situations arise. 

Senator ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, if I can—one extension on that. 

Ms. Moore makes a very good point. In Sacramento, CA, they did 

a pilot program on alternative certification for teachers by profession rather than by education. They made any teacher who was not 

board certified or otherwise certified to have a mentor for a year, 

and they funded the mentor program. 

Would that help cause you to like the program more? 

Ms. MOORE. I definitely would appreciate the mentoring opportunities. I know in Seattle, we have like a STAR program where 

mentors are provided for the first year, and that, along with the 

residency model, has been very helpful in preparing teachers to 

work in high-need schools. 

Senator ISAKSON. Thank you all for what you do. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Isakson. 

Senator Baldwin. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR BALDWIN

Senator BALDWIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Murray. I appreciate the hearing squarely focused on supporting our teachers and school leaders. 

As we’ve discussed, we start hearing a little bit about the choices 

that are going to be before this committee as we advance in the effort to reauthorize the ESEA. You start hearing the debate between flexibility and dedicated funding streams. Yet you are the 

practitioners, you are the folks who can talk about the effect that 

these proposed changes have on children in the classroom, in the 

teaching profession, among school leaders. 

We’ve been touching in the discussion and the Q & A’s back and 

forth on a number of issues. I know I’m not going to have time to 

explore all of them. I want to definitely more deeply explore the impact of the changes that we’re talking about on issues like recruitment of future educators who will reflect the rich diversity of our 

50 

Nation’s classrooms and, as you were talking about, Dr. Handy-Collins, professional development that prepares today’s educators and 

school leaders to respond to the needs of increasingly diverse classrooms. 

I hope that we will also have a more granular discussion about 

programs like Seattle’s Teacher Residency Program and how, 

again, the proposed changes that we’re talking about would impact 

the future of what seems to be an incredibly exceptional program. 

I want to actually touch on one issue that hasn’t come up but is 

increasingly discussed at home in Wisconsin and I’m sure in other 

States, and that is the impact of the changes that we’re talking 

about on the use of technology in the classroom in preparing teachers. You know, technology is increasingly becoming an important 

tool in the classroom. The effective use of devices and data and online learning and digital curriculum can enhance the educational 

experience, but only if teachers know how to effectively use this 

technology. 

In discussing the existing Enhancing Education through Technology Program under ESEA with Wisconsin’s Department of Public Instruction, I was told that continuation of funding for professional development is the highest priority for Wisconsin’s education 

technology evolution. 

I’m wondering, Ms. Moore, if you can speak to the use of technology in your classroom or at your school and in your colleagues’ 

classrooms. Do you have access to any targeted professional development on the use of technology? 

Ms. MOORE. In my classroom, we actually—through Donors 

Choose, which is a nonprofit agency, I have gotten about five iPads 

for my classroom to use. Just recently, based on teacher voice, the 

district listened—my administrator listened and said, ‘‘OK. Our K– 

2 teachers are saying that we need more phonics support.’’ 

We went out and we looked at other schools in the district and 

saw what they were doing. We ended up getting a program to use 

to support early phonics, and that’s something that we receive 

training on pretty frequently. I just went to a training about 2 

weeks ago. 

It’s something that—again, because it was driven by teacher 

voice and it was something we were really invested in and we knew 

our kids needed. There’s been a lot of buy-in and teachers are using 

it effectively in the classroom and we’ve seen great results. Just 

last week, one student made 20 points growth on, like, reading levels because of the new work that we’re doing with that phonics program. 

Senator BALDWIN. Thank you. 

Dr. Holliday, can you discuss the importance of professional development in your State, including such training specifically tailored to using technology in the classroom? 

Mr. HOLLIDAY. There’s a fundamental issue of bandwidth first. It 

doesn’t do a lot of good to train in technology unless you’ve got 

bandwidth, and we still have a few places in Kentucky where the 

Governor and Representative Rogers are working to make sure we 

get the bandwidth. 

A critical issue there is training of the teachers and the principals to understand what the kids already know and then being 

51 

able to help translate that into the professional development that 

they need. If you dedicate dollars, quite often, that stifles innovation, and there are a lot of different ways that we’re going about 

doing this training in Kentucky and delivering online, delivering 

just-in-time, delivering face-to-face. 

There are just so many variables and different ways to do it that 

when you get into dedicated funding streams, people who are not 

very creative tend to say, ‘‘Well, there’s the box. I’m going to stay 

in it.’’ We really need the flexibility to move around the box, but 

the accountability to see how technology is impacting student 

learning, and our flipped classrooms, our virtual classrooms, all of 

those things, seem to be working very well. 

We’re able to spread great teachers to far eastern Kentucky, 

rural places where they don’t have a physics teacher, just by using 

the technology. Sometimes the rules get in the way of the creativity. 

Senator BALDWIN. Dr. Handy-Collins, do you have a comment? 

Ms. HANDY-COLLINS. Yes. I would like to say as we have seen a 

paradigm shift in education where we must increase student engagement and students are engaged with the use of technology, we 

have certainly added Promethean boards in most classrooms, the 

use of Chromebooks now in classrooms, as well as just something 

as simple as opening Wi-Fi access to students, changing cell phone 

policy uses in schools. We know that we have to engage our student 

learners today, and technology is certainly a primary way to do 

that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Senator Baldwin. 

Senator Franken. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR FRANKEN

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think one thing 

the focus has become today is on kids at the bottom of the economic 

ladder whose parents maybe didn’t go to college, et cetera. We’re 

talking about teacher professional development and professional 

development of leaders in schools. 

Dr. Handy-Collins, I want to thank you for mentioning my bill, 

the School Principal Recruitment and Training Act, in your written 

testimony. I noticed you didn’t use it in your oral, but—— 

[Laughter.] 

We do thank you. 

What this would do is create a competitive grant program to recruit and train high caliber principals. I think Dr. Goldhaber 

talked about to attract teachers like Ms. Moore to schools that have 

high-needs, that it’s more important that the ethos of the school attract the teachers, that the teachers will stay if they feel they’re 

working in an environment where everyone is working as a team. 

The leader of the school creates that. That’s why I think principals are so important, and that’s why I think this is so important. 

Can I ask you how this works? How does a principal of a successful—a successful principal of a high-needs school mentor for a 

year—I guess for a school year is one way of doing it—how that 

works and how that mentorship would work? 

52 

Ms. HANDY-COLLINS. In mentoring teachers or mentoring school 

leaders? 

Senator FRANKEN. Principals. 

Ms. HANDY-COLLINS. Yes. In Montgomery County, we have a 

principal internship program, so selected primarily assistant principals who aspire to be principals are paired with a successful principal for a full-year. During that time, they primarily follow the 

principal to important meetings and really learn the day-to-day activities of a principal. 

For a certain period of time, they also have an opportunity to actually serve as the principal of the school, whereas the actual principal leaves the school for like a 6- to 8-week period and that principal intern is allowed to actually take over the lead of the school. 

We have found that this has been successful in preparing principal 

leaders. 

Certainly, the interns are able to experience being a principal 

and knowing the day-to-day activities. It’s one thing to look at the 

principal from the assistant principal’s role, but to actually serve 

and to be in that seat, they have a better opportunity to decide if 

this is, in fact, for them. 

Senator FRANKEN. Let’s move from principals to teachers. 

Ms. Moore, you’ve talked about professional development in your 

school and teachers working together. I have something called the 

STEM Master Teacher Corps, where we need STEM teachers. We 

need to keep them, and we need them to help the professional development of others, and mentoring is a way to do that. You say 

it’s been very successful—mentoring—in your school. 

Ms. MOORE. Yes, that’s correct. In the Seattle Teacher Residency, 

we use what in education we call the gradual release of responsibility, where I do something and teach the kids, and then we do 

it together, and then the students do it. It’s the you do—I do, we 

do, you do. 

That’s kind of the same idea with this co-teaching model in the 

residency. At the start of the year, I am mainly the teacher doing 

the work, and I’m constantly thinking aloud, telling my resident, 

‘‘This is why I’m doing these things,’’ because there’s a lot of things 

that they would walk into the classroom and not know how to do. 

And then similar to this principal internship program, over time, 

I’m releasing that responsibility. Just this week, in Seattle, my coteacher, Ben, is doing some lead teaching by himself, and then I’ll 

go back and be a coach and ask him reflective questions. 

Senator FRANKEN. I just want to move on. 

Ms. MOORE. OK. 

Senator FRANKEN. Dr. Goldhaber, you’re saying that this kind of 

creates an atmosphere that teachers want to stay in. Right? 

Mr. GOLDHABER. I’m saying it has the potential to. I think that 

we need to investigate whether those kinds of programs actually 

work. 

Senator FRANKEN. Ms. Moore, just one last thing, because I have 

about 30 seconds. You’re talking about teachers having to be the 

social worker and the teacher. Early childhood, to me, seems to be 

sort of the best answer to that for kindergarten and first grade 

teachers and second grade teachers having to be all of that, and I 

53 

think that’s something that we need to be talking a lot about here 

on this committee. 

Do you agree? 

Ms. MOORE. Yes, absolutely. I would also just say this push for 

early education is something that needs to be really considered as 

we look into ESEA reauthorization. I know that even when students step in the door in kindergarten, they’re coming in at such 

different levels, and they’re already kind of getting separated based 

on their ability right there. 

Senator FRANKEN. I agree with you. 

Ms. HANDY-COLLINS. I would like to add that that doesn’t end at 

the elementary school level. We see those needs at the high school 

level as well. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Franken. 

Senator Casey. 

[No verbal response.] 

Senator Whitehouse. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR WHITEHOUSE

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you 

to the panel for being here. 

I suspect we all agree that a school that is dealing with a population with a very high concentration of poverty has a real problem 

on its hands and that if they’re going to succeed for the kids, they 

need significant resources to overcome that concentration of poverty. I see all the heads nodding here. 

We here in Congress in the Federal Government face a situation 

in which a State legislature could, as a matter of policy, decide 

we’re going to throw those schools, those kids, those teachers, 

under the bus. We have other priorities. We want to cut taxes for 

folks, whatever. If that were to happen, that gives the Federal Government an interest. I don’t want to be arguing for the Federal 

Government having no interest in how well States, schools, districts, whatever, perform. 

Meeting with my education community in Rhode Island, I hear 

repeatedly about the burden of the testing and accountability system in the classroom, and that it is at the stage now where it’s actually impeding the ability of teachers to teach, because they spend 

so much of their time either dealing with the tests, coping with the 

tests, preparing for the tests, not teaching because some of the 

classes are in the test, not teaching because the bandwidth has 

been entirely absorbed so that the tests can take place and nobody 

can get on a computer, and all of that sort of stuff. 

I met yesterday morning with some Rhode Island education community leaders, and one said that in one grade class, they counted 

off 42 days of testing in 1 school year. Another said that the testing 

has just run wild—to use their word—run wild in the classroom. 

My question to each of you is: If you spot me that there’s a proper role for Federal oversight in this area, as people who are familiar with the system, by how much, as a percentage, do you think 

you could reduce the testing footprint in the classroom while still 

getting the information that we need? I don’t mean for you to be 

54 

specific, but I’m just trying to get a sense of how much room you 

think there is for us to be more—where should we set our goals? 

Is it, ‘‘Well, 90 percent of it has to happen. You could probably 

whittle it down by 10.’’ Or is it ‘‘Maybe we could get rid of half and 

still be able to do this.’’ Or is it ‘‘This thing is out of control. Ten 

percent of the effort would yield what we need and the rest, 90 percent, is just going’’—people have kind of lost control of—the purpose having been lost in the process? 

Just a quick opinion. I’m not going to really hold you to it. I just 

want to get a flavor for how much you think there is to—and I 

know it’s going to be very rough numbers. 

Mr. Goldhaber. 

Mr. GOLDHABER. I’m definitely not going to give you a percentage, except to say that I think—— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Well, why don’t we move on to Dr. 

Holliday, then, so I can get my percentages? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. GOLDHABER. Can I just say that—— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. We’ll come back to you if there’s time, but 

time is short. 

Mr. GOLDHABER. OK. 

Mr. HOLLIDAY. If we eliminate the teacher evaluation component, 

which added about 40 percent testing, that would be about 40 percent right there. If we were able to address accountability at the 

State level rather than the Federal level, we might be able to reduce another 20 percent, because most of the tests are local and 

school district tests tied to the teacher evaluation and tied to the 

Federal accountability. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. So 60 percent. 

Mr. HOLLIDAY. Yes. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Mr. Hinojosa. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. I agree. I think we can reduce. What the percentage is, I don’t know. I can just give you at least half. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Ms. Moore. 

Ms. MOORE. I would just argue at least half as well. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Dr. Handy-Collins. 

Ms. HANDY-COLLINS. Fifty percent sounds like the going rate. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And you’re comfortable with that? 

Ms. HANDY-COLLINS. I’m comfortable with that. I think it’s more 

important how we use the data and looking at progressive growth 

measures. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Well, I’ve got 49 seconds left, so back to 

you, Dr. Goldhaber, for your non-number answer. 

Mr. GOLDHABER. Thank you. I think that—— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Forty-three seconds. 

Mr. GOLDHABER [continuing]. The Federal Government gets a lot 

of the blame for the vast amount of testing that takes place. The 

studies that look at how much of testing is actually tied to the 17 

NCLB tests suggest that it’s anywhere from roughly a quarter to 

a third. While I appreciate that a lot of schools feel like they’re 

over-tested, a lot of it has nothing to do with the NCLB testing requirement. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. All right. Well, I’ve got 14 seconds left, so 

I’m not going to hazard a question. 

55 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for leading us through this effort to try 

to repair this broken law. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Whitehouse, as you can tell, would be a 

very skillful headmaster. Thank you very much. 

Senator Casey. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR CASEY

Senator CASEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sorry I wasn’t here 

for my turn. I’ve been juggling hearings. We’re grateful for the contribution of this panel. 

I wish I could get to each of you. I’ll probably only get to two, 

kind of on my right, your left, for most of it. One of the broad principles that I start with when we come to these questions—we’re 

here to talk about education and teaching and supporting the 

teaching profession and making sure that we have the kind of support and resources. 

I do start from a broader frame. I think it was page—I guess it 

was the third page, Ms. Moore, of your testimony, where you say, 

and I quote, at the bottom of the second to the last paragraph, this 

means, ‘‘resources and support for the whole child, like good nutrition and healthcare, not just investing in high-quality teaching.’’ 

I couldn’t agree more, and I think when we’re talking about all 

these issues, we need to step back and say, ‘‘What are we doing as 

a country for children?’’ We all believe that every child is born with 

a light inside them, the light of their potential. We say we’re committed to making sure the light of every child shines as brightly 

as it should, and yet we don’t have a national strategy to do that. 

We had a Marshall Plan after World War II for Europe to rebuild 

Europe, yet we’ve never had a Marshall Plan for children. I think 

that’s just a fact. It’s a sad fact to report and to assert. So I start 

from that broader frame. 

Dr. Handy-Collins, as much as I’ve seen the impact that teachers 

can make in a classroom and in the life of a child, I’ve also seen 

the impact that principals make. Sometimes when other parts of 

the school are not where they ought to be, and the school is maybe 

going in the wrong direction, a strong principal can be so determinative of the outcome we all hope for. Your point about professional development is well taken, and I want to support that as 

best I can. 

In the same vein, Ms. Moore, about supporting teachers, you said 

a couple of things which are important. No. 1, you said—at the bottom of your first page, you talked about teacher induction, professional growth, teacher leadership as being kind of building blocks. 

Later, you say, ‘‘With co-teaching, we can meet the needs of all 

20 of our students every day.’’ That’s a remarkable statement, because I’m not sure a lot of people hear that enough. Tell me—this 

idea of mentoring and the particular program that you have—tell 

me what the elements are for the most successful mentoring program for teachers based upon your experience. 

Ms. MOORE. I would say that based on the STR, the Seattle 

Teacher Residency experience, that the most important thing is 

that it is really driven by teachers. The Urban Teacher Residency 

United along with our director, Marisa Bier—they are teachers 

56 

themselves, who know what works in the classroom and what 

doesn’t. 

They’re very responsive to the needs of teachers as well as students. They get into the classroom, at least a coach every week, 

and they’re constantly asking teachers, ‘‘What do we need to do 

better to prepare our residents?’’ 

So if I say, ‘‘Our residents don’t seem like they really understand 

the assessment piece in developing their own assessments,’’ they go 

back and they add that into their curricula with the University of 

Washington. They have that unique ability to work with all those 

different partnerships to really address what teachers see as the 

greatest need for our students. 

Then I guess just taking that time to really have those conversations, learning focus conversations with the teachers, with the residents, with their coaches—their professors are all—it’s all engaged 

in that work together. We have monthly training, so that I, as a 

mentor, can go meet up with a network of other teachers in Seattle 

schools, and we can talk about what we can best do to support our 

teachers so that one day, maybe the teacher I mentored is going 

to go be a colleague for somebody else. 

Maybe I’m going to have Kristen, my novice teacher, teach kindergarten and send her kids to me, or maybe I will be sending my 

kids on. We’re really making sure that we’re focused on what the 

students need in our schools. 

Senator CASEY. Well, as someone who spent only a total of 1 year 

as a volunteer teacher in a volunteer program, the Jesuit Volunteer 

Corps, my placement was in north Philadelphia. I really could have 

used a program like the one that you described. 

In my remaining 25 seconds, Dr. Holliday, I want to ask you just 

real quick—on page 2 of your testimony, you said, ‘‘We have seen 

Kentucky schools move from the bottom 5 percent to the top 10 

percent in the State using this model.’’ Tell us again how you got 

there. What is the model you describe, and what’s the example? 

Mr. HOLLIDAY. Very similar to what Ms. Moore is talking about, 

mentorship, full-time math coach, literacy coach, and a principal 

coach. You can’t bring in a bunch of new teachers in certain parts 

of our State. You’ve got to address the ones that you have. Having 

that full-time mentorship, real solid support and coaching, you can 

help teachers really turn it around, and we’ve seen the evidence of 

it. 

Senator CASEY. Thanks very much. 

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. I want to thank the witnesses. I’ll turn to Senator Murray for her concluding remarks in just a minute. I’ve 

heard a lot of—all of us have heard different things. 

I think, Dr. Goldhaber, your point that maybe a fourth to a third 

of the tests that people see in the schools are related to the 17 Federal tests is especially helpful to us as we think about the Federal 

tests. 

Dr. Holliday, you’ve expressed a strong view that the State accountability systems are in place and important, and you and other 

chiefs, while you support the tests, don’t want the further direction 

of Federal accountability systems for teachers and schools. 

57 

Mr. Hinojosa, you’ve echoed what Secretary Duncan and Secretary Spellings have told us about the Teacher Incentive Fund, 

and you’ve actually made it work. 

Ms. Moore, you’ve emphasized teacher voices, which I think is 

very important as we think about what we require from here and 

what we leave to you. That’s an important voice. 

Dr. Handy-Collins, you’ve eloquently talked about the importance 

of school leadership. 

I thought Senator Whitehouse’s question was one that’s probably 

on the minds of all of us as we try to understand the complaint we 

hear about the number of tests and the concern we have about 

wanting to make sure that we do have a strong accountability system, but whether we become so prescriptive and intrusive here that 

we’re getting in the way of strong Texas accountability or Kentucky 

or Washington State or Maryland accountability systems where 

teachers and principals and school boards are making their own decisions about what is success, what is failure, and what are the 

consequences for schools and teachers. 

It’s been a very helpful hearing. This is the second hearing that 

we’ve had where Senator Murray and I and our staffs have agreed 

on the witnesses. I think that makes much more of a bipartisan 

setting, which is the kind of thing we like to try for. We don’t always get that, but we like to head that way. We’re more likely to 

get a result if we work that way. 

One week from today, on Tuesday, we’ll try something a little 

different—a roundtable on innovation in the States, where Senators can more directly interact with experts. 

The hearing record will remain open for 10 business days. Members may submit additional information or questions to the witnesses for the record within the time if they would like, and the 

witnesses—if there was something that you wanted to say to us 

today—like Senator Whitehouse didn’t give you a long time to answer his questions. If you had something else you wanted to say 

to him or to us, please feel free to do that, and we’d like to ask 

you to get that in within the next few days. 

We thank you for being here. I’ll call on Senator Murray now for 

any remarks that she would like to make, and then we’ll adjourn 

the hearing. 

Senator MURRAY. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for this 

hearing. I really want to thank all of our witnesses today. I think 

you brought us invaluable insight as we work together on this committee, hopefully, to create a bipartisan bill to move forward. I 

think it’s important to every person who says No Child Left Behind 

is broken. We want to fix it. We want to work with you, Mr. Chairman, to do that in a bipartisan way. 

I think it is really valuable to have people here who are in the 

field every day working with our young people to help us as we put 

together this proposal. I want to thank all of our committee members, too. I think they bring invaluable insight, and we’ve got a lot 

of work ahead of us. 

Thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. The hearing is adjourned. 

[Additional Material follows.] 

58 

1See, for instance, Goldhaber (2007) on licensure tests and Goldhaber (2015) for a more general review of the teacher qualifications that do (or do not, as is often the case) predict teacher 

effectiveness. 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

RESPONSE BY DAN GOLDHABER TO QUESTIONS OF SENATOR COLLINS

AND SENATOR MURKOWSKI

Thank you for your careful reading of my testimony to the HELP Committee and 

the followup questions. Below I address each question and try to be clear about 

what the research base says about a particular issue and what falls more into the 

realm of my speculation based on many years of studying the K–12 system. 

Please feel free to contact me (dgoldhaber@air.org or 206–547–1562) if you have 

any additional questions. 

Sincerely, 

DAN. 

SENATOR COLLINS

Question 1. In 2005, former-Senator Olympia Snowe and I commissioned the 

Maine NCLB Task Force to examine the issues Maine faced with implementing the 

new law. 

Maine’s small rural schools, the ‘‘Highly Qualified Teacher’’ standard (HQT) was 

particularly burdensome and, in many cases, unworkable. In rural schools, the reality is that teachers must teach multiple subjects and are often re-assigned to different content areas because of low enrollments. Yet HQT requires teachers to have 

majored in or passed rigorous State tests in the subjects that they are teaching. 

When this year’s fourth grade math teacher must become next year’s fifth grade 

science teacher, meeting the added burden of becoming ‘‘highly qualified’’ in several 

academic areas makes staffing even more difficult. 

The Maine Task Force recommended that States be granted flexibility to create 

different standards for rural school districts. Do you believe that States should have 

the authority to set alternative standards in small rural schools that incorporate 

factors such as school size and the courses available? 

Answer 1. I do not believe the HQT requirement effectively ensures that students 

do in fact have a highly effective teacher. Quite simply, the determinants of a teacher meeting the HQT standard are only weakly, at best, related to how effective a 

teacher is in the classroom.1 I also agree that the HQT provision can be particularly 

problematic for school systems and schools with particularly difficult staffing challenges, as is often true for rural systems. For that reason, my opinion is that there 

should certainly be flexibility around the HQT requirement (or a wholesale change 

of this particular requirement). 

That said, your question is broader in that it focuses on ‘‘alternative standards.’’ 

Here I would try to separate out what is under a school or school district’s control 

from the factors that are not. In general, I think it makes sense to hold school systems accountable for policies and practices they control and allow adaptations in requirements for factors they don’t. School systems probably have only limited ability 

within their resource constraints to affect the kind of teacher applicants they attract 

so I could imagine setting somewhat different standards based on how rural a district is or the specific type or needs of students enrolled in a district, but I would 

be more wary of setting up different standards for factors, such as school size and 

courses offered, since districts have some control over these decisions. 

Question 2. No Child Left Behind defines ‘‘core academic subjects’’ to include 10 

subject areas, including civics and government, economics, history, and geography. 

The Maine NCLB Task Force observed that many schools integrated these four 

subjects into one ‘‘social studies’’ course. Yet the ‘‘Highly Qualified Teacher’’ standard (HQT) would have had a social studies teacher meet the HQT requirements of 

all four subject areas. Notably, NCLB does not break down ‘‘science’’ into its many 

subdivisions, like biology or chemistry. 

School districts want to attract the best and the brightest to the teaching profession. My concern, however, is that the HQT standard may have had two unintended 

and related consequences. 

First, it places a burden on teachers who have multiple class assignments. And 

second, it may result in narrowing school curricula, resulting in fewer classes being 

offered. The Maine Task Force found that these burdens were particularly detriVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:29 Jan 09, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\93078.TXT CAROL
59 

2See Croft, et al. (2011) on validating teacher evaluation systems. 

mental to small rural districts, where teacher recruitment and retention is especially difficult. 

What effects have the HQT standards had on teacher recruitment and retention, 

as well as school curricula? Are there ways to encourage teachers to gain additional 

subject-matter knowledge without imposing an HQT requirement in each subject 

that a teacher teaches? 

Answer 2. No research that I know of speaks directly to whether the HQT standards affect teacher recruitment, retention, or curricula. However, as I said in answering #1 above, I do not see a very good argument for keeping this standard given 

its unproven connection with student learning. 

Question 3. In 2013, like 42 other States, Maine received a No Child Left Behind 

flexibility waiver from the U.S. Department of Education, which exempts it from 

some of the requirements of the Federal law. However, the U.S. Department of Education has determined that Maine has not yet adopted adequate guidelines for 

teacher and principal evaluation systems. The Department notes that the State 

must clarify the role of statewide tests in its teacher evaluations. 

If the State adopts a different evaluation system that does not place what the 

U.S. Department of Education believes is enough emphasis on student test scores 

in its teacher performance measurement, then the waiver could be revoked and 

many of Maine’s schools may be deemed ‘‘failing.’’ In fact, Washington State faced 

this very scenario 1 year ago, and has since lost its waiver. 

If a State determines that student test scores should be one of many factors in 

teacher evaluations, should the Federal Government be overruling their judgment? 

Answer 3. This question can’t be answered from a research perspective; it is more 

of a political question and a matter of opinion. For the record, I do believe student 

test-based measures of teacher effectiveness (also commonly referred to as ‘‘valueadded’’) contain important information about teacher effectiveness. In fact, as an example, there was some discussion at the HELP Committee hearing on January 27 

of the study (Chetty, et al., 2014) showing that effective teachers have long-term impacts on student outcomes (such as predicting whether they go to college and what 

they earn later in the labor market). The metric used for teacher effectiveness in 

that study is a student test-based measure, showing that this particular way of assessing teachers tells us not only about teachers? impacts on student tests but a 

much broader array of later outcomes. 

As a more direct response to your question, my understanding is that all States 

that receive an NCLB waiver use multiple factors in creating summative measures 

of teacher performance. Research cannot yet assess much about the implications of 

assigning different weights to each factor (classroom observations, value-added, etc.) 

because the waivers and evaluation systems are new. As I stressed in my testimony, 

older teacher evaluation systems that typically relied only on classroom observations 

tended to suggest that nearly all teachers are the same, and nearly all fall near the 

top of whatever performance evaluation system is being used (Weisburg, et al., 

2009). This assessment of teachers does not comport with what we know empirically—that they differ substantially from one another in ways that affect their students’ outcomes. 

SENATOR MURKOWSKI

Question 1. The Discussion Draft bill that we are working on here in the committee would give much more autonomy to States to make decisions about education 

policies. Do you think that the Federal Government should maintain some basic requirements for States to implement in designing how they ensure the maximum 

number of effective teachers and leaders, or should Congress give States complete 

authority? Why? 

Answer 1. This too is a difficult question to answer from a strictly research perspective as it really depends on what States will do absent Federal requirements. 

My own opinion is that the Federal Government should keep pushing States to develop valid and reliable educator-evaluation systems. 

Some States will likely adopt or keep evaluation systems that are valid in the 

sense that they reflect important differences in the contributions that educators 

make toward student achievement.2 Indeed, as Senator Alexander mentioned, Tennessee once had a teacher career ladder that recognized and rewarded effective 

60 

3This career ladder has been studied and validated, see Dee and Keys, 2004. 

4 Yoon, et al. (2007) provide a good review of the professional development literature and the 

features of professional development that seem most promising. 

teachers.3 But, as Senator Alexander also mentioned, the State abandoned the system. 

I’m skeptical that most, or even many, States will have effective educator-evaluation systems unless the Federal Government nudges them. My skepticism stems 

from the fact that States have had tremendous flexibility in designing evaluation 

systems for many years and few of the systems they created recognized differences 

in performance between teachers. As noted above in my answer to Senator Collins, 

the evidence is that States’ old evaluation systems usually suggested the overwhelming majority of teachers were the same. 

I recognize the powerful appeal of the message that we should simply devolve the 

system to State control, but the politics around educator evaluation are tough at 

every level. In the end, it is a judgment call about whether the benefits of greater 

flexibility around educator-evaluation systems outweigh the potential that States 

will fail to adopt valid and reliable systems. I’ve never served in a State-level position, but I have served on a local school board (before NCLB), and we confronted 

difficult political terrain when it came to teacher and leader evaluation. In that position, saying that we made our evaluation system more rigorous in part because 

we’re required to do so. This would have taken some of the political heat off of us. 

Question 2. You indicated in your written testimony that professional development 

has little or mixed impact on student achievement. My teacher friends tell me that 

too often, ‘‘professional development’’ consists of bringing teachers together after 

school for an hour so they can be introduced to a new kit, or a new method, curriculum, or standard, but that long-term, individualized assistance to implement 

whatever the new thing is, is rare. Does the research compare the effects of this 

type of professional development vs. long-term, individualized approaches? If so, 

what guidance does it provide to principals and school districts? 

Answer 2. Your important question raises two distinct, though related, issues: 

whether professional development is generalized versus individualized, and whether 

it is a ‘‘one off ’’ training or is more intensive (more hours spread over a longer time 

and connected more closely with content). There is a strong consensus now that ‘‘one 

off ’’ seminars have little impact on teacher knowledge, practices, or student learning. By contrast, there is better evidence that more intensive professional development works, though, as I mentioned in my testimony, even the evidence on this is 

mixed.4

To my knowledge, there are no convincing studies on whether more individualized 

professional development is more effective, but I believe good reasons suggest it 

would be. The argument here is simply that educators have different needs when 

it comes to improvement so the support they receive should address those individualized needs. This is why I think it is so essential that educator-evaluation systems 

pinpoint those needs. If they aren’t identified and documented, how could schools’ 

personnel and support systems possibly address them? To be speculative and brief, 

I believe that one reason professional development does not have a greater impact 

is that the professional development that teachers receive is not grounded in information from rigorous evaluation systems. 

REFERENCES

Chetty, R., Friedman, J., & Rockoff, J. (2014). Measuring the impacts of teachers 

II: Teacher value-added and student outcomes in adulthood. American Economic 

Review, 104(9): 2633–79. 

Croft, M., Glazerman, S., Goldhaber, D., Loeb, S., Raudenbush, S., Staiger, D., & 

Whitehurst, G. (2011). Passing muster: Evaluating teacher evaluation systems. A 

report for The Brookings Brown Center Task Group on Teacher Quality. Published April 26, 2011 at http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2011/04/26- 

evaluating-teachers. 

Dee, T. & Keys, B. (2004). Does merit pay reward good teachers? Evidence from a 

randomized experiment. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 23(3): 471– 

88. 

Goldhaber, D. (2007). Everyone’s doing it, but what does teacher testing tell us 

about teacher effectiveness? Journal of Human Resources, 42(4): 765–94 

Goldhaber, Dan. (2014). Exploring the potential of value added performance measures to affect the quality of the teacher workforce. Educational Researcher, in 

press. 

61 

Weisburg, D., Sexton, S., Mulhern, J., & Keeling, D. (2009). The widget effect: Our 

national failure to acknowledge and act on differences in teacher effectiveness. A 

report for The New Teacher Project. Retrieved from http://tntp.org/publications/ 

view/the-widget-effect-failure-to-act-on-differences-in-teacher-effectiveness. 

Yoon, K. S., Duncan, T., Lee, S. W.-Y., Scarloss, B., & Shapley, K. (2007). Reviewing 

the evidence on how teacher professional development affects student achievement 

(Issues & Answers Report, REL 2007—No. 033). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education 

Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest. 

Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs. 

RESPONSE BY TERRY HOLLIDAY TO QUESTIONS OF SENATOR COLLINS

AND SENATOR MURKOWSKI

SENATOR COLLINS

Question 1. In 2005, former-Senator Olympia Snow and I commissioned the Maine 

NCLB Task Force to examine the issues Maine faced with implementing the new 

law. 

Maine’s small rural schools, the ‘‘Highly Qualified Teacher’’ standard (HQT) was 

particularly burdensome and, in many cases, unworkable. In rural schools, the reality is that teachers must teach multiple subjects and are often re-assigned to different content areas because of low enrollments. Yet HQT requires teachers to have 

majored in or passed rigorous State tests in the subjects that they are teaching. 

When this year’s fourth grade math teacher must become next year’s fifth grade 

science teacher, meeting the added burden of becoming ‘‘highly qualified’’ in several 

academic areas makes staffing even more difficult. 

The Maine Task Force recommended that States be granted flexibility to create 

different standards for rural school districts. Do you believe that States should have 

the authority to set alternative standards in small rural schools that incorporate 

factors such as school size and the courses available? 

Answer 1. As a State chief, I can assure you that the HQT standard was burdensome and did not lead to higher quality teachers in every classroom in our Nation. 

The teacher equity gaps between schools with higher socioeconomic levels and 

schools with lower socioeconomic levels have actually widened since NCLB. In Senator Alexander’s discussion draft, State chiefs are encouraged to see the HQT requirement removed. Teacher licensure, evaluation, and equitable distribution are 

best left to States due to the many different contexts in States such as the rural 

context you mention in your question. 

Question 2. No Child Left Behind defines ‘‘core academic subjects’’ to include 10 

subject areas, including civics and government, economics, history, and geography. 

The Maine NCLB Task Force observed that many schools integrated these four 

subjects into one ‘‘social studies’’ course. Yet the ‘‘Highly Qualified Teacher’’ standard (HQT) would have had a social studies teacher meet the HQT requirements of 

all four subject areas. Notably, NCLB does not break down ‘‘science’’ into its many 

subdivisions, like biology or chemistry. 

School districts want to attract the best and the brightest to the teaching profession. My concern, however, is that the HQT standard may have had two unintended 

and related consequences. 

First, it places a burden on teachers who have multiple class assignments. And 

second, it may result in narrowing school curricula, resulting in fewer classes being 

offered. The Maine Task Force found that these burdens were particularly detrimental to small rural districts, where teacher recruitment and retention is especially difficult. 

What effects have the HQT standards had on teacher recruitment and retention, 

as well as school curricula? Are there ways to encourage teachers to gain additional 

subject-matter knowledge without imposing an HQT requirement in each subject 

that a teacher teaches? 

Answer 2. As a State chief, I agree that HQT standards have not helped States 

properly identify and support high-quality instruction. State chiefs believe that 

State certification and licensure standards and procedures should govern. In fact, 

the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) developed a series of recommendations for States to transform teacher preparation and licensure, and several States, including Kentucky, are working in this direction today. 

Question 3. In 2013, like 42 other States, Maine received a No Child Left Behind 

flexibility waiver from the U.S. Department of Education, which exempts it from 

some of the requirements of the Federal law. However, the U.S. Department of EduVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:29 Jan 09, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\93078.TXT CAROL
62 

cation has determined that Maine has not yet adopted adequate guidelines for 

teacher and principal evaluation systems. The Department notes that the State 

must clarify the role of statewide tests in its teacher evaluations. 

If the State adopts a different evaluation system that does not place what the 

U.S. Department of Education believes is enough emphasis on student test scores 

in its teacher performance measurement, then the waiver could be revoked and 

many of Maine’s schools may be deemed ‘‘failing.’’ In fact, Washington State faced 

this very scenario 1 year ago, and has since lost its waiver. 

If a State determines that student test scores should be one of many factors in 

teacher evaluations, should the Federal Government be overruling their judgment? 

Answer 3. Most State chiefs believe that States should control teacher evaluation 

systems and processes. State chiefs support the ability to use ESEA funds for the 

development and implementation of State evaluation systems. The Federal Government should not be able to overrule the judgment of a State with regard to teacher 

evaluation systems. States have spent enormous energy and resources to develop 

teacher evaluation systems that have the support of stakeholders in the State. The 

Federal Government should not undermine this important work. 

SENATOR MURKOWSKI

Question 1. The Discussion Draft bill that we are working on here in the committee would give much more autonomy to States to make decisions about education 

policies. Do you think that the Federal Government should maintain some basic requirements for States to implement in designing how they ensure the maximum 

number of effective teachers and leaders, or should Congress give States complete 

authority? Why? 

Answer 1. State chiefs believe States should have the responsibility and flexibility 

to design and improve teacher and principal effectiveness systems. This work requires significant resources and stakeholder involvement. Teacher and principal 

evaluation systems should support continuous instructional improvement, recognize 

outstanding performance and include: 

• Multiple measures of teacher and leader performance; • Meaningful differentiation of performance; and • Actionable information to inform professional development and support. 

A reauthorized ESEA should allow input from but not require the approval of the 

U.S. Department of Education of any State’s evaluation system. It is important to 

allow use of ESEA funds for the development and implementation of those systems. 

Question 2. You stated in your written testimony that Congress should allow 

States to dictate their own timelines for ensuring that all schools are staffed by excellent educators and leaders. I agree that one-size-fits-all dictates from Washington, DC are problematic at best. How many years, in your estimation, would it 

take all States to meet this expectation?

Answer 2. In Kentucky, we are estimating a 5-year timeline to see significant improvement in the equitable distribution of educators and leaders. However, every 

State has a different context. States with large urban settings have different challenges than States with a large percentage of small and rural school districts. The 

challenges of context underline the reason why there cannot be a one-size-fits-all 

dictate from Washington. State chiefs have taken the lead on this issue and are 

working on State plans to address equitable distribution of educators and leaders. 

An appropriate role for ESEA authorization would be the requirement that States 

develop equitable distribution plans and utilize Federal funds to implement the 

plans. However, the U.S. Department of Education should not have the authority 

to approve plans. An appropriate role for the department would be to provide examples of best practice and publicly report progress. 

RESPONSE OF SAUL HINOJOSA TO QUESTIONS OF SENATOR COLLINS

AND SENATOR MURKOWSKI

SENATOR COLLINS

Question 1. In 2005, former-Senator Olympia Snowe and I commissioned the 

Maine NCLB Task Force to examine the issues Maine faced with implementing the 

new law. 

Maine’s small rural schools, the ‘‘Highly Qualified Teacher’’ standard (HQT) was 

particularly burdensome and, in many cases, unworkable. In rural schools, the reality is that teachers must teach multiple subjects and are often re-assigned to different content areas because of low enrollments. Yet HQT requires teachers to have 

majored in or passed rigorous State tests in the subjects that they are teaching. 

63 

When this year’s fourth grade math teacher must become next year’s fifth grade 

science teacher, meeting the added burden of becoming ‘‘highly qualified’’ in several 

academic areas makes staffing even more difficult. 

The Maine Task Force recommended that States be granted flexibility to create 

different standards for rural school districts. Do you believe that States should have 

the authority to set alternative standards in small rural schools that incorporate 

factors such as school size and the courses available? 

Answer 1. A large part of the reason we have moved in my district to a new evaluation system for teachers is that we found measures such as Highly Qualified 

Teacher did not tell us whether a teacher would be effective in the classroom. The 

system we are now using takes student outcomes and results into account, measuring whether a teacher is effective in the classroom. It also provides the kind of 

detailed feedback that is necessary for a teacher to improve their practice. Without 

accurate and detailed feedback, it is difficult for teachers to identify and address 

issues in their practice. In my view this is a far better way for us to evaluate and 

support teachers. 

I have also found that the HQT requirement has proven to be an obstacle when 

I wanted to hire teachers who did not meet the requirements of that standard. For 

example, Somerset ISD recently found an outstanding teacher who moved in from 

the State of Wyoming who had 6 years of experience. Subsequently, the State of 

Texas issued her a 1-year temporary certificate until she completed her requirements for certification. HQT though would not certify her to be ‘‘Highly Qualified’’ 

until she passed the Texas exam. This example illuminates the disconnect between 

the National and State standards for hiring teachers which can cause barriers to 

hiring exemplary personnel. As you heard in my testimony, we have used a TIF 

grant to create district structures to better identify, support and reward effective 

teaching. I view a strong commitment to creating structures and systems to ensure 

that students are being taught by effective teachers, in part measured by student 

learning growth, to be an effective way to provide all students with effective classroom teachers. 

Question 2. No Child Left Behind defines ‘‘core academic subjects’’ to include 10 

subject areas, including civics and government, economics, history, and geography. 

The Maine NCLB Task Force observed that many schools integrated these four 

subjects into one ‘‘social studies’’ course. Yet the ‘‘Highly Qualified Teacher’’ standard (HQT) would have had a social studies teacher meet the HQT requirements of 

all four subject areas. Notably, NCLB does not break down ‘‘science’’ into its many 

subdivisions, like biology or chemistry. 

School districts want to attract the best and the brightest to the teaching profession. My concern, however, is that the HQT standard may have had two unintended 

and related consequences: 

First, it places a burden on teachers who have multiple class assignments. And 

second, it may result in narrowing school curricula, resulting in fewer classes being 

offered. The Maine Task Force found that these burdens were particularly detrimental to small rural districts, where teacher recruitment and retention is especially difficult. 

What effects have the HQT standards had on teacher recruitment and retention, 

as well as school curricula? Are there ways to encourage teachers to gain additional 

subject-matter knowledge without imposing an HQT requirement in each subject 

that a teacher teaches? 

Answer 2. I would make the case that using multiple measures of teacher effectiveness, including observations of their classroom instruction multiple times during 

the year by multiple observers, and some measure of student learning growth, 

among other possible measures, provides a much greater assurance that students 

are being taught by an effective teacher than HQT requirements. When we set specific criteria to identify HQT teachers it limits the pool of personnel districts, especially in rural areas, can attract. Flexibility of providing structures of researchbased staff development to aspiring teachers, would allow districts to develop newly 

hired teachers into effective teachers at an accelerated rate. 

Question 3. In 2013, like 42 other States, Maine received a No Child Left Behind 

flexibility waiver from the U.S. Department of Education, which exempts it from 

some of the requirements of the Federal law. However, the U.S. Department of Education has determined that Maine has not yet adopted adequate guidelines for 

teacher and principal evaluation systems. The Department notes that the State 

must clarify the role of statewide tests in its teacher evaluations. 

If the State adopts a different evaluation system that does not place what the 

U.S. Department of Education believes is enough emphasis on student test scores 

64 

in its teacher performance measurement, then the waiver could be revoked and 

many of Maine’s schools may be deemed ‘‘failing.’’ In fact, Washington State faced 

this very scenario 1 year ago, and has since lost its waiver. 

If a State determines that student test scores should be one of many factors in 

teacher evaluations, should the Federal Government be overruling their judgment? 

Answer 3. In my own experience, teacher evaluation should include multiple 

measures of effectiveness. In my district, we include a measure of student learning 

growth as one of the factors. The reason this has been important for us is that it 

enables us to help teachers to make the connection between their instructional practice and what students are learning. For example, a teacher might feel that she is 

teaching a particular topic very well, but if students are not grasping the concepts, 

adjustments need to be made. By looking at student learning growth in her classroom, and reflecting on her own practice and the feedback she has received over several observations of her classroom, she has more information to guide her as she 

makes necessary adjustments. 

SENATOR MURKOWSKI

Question 1. The Discussion Draft bill that we are working on here in the committee would give much more autonomy to States to make decisions about education 

policies. Do you think that the Federal Government should maintain some basic requirements for States to implement in designing how they ensure the maximum 

number of effective teachers and leaders, or should Congress give States complete 

authority? Why? 

Answer 1. As I described in my testimony, there were several failing schools in 

my district before we won a TIF grant. All of the adults in the school system were 

committed to improving student academic performance, but we needed help in making some major changes in the way we recruit, develop, support, promote and compensate teachers. Knowing we were not hitting targets set by NCLB was an important first step, but we needed support in figuring out how best to meet new higher 

standards. The old system just wasn’t producing the results we all wanted. I think 

the Federal Government has an important role to play in providing support to districts and States to make innovative changes in the ways we manage our most critical resource, our effective teachers and leaders. I think it is incumbent on those 

of us who have received this support through grants like TIF to share our experiences and lessons learned with others so they may benefit. 

Question 2. I appreciate the work that you and your colleagues have done to create professional learning communities and continuous improvement in your schools. 

You noted that you were able to design and implement this model, which has been 

very effective in raising student achievement, because of the Federal TIF grant. 

Given that other States have used TIF grants to create teacher and leader recognition programs that are no longer being used, would you recommend that we require 

any TIF grantee district to use the model that has worked so well for Somerset 

School District or some variation that has essentially the same components or process? 

Answer 2. The regulations for TIF have changed over time to reflect the lessons 

learned in various projects, as you suggest in your question. For example, the most 

recent cohort of grantees were required to describe the ways that their approach 

would connect evaluation to professional development and support. This was not a 

requirement in the first cohort. I think the regulations strike a balance between requiring grantees to include certain elements or to align certain elements of their 

systems of teacher and leader effectiveness, while leaving open the way in which 

they will do it. 

While we have had tremendous success working with the TAP System using our 

TIF grant, I think the right approach is to outline key features that have proven 

broadly successful and allow grant applicants to design these features as they see 

fit. 

As you note, in TIF there are some grantees who did not continue with their initiative after the grant ended. I expect that to be the case with a program that is 

designed to support innovation. I would also note however that there are a number 

of reports that highlight the successes that districts and States are having using 

TIF, including how their work has influenced the development of statewide teacher 

evaluation systems, new opportunities for teacher leadership roles, and the creation 

of more effective ways of providing school-based professional development. 

When districts acquire grants it allows for opportunities to experiment with research-based contemporary methodologies to improve student achievement knowing 

that eventually the grant will end. Somerset ISD, due to the successes in incremental implementation of the TAP System, developed a long-range plan to sustain 

65 

the system after the grant ended. As a result, we now have the ability to be a TAP 

district without the fiduciary support of the TIF grant. 

RESPONSE BY RACHELLE MOORE TO QUESTIONS OF SENATOR COLLINS

AND SENATOR MURKOWSKI

SENATOR COLLINS

Question 1. In 2005, former-Senator Olympia Snowe and I commissioned the 

Maine NCLB Task Force to examine the issues Maine faced with implementing the 

new law. 

Maine’s small rural schools, the ‘‘Highly Qualified Teacher’’ standard (HQT) was 

particularly burdensome and, in many cases, unworkable. In rural schools, the reality is that teachers must teach multiple subjects and are often re-assigned to different content areas because of low enrollments. Yet HQT requires teachers to have 

majored in or passed rigorous State tests in the subjects that they are teaching. 

When this year’s fourth grade math teacher must become next year’s fifth grade 

science teacher, meeting the added burden of becoming ‘‘highly qualified’’ in several 

academic areas makes staffing even more difficult. 

The Maine Task Force recommended that States be granted flexibility to create 

different standards for rural school districts. Do you believe that States should have 

the authority to set alternative standards in small rural schools that incorporate 

factors such as school size and the courses available? 

Answer 1. Based on my own experiences, in a small K–8 urban school, I understand the difficulties low enrollment can have on staff assignments and the resulting implications for the school. There are a number of difficulties related to hiring 

HQ teachers, particularly with Special Education. I would argue that States be 

granted flexibility not just for rural schools, but also for urban schools like mine. 

After reaching out to colleagues and WEA members, I was reminded of the 

HOUSEE method that allowed teachers to teach outside of their endorsed areas 

(provided the school explained the status of the teacher in a letter to parents) and 

to become highly qualified after so many years of teaching the course and receiving 

good evaluations. 

Again, as noted in my testimony, the best way to ensure we prepare and retain 

high-quality educators is to invest in the continuum that includes teacher induction, 

professional growth, and teacher leadership. The Seattle Teacher Residency program and National Board Certification have provided invaluable learning experiences for me as a teacher, helping me grow in my practice as I strive to make the 

invisible visible to novice teachers. I have opened the doors of my classroom to colleagues and engaged in authentic discussions of teaching and learning. I have become an instructional leader in my school and district, and helped improved student 

learning beyond my own classroom. This work has proven more important than my 

title as a ‘‘highly qualified teacher.’’ 

Question 2. No Child Left Behind defines ‘‘core academic subjects’’ to includes 10 

subject areas, including civics and government, economics, history, and geography. 

The Maine NCLB Task Force observed that many schools integrated these four 

subjects into one ‘‘social studies’’ course. Yet the ‘‘Highly Qualified Teacher’’ standard (HQT) would have had a social studies teacher meet the HQT requirements of 

all four subject areas. Notably, NCLB does not break down ‘‘science’’ into its many 

subdivisions, like biology or chemistry. 

School districts want to attract the best and the brightest to the teaching profession. My concern, however, is that the HQT standard may have had two unintended 

and related consequences: 

First, it places a burden on teachers who have multiple class assignments. And 

second, it may result in narrowing school curricula, resulting in fewer classes being 

offered. The Maine Task Force found that these burdens were particularly detrimental to small rural districts, where teacher recruitment and retention is especially difficult. 

What effects have the HQT standards had on teacher recruitment and retention, 

as well as school curricula? Are there ways to encourage teachers to gain additional 

subject-matter knowledge without imposing an HQT requirement in each subject 

that a teacher teaches? 

Answer 2. Again, these burdens are the same regardless of school setting. A middle school teacher in my school explained to me the difficulty he had in finding a 

job as a language arts teacher because he wasn’t also HQ in social studies and the 

two courses are often combined. Despite him receiving a Masters degree and completing a year-long internship in a low-income school with underserved populations, 

the HQT standards limited his opportunities in terms of finding a job. If Congress 

66 

wants to keep the HQT standards, they should keep the basic endorsement requirement and perhaps return to using the experience and successful evaluation system. 

There is a large range of costs for endorsements depending on the endorsement 

being added, the institution one is receiving it from, and their previous undergraduate coursework. In order to ease the financial hardship, I would consider offering incentives for dual certification for teachers to gain additional subject-matter 

knowledge. In Washington State, the Retooling Scholarship helps teachers add endorsements in high-need areas. Some districts also offer stipends or days off for 

teachers adding endorsements at the request of the district. My school district supported me in my pursuit of National Board certification, which was a critical part 

of my development as a teacher. Expanding these types of opportunities for more 

teachers should be a part of a reauthorized ESEA. 

While I am not aware of the effects the HQT standards have had on teacher recruitment and retention in a rural setting, I can speak to my experience with the 

Seattle Teacher Residency program which offers dual certification in either SPED 

or ELL, on top of the K–8 and Masters degree the residents receive. Residents who 

I’ve worked with acknowledged that this aspect of the program made it more appealing than other programs. As the reauthorization process continues, I recommend you engage with the teachers who have to face these questions every day. 

They may be able to suggest solutions that acknowledge the realities of rural settings while continuing to invest in teacher development and support. 

Question 3. In 2013, like 42 other States, Maine received a No Child Left Behind 

flexibility waiver from the U.S. Department of Education, which exempts it from 

some of the requirements of the Federal law. However, the U.S. Department of Education has determined that Maine has not yet adopted adequate guidelines for 

teacher and principal evaluation systems. The Department notes that the State 

must clarify the role of statewide tests in its teacher evaluations. 

If the State adopts a different evaluation system that does not place what the 

U.S. Department of Education believes is enough emphasis on student test scores 

in its teacher performance measurement, then the waiver could be revoked and 

many of Maine’s schools may be deemed ‘‘failing.’’ In fact, Washington State faced 

this very scenario 1 year ago, and has since lost its waiver. 

If a State determines that student test scores should be one of many factors in 

teacher evaluations, should the Federal Government be overruling their judgment? 

Answer 3. No, the Federal Government should not dictate what any individual 

State includes in its evaluation system. Research shows that standardized test 

scores do not measure a teacher’s effectiveness. If we focus strictly on testing, we 

will only see some gains, particularly when we’ve intentionally prepared kids for 

these tests, but it won’t provide us with the whole story. 

I personally believe in the ground-up philosophy that evaluations should be more 

personalized and that they should be a part of a larger professional learning and 

growth system. If you leave this decision to the States, you provide more flexibility 

and the potential for innovation. For example, California uses eight criteria (http:// 

downloads.capta.org/edu/e-school-finance/LCAP.pdf) in regards to funding which 

include: student achievement, student engagement, school climate, parental involvement, basic services, implementation of Common Core State Standards (CCSS), 

course access and other student outcomes. In Washington State, every teacher has 

to develop growth goals for students—we come up with our own metrics; we look 

at data & measure student growth based on what we see. The student learning uses 

indicators beyond testing. As a first grade teacher for example, test scores are not 

part of my evaluations; yet I feel like I have received constructive feedback, particularly through serving as a mentor in the Seattle Teacher Residency and through 

Board certification. It is important that ESEA reauthorization continue to look at 

the greater continuum of teaching and the whole picture, not just what is easiest 

to measure. 

More information on Seattle’s Teacher Evaluation system (from Seattle Education 

Association): After a contentious bargaining process between the district and the Seattle Education Association, the 2010 collective bargaining agreement codified a system for teacher evaluation that recognized the importance of student growth without evaluating teachers directly on student test scores. 

While the evidence then wasn’t as conclusive as it is now, it was already then becoming evident that student test scores were an unreliable indicator of teacher effectiveness. Seattle settled on a system that used student test scores as a ‘‘marker’’ 

or a ‘‘red flag’’. If a teacher’s students’ test score were low, it was required that the 

evaluator and the teacher sit down, look at the scores, and have a conversation 

about how to understand the scores and try to determine what things the teacher 

might do to improve outcomes. This conversation is not a ‘‘high-stakes’’ event. The 

67 

evaluator cannot go back and change the teacher’s evaluation rating based on the 

test scores or on the conversation. It is intended as a catalyst to have the teacher 

look forward, to improve teaching practice. This is the essence of a ‘‘professional 

growth’’ model of teacher evaluation. 

Two years later, when Washington’s State legislature took up the issue of teacher 

evaluation, the State hewed closely to Seattle’s model of a professional growth-based 

system. In Seattle the system was already demonstrating its advantages by laying 

the groundwork for collaboration with colleagues, for willingness to try new practices, and for joint reflection on the craft of teaching. The State legislature followed 

Seattle’s lead on how to treat student growth. It created a student growth requirement for all teachers, not just teachers of tested grades and subjects. If teachers feel 

that the State test is the appropriate instrument for measuring student growth, 

then they can use it as their measure of student growth. If they do not see it as 

an appropriate instrument, then they and their evaluator can develop a different 

measure of student growth. Every teacher, however, has to have a goal and a measure for student growth. This is changing the culture of teachers in Washington 

State in a positive, non-punitive way. Teachers now reflect more on their practice 

in conscious ways that foster student growth. 

States should be allowed to develop teacher evaluation systems that grow teachers’ capacity over time and help them to become better practitioners. Great teachers 

are not born; they are made. It is also well-established that student test scores are 

a poor indicator of effective teachers. We have to develop teachers into the kinds 

of professionals that we want them to be. High-stakes evaluation, based on student 

testing, does not do this; we have to create the space where educators can feel safe 

to take the risks they need to take in trying new things as they journey on the road 

to a better teaching practice. 

SENATOR MURKOWSKI

Question 1. The Discussion Draft bill that we are working on here in the committee would give much more autonomy to States to make decisions about education 

policies. Do you think that the Federal Government should maintain some basic requirements for States to implement in designing how they ensure the maximum 

number of effective teachers and leaders, or should Congress give States complete 

authority? Why? 

Answer 1. I believe that States, school districts, and the educators working directly with students know best what their students need, thus I’d lean with more 

State control. The Federal Government should focus on providing resources to support and retain high quality teachers, such as investing in residency models and 

mentoring programs, and providing professional learning opportunities so that educators can better support their students. We need to ensure that teachers are getting trained properly and we should also make an effort to recruit more males and 

teachers of color. Congress might also want to direct title I money to help specific 

student types, such as those living in poverty or struggling with academics, etc., 

while not directing State level policy.

Without losing the emphasis on teacher quality, a reauthorized ESEA should 

bring resources to bear on the challenges that poor children face. Housing security, 

food security, health care, vision and dental care, mental health services, anti-gang 

support, social services for immigrant families, employment for parents/guardians, 

sexual and physical abuse interventions, after-school programs/child care, early 

childhood education, all need huge investment to help poor children be ready to 

learn. Children are not ready to learn when their families are struggling. Some of 

these are areas for investment that are not in education per se, but will have huge 

returns in educational outcomes. A reauthorized ESEA should leverage Federal education moneys to prompt communities to make bigger investments in these areas. 

Within education there are parallel areas where attention will also improve outcomes. My school system has inadequate numbers of counselors, nurses, health clinics, psychologists, speech language pathologists, physical therapists, occupational 

therapists, family support workers, specialists, and librarians. These people do the 

same kind of work inside schools for students as the work mentioned above that 

needs to be done in the neighborhoods for families. This work is not optional; it is 

essential. These people are not luxuries in our system of education; they are necessary for bringing our Nation’s educational attainment for all of its citizens up to 

a level where we all can be proud. 

Question 2. Ms. Moore, thank you for your work as a teacher, and as a teacher 

mentor and leader. You asked us to provide resources, through ESEA, to help 

schools across the country develop teacher induction and mentoring programs. We 

can get a handle on this request, what does it cost the Seattle School District, from 

68 

all sources of funding, to implement the program you’ve described? What are the 

current sources of funding? 

Answer 2. The Seattle Teacher Residency has a total budget for 2014–15 of $1.4M 

that supports rigorous, targeted recruitment and selection, intense clinical preparation, mentor selection and support, and coursework planning and delivery for 31 

residents. The program budget will increase incrementally over time with the increase in cohort size, rising to $2.3M by 2017–18 to train 60 residents for Seattle 

Public Schools. 

The bulk of the program expenses are directed to mentor and resident stipends 

to support them in their work throughout the yearlong program. The resident stipend is $16.5K plus benefits; the mentor stipend is $3.5K. 

The other major cost centers are:

• Recruitment, $40K; 

• Coursework and instructional costs at the University of Washington, which are 

covered by resident tuition of $25K; 

• Mentor professional development, $50k; and 

• Graduate induction, $20k. 

SSP currently contributes 17 percent of the program costs in 2014–15, with a rising investment over the next 4 years to 33–51 percent. The initial launch expenses 

were supported primarily by private philanthropy. Private philanthropy and other 

supporters, including Federal program funds, will contribute toward the long-term 

support of the program. 

Please contact the Program Director, Marisa Bier (marisa@alliance4ed.org, 206– 

205–0338), with any additional budget questions. In addition, Urban Teacher Residency United (UTRU) is a great resource for accessing information about the cost 

of the model generally, and examples of how other residencies pay for the program. 

RESPONSE BY CHRISTINE HANDY-COLLINS TO QUESTIONS OF SENATOR COLLINS

AND SENATOR MURKOWSKI

SENATOR COLLINS

Question 1. In 2005, former-Senator Olympia Snowe and I commissioned the 

Maine NCLB Task Force to examine the issues Maine faced with implementing the 

new law. 

Maine’s small rural schools, the ‘‘Highly Qualified Teacher’’ standard (HQT) was 

particularly burdensome and, in many cases, unworkable. In rural schools, the reality is that teachers must teach multiple subjects and are often re-assigned to different content areas because of low enrollments. Yet HQT requires teachers to have 

majored in or passed rigorous State tests in the subjects that they are teaching. 

When this year’s fourth grade math teacher must become next year’s fifth grade 

science teacher, meeting the added burden of becoming ‘‘highly qualified’’ in several 

academic areas makes staffing even more difficult. 

The Maine Task Force recommended that States be granted flexibility to create 

different standards for rural school districts. Do you believe that States should have 

the authority to set alternative standards in small rural schools that incorporate 

factors such as school size and the courses available? 

Answer 1. Proposals introduced in the 114th Congress and the ESEA flexibility 

waivers offered to States by the U.S. Department of Education remove the requirement that teachers be ‘‘highly qualified’’ and focus on a definition of ‘‘effectiveness’’ 

related to robust teacher evaluation systems. I serve on the board of directors for 

the National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP), and our organizations is a leading member of the Coalition for Teaching Quality (CTQ) whose mission is to promote equal access to well-prepared and effective educators for each and 

every child. In October 2014, CTQ released a policy roadmap (attached) for transforming the teacher and principal professions. We feel that Federal policy should 

support the development of a coherent, performance-based professional continuum 

for teachers and principals that begins in preparation and leads to accomplished 

practice and the opportunity to serve in leadership roles. The framework offers specific recommendations to: (1) strengthen the recruitment pipeline; (2) ensure that 

the next generation of educators are profession-ready; (3) create opportunities for 

continuous professional learning and growth; and (4) provide pathways for teacher 

and principal leadership. The Rural Schools and Community Trust is an active 

member of CTQ and strongly feels this framework will help to ensure that students 

in rural have the same access to excellent teachers and principals as students in 

suburban or urban areas. 

69 

Question 2. No Child Left Behind defines ‘‘core academic subjects’’ to include 10 

subject areas, including civics and government, economics, history, and geography. 

The Maine NCLB Task Force observed that many schools integrated these four 

subjects into one ‘‘social studies’’ course. Yet the ‘‘Highly Qualified Teacher’’ standard (HQT) would have had a social studies teacher meet the HQT requirements of 

all four subject areas. Notably, NCLB does not break down ‘‘science’’ into its many 

subdivisions, like biology or chemistry. 

School districts want to attract the best and the brightest to the teaching profession. My concern, however, is that the HQT standard may have had two unintended 

and related consequences. 

First, it places a burden on teachers who have multiple class assignments. And 

second, it may result in narrowing school curricula, resulting in fewer classes being 

offered. The Maine Task Force found that these burdens were particularly detrimental to small rural districts, where teacher recruitment and retention is especially difficult. 

What effects have the HQT standards had on teacher recruitment and retention, 

as well as school curricula? Are there ways to encourage teachers to gain additional 

subject-matter knowledge without imposing an HQT requirement in each subject 

that a teacher teaches? 

Answer 2. As I mentioned in my previous response, proposals introduced in the 

114th Congress and the ESEA flexibility waivers offered to States by the U.S. Department of Education remove the requirement that teachers be ‘‘highly qualified’’ 

and focus on a definition of ‘‘effectiveness’’ related to robust teacher evaluation systems. 

Question 3. In 2013, like 42 other States, Maine received a No Child Left Behind 

flexibility waiver from the U.S. Department of Education, which exempts it from 

some of the requirements of the Federal law. However, the U.S. Department of Education has determined that Maine has not yet adopted adequate guidelines for 

teacher and principal evaluation systems. The Department notes that the State 

must clarify the role of statewide tests in its teacher evaluations. 

If the State adopts a different evaluation system that does not place what the 

U.S. Department of Education believes is enough emphasis on student test scores 

in its teacher performance measurement, then the waiver could be revoked and 

many of Maine’s schools may be deemed ‘‘failing.’’ In fact, Washington State faced 

this very scenario 1 year ago, and has since lost its waiver. 

If a State determines that student test scores should be one of many factors in 

teacher evaluations, should the Federal Government be overruling their judgment? 

Answer 3. The NASSP board of directors approved a position statement on Teacher Supervision and Evaluation in 2011. We recommend that States and districts 

should include multiple measures of performance, including but not limited to, input 

measures such as evidence of a teacher’s knowledge of subject matter; skill in planning, delivering, monitoring, and assessing students’ learning; skill in developing 

and maintaining positive relationships with students, parents, and colleagues; 

knowledge and skills in pedagogical methods to meet the needs of students with an 

array of learning styles and needs; and commitment to students’ learning to their 

utmost potential. Examples of outcome data that are also appropriate and necessary 

to assess teacher effectiveness are students’ individual growth and progress as 

measured on valid and reliable standardized instruments, teacher made tests that 

are aligned with the curriculum, student performance demonstrations in a variety 

of media, and portfolios of student work. NASSP does not believe that teacher evaluations should be based solely on student test scores, and we are concerned that 

many States are include a very high percentage for student data. However, our understanding of the situation in Washington is that State law allows districts to determine what assessment may be included in the teacher evaluation, and the U.S. 

Department of Education requires that the State assessment mandated under 

NCLB be used in the teacher evaluation systems. 

SENATOR MURKOWSKI

Question 1. The Discussion Draft bill that we are working on here in the committee would give much more autonomy to States to make decisions about education 

policies. Do you think that the Federal Government should maintain some basic requirements for States to implement in designing how they ensure the maximum 

number of effective teachers and leaders, or should Congress give States complete 

authority? Why? 

Answer 1. Principals believe the appropriate Federal role in education is to promote equity and access and provide targeted resources to assist States and local districts that, in turn, must support educators to meet the learning needs of students, 

70 

* The document referred to may be found at http://coalitionforteachingquality.org/images/ 

upload/Profssion.Dov.pdf. 

especially those that are considered ‘‘high-need.’’ As I mentioned in my response to 

Senator Collins, NASSP is a member of the Coalition for Teaching Quality (CTQ) 

that released in October 2014 a policy roadmap for transforming the teaching and 

principal profession. We feel that Federal policy should support the development of 

a coherent, performance-based professional continuum for teachers and principals 

that begins in preparation and leads to accomplished practice and the opportunity 

to serve in leadership roles. The framework offers specific recommendations to: (1) 

strengthen the recruitment pipeline; (2) ensure that the next generation of educators are profession-ready; (3) create opportunities for continuous professional 

learning and growth; and (4) provide pathways for teacher and principal leadership. 

While the framework does include examples of States and districts that are already 

leading this effort to transform the teacher and principal professions, I communicate 

regularly with principals across the Nation that do not see the same emphasis on 

preparation, induction, evaluation, and professional development, so I do believe it 

is inherent for the Federal Government to provide States guidance in this area. 

Question 2. You have encouraged Congress to direct States to require entrance 

exams for principal preparation programs. Can you share with us what types of 

skills, and what knowledge, you would expect each candidate to have in order to 

be accepted for training as a principal?

Answer 2. In addition to the policy roadmap I referenced in my previous response, 

CTQ released a document in October 2014 titled Profession-Ready Teachers and 

Principals for Each and Every Child.* To ensure that principals are profession-ready 

when they enter the school building, we feel that they should: (1) have an advanced 

degree and a demonstrated record of success as a teacher; (2) demonstrate leadership competencies through an assessment prior to entry into a high-quality principal 

preparation program; (3) complete a 1-year residency program that includes handson instructional leadership experiences and guidance from a mentor or coach in 

preK–12 schools; and (4) demonstrate a deep understanding of the domains of effective school leadership and related competencies through a performance-based assessment. NASSP offers an assessment and development framework around four 

themes: educational leadership, resolving complex problems; communication skills; 

and developing self and others. Within these four themes are 10 primary skill areas 

to assess and develop. 

• Setting instructional direction: implementing strategies for improving teaching 

and learning, including putting programs and improvement efforts into action; 

• Teamwork: seeking and encouraging involvement of team members; 

• Sensitivity: perceiving the needs and concerns of others; 

• Judgment: ability to make high quality decisions based on data; 

• Results orientation: assuming responsibility; 

• Organizational ability: planning and scheduling one’s own and the work of others so that resources are used appropriately; 

• Oral communication: clearly communicating; 

• Written communication: ability to express ideas clearly and correctly in writing; 

• Developing others: teaching, coaching, and helping others; and 

• Understanding own strengths and weaknesses: identifying personal strengths 

and weaknesses. 

[Whereupon, at 11:53 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

Æ