Highly Qualified Teachers Enrolled in 

Programs Providing Alternative Routes 

to Teacher Certification or Licensure

Highly Qualified Teachers Enrolled in Programs Providing 

Alternative Routes to Teacher Certification or Licensure

Prepared by:

Policy and Program Studies Service

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development

U.S. Department of Education

June 2015
This report was produced with support from Westat under U.S. Department of Education Contract No. 

ED-PEP-11-C-0062. Joanne Bogart served as the contracting officer’s representative. The views 

expressed herein do not necessarily represent the positions or policies of the Department of Education.

No official endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education of any product, commodity, service or 

enterprise mentioned in this publication is intended or should be inferred. For the reader’s convenience, 

this publication contains information about and from outside organizations, including hyperlinks and 

URLs. Inclusion of such information does not constitute an endorsement by the Department. 

U.S. Department of Education

Arne Duncan

Secretary

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development

Amy McIntosh

Deputy Assistant Secretary

Delegated Duties of Assistant Secretary

Policy and Program Studies Service

Jennifer Bell-Ellwanger

Director

June 2015

This report is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or in part is granted. While 

permission to reprint this publication is not necessary, the citation should be: U.S. Department of 

Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service, 

Highly Qualified Teachers Enrolled in Programs Providing Alternative Routes to Teacher Certification or 

Licensure, Washington, DC 2015.

This report is available on the Department’s website at: 

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html

Availability of Alternate Formats

Requests for documents in alternate formats such as Braille or large print should be submitted to the 

Alternate Format Center by calling 202-260-0852 or by contacting the 504 coordinator via email at 

om_eeos@ed.gov.

Notice to Limited English Proficient Persons

If you have difficulty understanding English, you may request language assistance services for 

Department information that is available to the public. These language assistance services are available 

free of charge. If you need more information about interpretation or translation services, please call 1-

800-USA-LEARN (1-800-872-5327) (TTY: 1-800-437-0833), or email us at: 

Ed.Language.Assistance@ed.gov. Or write to: U.S. Department of Education, Information Resource 

Center, LBJ Education Building, 400 Maryland Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20202.

Content Contact:

Ivy Morgan

Phone: 202-401-7767

Email: ivy.morgan@ed.gov
Contents

List of Exhibits.............................................................................................................................................. iii

Executive Summary..................................................................................................................................... vii

I. Introduction .....................................................................................................................................1

Overview of Study Design and Study Questions.......................................................................2

Alternative Routes to Teacher Certification or Licensure .........................................................4

Federal requirements concerning highly qualified teachers and alternative routes.........4

Alternative route programs and participants.....................................................................5

II. Data Collection and Analysis............................................................................................................9

Data Quality Procedures .........................................................................................................10

Extent of Missing Data in Responding States..........................................................................12

Data Analysis Procedures........................................................................................................13

Data Limitations ......................................................................................................................14

III. Findings..........................................................................................................................................17

References ..................................................................................................................................................25

Appendix A: Analysis of LEAs with High Concentrations of English Learners.............................................27

Appendix B: Supplemental Tables ..............................................................................................................29

i
ii
List of Exhibits

Exhibit 1. Number and percentage of teacher preparation entities offering alternative and 

traditional route programs, by entity type: 2011–12......................................................... 5

Exhibit 2. Number and percentage of teacher preparation programs, candidates, and 

completers, for alternative and traditional route programs: 2011–12.............................. 6

Exhibit 3. Teacher preparation program completers, in traditional and alternative route 

programs, by subject area focus: 2011–12......................................................................... 7

Exhibit 4. Number of LEAs and states with various data anomalies ................................................ 11

Exhibit 5. Number of states that reported state totals that did not equal the sum of their LEAlevel numbers, and number of states in which this difference was greater than 

1 percent of highly qualified teachers (HQTs) .................................................................. 12

Exhibit 6. Number and percentage of operational LEAs in the 2012–13 Common Core of Data 

that were included in the dataset on highly qualified teachers enrolled in alternative 

route programs in 2013–14, by type of LEA ..................................................................... 13

Exhibit 7. Number of states by percentage of highly qualified teachers (HQTs) who were 

enrolled in alternative route programs, overall and for selected types of teachers 

and LEAs: 2013–14............................................................................................................ 17

Exhibit 8. Percentage of highly qualified teachers (HQTs) enrolled in alternative route 

programs, in states that reported that 4 percent or more of HQTs were enrolled in 

such programs, for all HQTs and for selected types of teachers and LEAs: 2013–14 ...... 18

Exhibit 9. Percentage distribution of districts by percentage of highly qualified teachers (HQTs) 

who were enrolled in alternative route programs, overall and for selected subgroups 

of teachers and LEAs: 2013–14......................................................................................... 19

Exhibit 10. Number and percentage of LEAs with highly qualified teachers (HQTs) who were 

enrolled in alternative route programs, overall and for selected subgroups of 

teachers and LEAs: 2013–14............................................................................................. 20

Exhibit 11. Percentage of highly qualified teachers (HQTs) enrolled in alternative route 

programs, by LEA poverty rate: 2013–14 ......................................................................... 21

Exhibit 12. Percentage of highly qualified teachers (HQTs) enrolled in alternative route 

programs, by LEA urbanicity: 2013–14............................................................................. 22

Exhibit 13. Percentage of highly qualified teachers (HQTs) enrolled in alternative route 

programs, by LEA enrollment size: 2013–14 .................................................................... 23

Exhibit A.1. Percentage of highly qualified teachers (HQTs) enrolled in alternative route 

programs, by LEA percentage of English learner (EL) students: 2013–14........................ 27

Exhibit A.2. Percentage distribution of LEAs, by percentage of all highly qualified teachers 

(HQTs) who were enrolled in alternative route programs, by LEA percentage of 

English learner (EL) students: 2013–14 ............................................................................ 28

iii
Exhibit B.1. Number of candidates enrolled in teacher preparation programs and number who 

completed such programs, for alternative and traditional route programs, by state: 

2011–12 ............................................................................................................................ 30

Exhibit B.2. Total number of operational LEAs in 2012–13 Common Core of Data (CCD) that were 

not included in the alternative route teachers (AR) dataset for 2013–14, by type of 

LEA and by state................................................................................................................ 31

Exhibit B.3. Percentage of operational LEAs in 2012–13 Common Core of Data (CCD) that were 

not included in the alternative route teachers dataset for 2013–14, and distribution 

of such LEAs within each state, by type of LEA and by state............................................ 32

Exhibit B.4. Number of LEAs with highly qualified teachers enrolled in alternative route 

programs (AR HQTs), overall and for various types of LEAs and teachers, by state: 

2013–14 ............................................................................................................................ 33

Exhibit B.5. Number and percentage of highly qualified teachers (HQTs) enrolled in alternative 

route programs, by state: 2013–14 .................................................................................. 34

Exhibit B.6. Number and percentage of special education highly qualified teachers (HQTs) 

enrolled in alternative route programs, by state: 2013–14 ............................................. 35

Exhibit B.7. Number and percentage of Title III highly qualified teachers (HQTs) enrolled in 

alternative route programs, by state: 2013–14................................................................ 36

Exhibit B.8. Number and percentage of highly qualified teachers (HQTs) enrolled in alternative 

route programs in high-poverty LEAs, by state: 2013–14 ................................................ 37

Exhibit B.9. Number and percentage of highly qualified teachers (HQTs) enrolled in alternative 

route programs in rural LEAs, by state: 2013–14 ............................................................. 38

Exhibit B.10. Number of LEAs, by percentage of highly qualified teachers (HQTs) enrolled in 

alternative route programs, for various types of LEAs and teachers: 2013–14 ............... 39

Exhibit B.11. Percentage distribution of LEAs, by percentage of highly qualified teachers (HQTs) 

enrolled in alternative route programs, for various types of LEAs and teachers: 

2013–14 ............................................................................................................................ 40

Exhibit B.12. Number of LEAs with highly qualified teachers (HQTs) enrolled in alternative route 

programs, for various types of LEAs and teachers: 2013–14 ........................................... 41

Exhibit B.13. Percentage of LEAs with highly qualified teachers (HQTs) enrolled in alternative 

route programs, for various types of LEAs and teachers: 2013–14.................................. 41

Exhibit B.14. Number of highly qualified teachers (HQTs) enrolled in alternative route programs,

for various types of LEAs and teachers: 2013–14............................................................. 42

Exhibit B.15. Percentage of highly qualified teachers (HQTs) enrolled in alternative route 

programs, for various types of LEAs and teachers: 2013–14 ........................................... 42

Exhibit B.16. Number of highly qualified teachers (HQTs) enrolled in alternative route programs, 

by percentage of teachers enrolled in alternative route programs in the LEA, for 

various types of LEAs and teachers: 2013–14 .................................................................. 43

Exhibit B.17. Percentage distribution of highly qualified teachers (HQTs) enrolled in alternative 

route programs, by percentage of teachers enrolled in alternative route programs in 

the LEA, for various types of LEAs and teachers: 2013–14............................................... 44

iv
Exhibit B.18. Number of LEAs, by percentage of all highly qualified teachers (HQTs) who were 

enrolled in alternative route programs and by LEA characteristics: 2013–14 ................. 45

Exhibit B.19. Percentage distribution of LEAs, by percentage of all highly qualified teachers 

(HQTs) who were enrolled in alternative route programs and by LEA characteristics: 

2013–14 ............................................................................................................................ 46

Exhibit B.20. Number of highly qualified teachers (HQTs) who were enrolled in alternative route 

programs, by percentage of teachers enrolled in alternative route programs in the 

LEA and by LEA characteristics: 2013–14 ......................................................................... 47

Exhibit B.21. Percentage distribution of highly qualified teachers (HQTs) who were enrolled in 

alternative route programs, by percentage of teachers enrolled in alternative route 

programs in the LEA and by LEA characteristics: 2013–14............................................... 48

Exhibit B.22. Percentage distribution of LEAs with highly qualified teachers (HQTs) enrolled in 

alternative route programs, by LEA characteristics: 2013–14.......................................... 49

Exhibit B.23. Percentage distribution of LEAs with special education highly qualified teachers 

(HQTs) enrolled in alternative route programs, by LEA characteristics: 2013–14 ........... 50

Exhibit B.24. Percentage distribution of LEAs with Title III highly qualified teachers (HQTs) 

enrolled in alternative route programs, by LEA characteristics: 2013–14 ....................... 51

Exhibit B.25. Percentage of highly qualified teachers (HQTs) enrolled in alternative route 

programs, by LEA characteristics: 2013–14...................................................................... 52

Exhibit B.26. Percentage of special education highly qualified teachers (HQTs) enrolled in 

alternative route programs, by LEA characteristics: 2013–14.......................................... 53

Exhibit B.27. Percentage of Title III highly qualified teachers (HQTs) enrolled in alternative route 

programs, by LEA characteristics: 2013–14...................................................................... 54

Exhibit B.28. Percentage distribution of highly qualified teachers (HQTs) enrolled in alternative 

route programs, by LEA characteristics: 2013–14 ............................................................ 55

Exhibit B.29. Percentage distribution of special education highly qualified teachers (HQTs) 

enrolled in alternative route programs, by LEA characteristics: 2013–14 ....................... 56

Exhibit B.30. Percentage distribution of Title III highly qualified teachers (HQTs) enrolled in 

alternative route programs, by LEA characteristics: 2013–14.......................................... 57

Exhibit B.31. Percentage distribution of LEAs with 4 percent or more of highly qualified teachers 

(HQTs) enrolled in alternative route programs, by LEA characteristics: 2013–14 ........... 58

Exhibit B.32. Percentage of highly qualified teachers (HQTs) enrolled in alternative route 

programs, for selected types of teachers, by LEA characteristics: 2013–14 .................... 59

Exhibit B.33. Percentage of highly qualified teachers (HQTs) enrolled in alternative route 

programs, in LEAs with HQTs enrolled in alternative route programs, for selected 

types of teachers, by LEA characteristics: 2013–14.......................................................... 60

Exhibit B.34. Percentage of highly qualified teachers (HQTs) enrolled in alternative route 

programs, in LEAs with 4 percent or more of HQTs enrolled in alternative route 

programs, for selected types of teachers, by LEA characteristics: 2013–14 .................... 61

v
vi
Executive Summary

Teacher preparation programs that provide alternative pathways to teacher certification are intended to 

expand the pool of potential teachers and enable a more diverse array of people to enter the teaching 

profession. Alternative route programs typically allow candidates to serve as teachers of record in a 

classroom while they complete their coursework for full state certification or licensure. Such programs 

are frequently designed to recruit potential teachers to fill critical shortage areas in hard-to-staff schools 

and subjects as well as to recruit and train mid-career professionals who are interested in transitioning 

to the teaching profession. 

Teachers who are enrolled in programs providing alternative routes to certification or licensure may, if 

the programs have certain minimum elements, meet the certification requirements to be considered a

highly qualified teacher (HQT) under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).

i

Some 

policymakers and civil rights advocates have raised concerns that teachers enrolled in alternative route

programs may be disproportionately assigned to teach students with greater needs. At the same time, 

because one purpose of alternative route programs is to recruit teachers to fill critical shortage areas in 

hard-to-staff schools and subjects, it may not be surprising if high-need schools have a higher proportion 

of teachers in alternative route programs than other schools. Research on the effects of alternative vs. 

traditional pathways to certification on student achievement has found mixed results.

ii

In order to better understand this issue, Congress directed the U.S. Department of Education to provide 

data on the extent to which students in four different subgroups are taught by teachers who are 

classified as highly qualified under ESEA and who are enrolled in alternative route teacher preparation 

programs: (1) students with disabilities, (2) English learners, (3) students in rural areas, and (4) lowincome students.

This report summarizes information collected by the Department for the 2013–14 school year in 

response to the congressional directive. Because many states did not have the capacity to report 

student-level data on teacher certification, the Department instead asked states to report the number 

of HQTs who were enrolled in alternative route programs for three groups of teachers: (1) all teachers,

(2) special education teachers, and (3) teachers in language instruction educational programs for English 

learners under Title III of the ESEA (Title III teachers). In addition, the Department estimated the number 

of HQTs in rural and high-poverty areas by incorporating district-level classifications from extant data 

sources. States were asked to report the data in terms of full-time equivalent (FTE) teachers and to 

report the data for each local education agency (LEA) as well as for the state as a whole.

A total of 49 states and jurisdictions reported the requested data (48 states and the District of 

Columbia). Two states and two jurisdictions did not submit these data ― Mississippi, Pennsylvania, 

Puerto Rico, and the Bureau of Indian Education. The 49 states and jurisdictions that submitted these 

data accounted for 94 percent of the nation’s teachers and 95 percent of all teachers enrolled in 

i

In this report, references to ESEA are to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended in 2001 by the 

No Child Left Behind Act.

ii Constantine et al. (2009), An Evaluation of Teachers Trained Through Different Routes to Certification: Final Report; and Clark 

et al. (2013), The Effectiveness of Secondary Math Teachers from Teach For America and the Teaching Fellows Programs.

vii

 
alternative route programs.

iii However, only 16 states reported having Title III HQTs enrolled in 

alternative route programs, and over three-fourths of such Title III HQTs were in just four of those states 

(Florida, New Jersey, New Mexico, and Tennessee), so these data should be viewed with caution as they 

largely represent patterns in four states.

Key findings based on these data include:

• While most states employed some HQTs who were enrolled in alternative route teacher 

preparation programs, these teachers made up a small proportion of total HQTs, both 

overall as well as for the four subgroups of HQTs examined in this report. 

o Overall, across 48 states and the District of Columbia, 1.5 percent of HQTs were 

enrolled in alternative route programs. 

o The average percentage of HQTs enrolled in alternative route programs was 1.9 

percent for special education teachers, 1.3 percent for Title III teachers, 2.3 percent 

for high-poverty school districts, and 1.3 percent for rural school districts. 

• A majority of the responding states reported that less than 1 percent of all HQTs were 

enrolled in alternative route programs. Four states reported that none of their HQTs were 

in alternative route programs, while 12 states had one or more HQT subgroups in which 

4 percent or more were enrolled in alternative route programs.

• Most LEAs had no HQTs enrolled in alternative route programs. In the LEAs that did have 

such teachers, most had fewer than five such teachers, and they usually accounted for less

than 4 percent of all HQTs in the LEA.

• High-poverty school districts had higher percentages of HQTs enrolled in alternative route 

programs (2.3 percent), on average, than districts with low poverty rates (1.0 percent).

• Across all LEAs, rural school districts had a lower percentage of HQTs enrolled in alternative 

route programs (1.3 percent) than urban districts (2.2 percent) and a proportion that was 

comparable to the proportions in town and suburban districts (1.5 percent and 1.1 percent, 

respectively).

iii Total numbers of teacher candidates currently enrolled in alternative route programs are available from annual statereported data submitted to the Office of Postsecondary Education by the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico 

(states generally collect these data from institutions offering teacher preparation programs). The most recent available data, for 

the 2011–12 school year, indicate that Mississippi and Pennsylvania each accounted for 2.3 percent of all teacher candidates in 

alternative route programs, and Puerto Rico accounted for 0.1 percent.

viii

 
I. Introduction

Alternative pathways to teacher certification are intended to expand the pool of potential teachers 

and enable a more diverse array of people to gain certification and enter the teaching profession. 

Alternative route programs vary in their specific features and requirements, but typically allow

candidates to serve as teachers of record in a classroom while they complete coursework for full state 

certification or licensure. Such programs are frequently designed to recruit potential teachers to fill 

critical shortage areas in hard-to-staff schools and subjects as well as to recruit and train mid-career 

professionals who are interested in transitioning to the teaching profession. 

Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)1 requires that all public school teachers 

of core academic subjects be “highly qualified,” including having full state certification or licensure.

Under federal regulations, teachers who are enrolled in programs providing an alternative route to 

certification or licensure may, if those programs have certain minimum elements, meet the certification 

requirements to be considered a highly qualified teacher for up to three years while they complete full 

state certification or licensure requirements.2

Some policymakers and civil rights advocates have raised concerns that teachers enrolled in alternative 

route programs may be disproportionately assigned to teach students with greater needs. At the same 

time, because alternative route programs are often intended to recruit teachers to fill critical shortage 

areas in hard-to-staff schools and subjects, it may not be surprising if high-need schools have a higher 

proportion of teachers in alternative route programs compared with other schools. Research on the 

effects of alternative vs. traditional pathways to certification on student achievement has found mixed 

results.3

In order to better understand this issue, Congress directed the U.S. Department of Education to provide 

data on the extent to which certain students are taught by teachers who are deemed highly qualified

and are currently enrolled in alternative route teacher preparation programs.

4 Specifically, Congress 

asked the Department to collect these data for four student subgroups: (1) students with disabilities, (2) 

English learners, (3) students in rural areas, and (4) low-income students. Congress asked the 

Department to report these data by state and by local education agency (LEA).

1 In this report, references to ESEA are to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the No Child Left 

Behind Act of 2001.

2 34 CFR 200.56(a)(2).

3 As summarized by a 2009 Institute of Education Sciences (IES) report, “The more rigorous studies generally showed that 

students of AC [alternative route to certification] teachers scored the same or higher than students of TC [traditional route to 

certification] teachers, or that they scored slightly lower during their teacher’s first year of teaching, but scored the same by the 

teacher’s second year. When effects have been found, they have typically been described by the authors as small.” The IES 

study itself found no statistically significant difference in performance between students of alternative route and traditional 

route teachers (Constantine et al., 2009, An Evaluation of Teachers Trained Through Different Routes to Certification: Final 

Report). A 2013 IES report found that teachers enrolled in highly selective alternative route programs were as effective as or 

more effective than teachers from other routes to certification (Clark et al., 2013, The Effectiveness of Secondary Math Teachers 

from Teach For America and the Teaching Fellows Programs).

4 Continuing Resolution, 2013 (P.L. 112-175, Section 145(c)) (CR). The full text of the request is as follows: “Not later than 

December 31, 2013, the Secretary of Education shall submit a report to the Committees on Appropriations and Health, 

Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate and the Committees on Appropriations and Education and the Workforce of the 

House of Representatives, using data required under existing law (section 1111(h)(6)(A) of Public Law 107–110) by State and 

each local educational agency, regarding the extent to which students in the following categories are taught by teachers who 

are deemed highly qualified pursuant to 34 C.F.R. 200.56(a)(2)(ii) as published in the Federal Register on December 2, 2002: 

(1) Students with disabilities. (2) English Learners. (3) Students in rural areas. (4) Students from low-income families.”

1

 
This report summarizes data submitted by 48 states and the District of Columbia for the 2013–14 school 

year in response to the congressional request. The state- and district-level datasets are available on the 

Department’s website at http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html.

Overview of Study Design and Study Questions

In order to respond to the congressional request, the Department designed a special data collection in a 

manner intended to maximize data quality while also minimizing reporting burden for states and school 

districts. Several factors limited the ability of states and school districts to report the student-level data 

requested by Congress. First, the data were not readily available in all states and districts, because the 

ESEA does not require them to report or maintain statewide or districtwide data on the characteristics 

and credentials of all teachers. The “Parents Right-to-Know” provision of Title I does require Title I 

districts to respond to parent requests for information about the credentials of their child’s teacher(s), 

but it does not require districts to systematically collect comprehensive data on teacher qualifications or 

to report such data to their state education agency (SEA) or to the U.S. Department of Education.5

In addition, in order to provide data on the characteristics of students’ teachers (i.e., the number of 

students with disabilities or English learners who are taught by teachers with certain credentials), states 

and/or school districts would need to have teacher-to-course-to-student data systems that also link to 

teacher licensure data. However, after a review of information collected from states through the 

Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems (SLDS) grant program, the Department concluded that very few 

states and school districts had data systems that link teacher licensure data to specific courses and 

students.

Consequently, the Department asked states to report district-level data on the numbers of highly 

qualified teachers (HQTs) in alternative route programs who served the specific populations of students

identified in the congressional directive, rather than data on the numbers of students taught by such 

teachers. Specifically, the Department asked states to report the number of HQT FTEs who were 

enrolled in alternative route programs, overall and for each school district, for three groups of teachers: 

(1) all teachers, (2) special education teachers, and (3) teachers in Title III language instruction 

educational programs (referred to in this report as “Title III teachers”). This reporting allowed the 

Department to examine those HQTs who were specifically assigned to teach students with disabilities or 

English learners and whether those students were disproportionally taught by teachers who were

enrolled in alternative route programs.

In order to examine the extent to which students in rural and high-poverty areas were taught by HQTs 

enrolled in alternative route programs, this study used extant data from the National Center for 

Education Statistics (NCES) and the Census Bureau to identify rural school districts and high-poverty

school districts. In addition, because many states reported having no Title III HQTs enrolled in alternative 

route programs (33 states), the study also used NCES data on English learner (EL) student enrollment in 

5 See section 1111(h)(6)(A). This provision reads: ‘‘(6) PARENTS RIGHT-TO-KNOW. (A) QUALIFICATIONS. At the beginning of each 

school year, a local educational agency that receives funds under this part shall notify the parents of each student attending any 

school receiving funds under this part that the parents may request, and the agency will provide the parents on request (and in 

a timely manner), information regarding the professional qualifications of the student’s classroom teachers, including, at a 

minimum, the following: (i) Whether the teacher has met State qualification and licensing criteria for the grade levels and 

subject areas in which the teacher provides instruction. (ii) Whether the teacher is teaching under emergency or other 

provisional status through which State qualification or licensing criteria have been waived. (iii) The baccalaureate degree major 

of the teacher and any other graduate certification or degree held by the teacher, and the field of discipline of the certification 

or degree. (iv) Whether the child is provided services by paraprofessionals and, if so, their qualifications.”

2

 
order to examine whether districts with relatively high concentrations of EL students had higher 

proportions of HQTs enrolled in alternative route programs (see Appendix A).

This report is not meant to capture all teachers who ever participated in alternative route certification 

programs. Rather, the report examines the extent to which those teachers who had been designated as 

highly qualified under ESEA were enrolled in such programs during the reporting year. Specifically, the 

report examines the following study questions:

• What percentage of highly qualified teachers are enrolled in alternative route programs, 

overall and for special education teachers, Title III teachers, high-poverty school districts, 

and rural school districts?

• How many states and districts have highly qualified teachers enrolled in alternative route 

programs? How many have relatively high percentages of such teachers?

• How does the percentage of highly qualified teachers enrolled in alternative route programs 

vary across districts? Are they more prevalent in high-poverty districts or rural districts?

The remainder of this chapter provides general information about alternative route teacher preparation 

programs. A more detailed discussion of study methods, including data collection procedures and data 

limitations, is provided in Chapter II.

3
Alternative Routes to Teacher Certification or Licensure

Generally, while both traditional and alternative route programs culminate in a specific state teacher 

certification or licensure in a specific field, the two types of programs differ both in the timing of how 

prospective teachers complete coursework and earn full teaching credentials and in the types of 

organizations that provide them. Candidates tend to enter alternative route programs with at least a 

bachelor’s degree and often are professionals switching from other careers into teaching.6 In contrast, 

traditional route teacher preparation programs tend to enroll undergraduate students and confer 

bachelor’s degrees.

As with requirements for teacher certification or licensure, states do not share a common definition or 

set of requirements to govern what is considered a traditional route or an alternative route; what is 

considered an alternative route in one state might not be classified as such in another state. For 

example, some states classify Teach for America as an alternative route program, while other states, 

such as Delaware, consider it to be a recruiting mechanism, whereby teacher preparation occurs 

through a traditional route program.7

Federal requirements concerning highly qualified teachers and alternative routes

Title I of ESEA, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, requires that all teachers of core 

academic subjects be highly qualified — meaning that they have a bachelor’s degree, full state 

certification or licensure, and demonstrate proficiency in the subject matter they teach.8 Core academic 

subjects are English, reading or language arts, mathematics, science, foreign languages, civics and 

government, economics, arts, history, and geography.9 It is possible for a teacher to be considered 

highly qualified to teach one subject but not another. In 2012–13, states reported that 97 percent of 

core academic classes in public schools were taught by teachers designated as highly qualified.

Under federal regulations, teachers who are enrolled in programs providing an alternative route to 

certification or licensure may, if those programs have certain minimum elements, meet the certification 

requirements to be considered a highly qualified teacher for up to three years while they complete full 

state certification or licensure requirements. Specifically, teachers in alternative route programs must 

be: (1) receiving high-quality professional development that is sustained, intensive, and classroomfocused in order to have a positive and lasting impact on classroom instruction, before and while 

teaching; (2) participating in a program of intensive supervision that consists of structured guidance and 

regular ongoing support for teachers or a teacher mentoring program; (3) assuming functions as a 

teacher only for a specified period of time not to exceed three years; and (4) demonstrating satisfactory 

progress toward full certification as prescribed by the state.10

6 U.S. Department of Education, Office of Innovation and Improvement (2004). Innovations in Education: Alternative Routes to 

Teacher Certification.

7 U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education. Higher Education Act Title II Reporting System and 

Delaware State Department of Education website.

8 ESEA Sections 1119(a)(2) and 9101(23). For teachers in public charter schools, the term “highly qualified” means that the 

teacher meets the requirements set forth in the state's public charter school law (rather than full State certification 

requirements) and the teacher has not had certification or licensure requirements waived on an emergency, temporary, or 

provisional basis (ESEA section 9101(23)). For special education teachers, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)

and federal regulations define specific requirements that largely mirror those of ESEA, except that such teachers are required to 

be fully certified in special education and hold a license to teach as a special education teacher (34 CFR 300.18(b)(2)(i)).

9 34 CFR 200.55(c). 10 34 CFR 200.56(a)(2).

4

 
Alternative route programs and participants

Teacher preparation entities that offer alternative route programs may include institutes of higher 

education (IHEs), states, LEAs, and other approved organizations (such as the American Board for 

Certification of Teacher Excellence or Teach for America). Only IHEs offer traditional route programs

(an IHE may offer both traditional and alternative route programs). In some cases, different entities may 

partner with each other to offer programs — as in a partnership between a school district and an IHE.

Over one-third of all teacher preparation entities in the United States offer 

alternative pathways to certification.

In 2011–12, there were 675 entities that offered alternative route programs, or 40 percent of teacher 

preparation entities (Exhibit 1). Over two-thirds of the entities offering alternative route programs were 

IHEs (68 percent); the remaining 32 percent were LEAs, national teacher preparation organizations, and 

other organizations that states had approved to provide such programs. Most IHEs that offered 

alternative route programs also offered traditional route programs. 

Exhibit 1. Number and percentage of teacher preparation entities offering alternative and traditional route 

programs, by entity type: 2011–12

Teacher preparation entity type

Number of 

teacher 

preparation 

entities

Percent of all 

entities 

offering 

alternative 

route programs

Percent of 

all teacher 

preparation 

entities

Entities offering alternative route programs 675 100 40

IHEs offering alternative route programs 456 68 27

IHEs offering both alternative and traditional route programs 422 63 25

IHEs offering alternative route programs only 34 5 2

Non-IHEs offering alternative route programs 219 32 13

IHEs offering traditional route programs only 1,023 NA 60

Entities offering any type of teacher preparation program 1,698 NA 100

Exhibit reads: Among the 675 teacher preparation entities that offered alternative route programs, 456 were IHEs. 

These 456 entities accounted for 68 percent of all entities offering alternative route programs and 27 percent of all 

teacher preparation entities.

Notes: Data are for the 50 states and the District of Columbia. “NA” indicates that a percentage calculation is “not applicable” for this category.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education. Higher Education Act Title II Reporting System. 

5
Alternative route programs comprised 29 percent of all teacher preparation 

programs in 2011–12, but a considerably smaller proportion of all teacher 

candidates (10 percent) and program completers (14 percent).

Many teacher preparation entities offered multiple programs in order to prepare teachers for specific 

content areas or assignments, so the total number of alternative route programs (7,187) is greater than 

the total number of entities offering alternative route programs (675). Across the nation, 62,961

candidates were enrolled in programs providing alternative pathways to certification in 2011–12, and 

another 29,212 completed their programs (Exhibit 2). Overall, participants in alternative route programs 

represented about 10 percent of all teacher preparation program enrollees and a slightly higher 

percentage of all completers (14 percent).

Exhibit 2. Number and percentage of teacher preparation programs, candidates, and completers, for 

alternative and traditional route programs: 2011–12

Teacher 

preparation 

program type

Number

Teacher 

preparation 

programs

Number

Teacher 

preparation 

candidates

Number

Program 

completers

Percent

Teacher 

preparation 

programs

Percent

Teacher 

preparation 

candidates

Percent

Program 

completers

Alternative routes 7,187 62,961 29,212 29 10 14

IHEs 4,499 33,562 14,039 18 5 7

Non-IHEs 2,688 29,399 15,173 11 5 8

Traditional routes 17,592 551,166 172,252 71 90 86

Total 24,779 614,127 201,464 100 100 100

Exhibit reads: Of all teacher preparation programs, 7,187 (29 percent) were alternative route programs, which 

enrolled 62,961 (10 percent) of all teacher preparation candidates and accounted for 29,212 (14 percent) of all 

program completers.

Notes: Data are for the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Detail may not sum to totals due to rounding.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education. Higher Education Act Title II Reporting System. 

Although IHE-based programs accounted for over two-thirds of all alternative route programs 

(63 percent), they tended to enroll smaller numbers of teacher candidates than did non-IHE programs, 

on average, and as a result they accounted for smaller percentages of alternative route candidates 

(53 percent) and completers (48 percent).11

State-by-state data on the number of participants enrolled in alternative and traditional route programs, 

and the number completing such programs, is provided in Exhibit B.1 in Appendix B.

11 The calculations for these percentages are as follows: 

(a) alternative route programs (4,499 / 7,187 = 63 percent);

(b) alternative route teacher candidates (33,562 / 62,961 = 53 percent); and

(c) alternative route program completers (14,039 / 29,212 = 48 percent).

6

 
Teacher candidates who completed alternative route programs were more likely to 

focus on technical and occupational subject areas than were candidates in 

traditional route programs.

The percentage of completers who were enrolled in alternative route programs was highest for those 

focusing on business (44 percent), followed by those in science (26 percent), career and technical 

education (25 percent), and foreign languages (24 percent) (Exhibit 3). Alternative route program 

completers also accounted for an above-average proportion of total completers for mathematics (21 

percent) and special education (20 percent). Completers focused on secondary and middle school

education were more likely to have enrolled in alternative route programs (18 percent and 24 percent, 

respectively) than were those focused on elementary education (9 percent) and early childhood 

education (9 percent).

Exhibit 3. Teacher preparation program completers, in traditional and alternative route programs, by subject 

area focus: 2011–12 

Subject Area Total number 

of completers

Number in 

traditional route 

programs

Number in 

alternative route 

programs 

Percent in 

alternative route 

programs

Business 1,803 1,007 796 44

Science 14,595 10,733 3,862 26

Career and technical education 2,018 1,510 508 25

Foreign languages 5,740 4,335 1,405 24

Middle school education 16,997 12,971 4,026 24

Multiple grade levels 16,270 12,866 3,404 21

Mathematics 14,735 11,671 3,064 21

Special education 32,978 26,277 6,701 20

Secondary education 32,594 26,689 5,905 18

General education 12,640 10,554 2,086 17

English and language arts 24,306 21,269 3,037 12

Social studies and social sciences 21,514 19,222 2,292 11

Bilingual education and ESL 15,336 13,836 1,500 10

Health and physical education 12,377 11,239 1,138 9

Arts 12,346 11,220 1,126 9

Early childhood education 22,228 20,182 2,046 9

Elementary education 81,196 74,036 7,160 9

Other 3,563 2,988 575 16

Total 343,236 292,605 50,631 15

Exhibit reads: Among teacher preparation program completers in 2011–12, there were 1,803 whose subject area 

was business education, including 1,007 in traditional route programs and 796 in alternative route programs. The 

percentage of business education completers who had completed an alternative route program accounted for 44 

percent of total completers in that subject area.

Notes: Data are for the 50 states and the District of Columbia and reflect 1,608 teacher preparation entities that provided enrollment data and 

sufficient information to allow for categorization by subject area; these entities comprise 95 percent of the 1,698 total teacher preparation 

entities in 2011–12. The total number of completers differs from that in Exhibit 2 because completers may focus in multiple subject areas.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education. Higher Education Act Title II Reporting System.

The remainder of this report discusses the data collection process, data analysis procedures, and

findings for the study questions.

7
8
II. Data Collection and Analysis

The Department collected data to meet the congressional request through the NCES EDFacts Submission 

System (ESS), an electronic system used to collect a wide range of data from SEAs. The Department 

requested data on the numbers of HQTs enrolled in alternative route programs in the 2013–14 school 

year from a total of 53 jurisdictions, including the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and 

the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE).

12

States were asked to submit data on the total number of HQTs and the number of HQTs who were 

enrolled in alternative route programs in full-time equivalents (FTEs), for the state as a whole and for 

each LEA within the state.13 States were also asked to submit the same data for special education HQTs

and Title III HQTs.

14 The Department gave states flexibility in determining their methodology to calculate 

the FTE of HQTs and HQTs enrolled in alternative route programs. If the state did not have approved 

alternative routes to certification, whether for all teachers, special education teachers, or Title III 

teachers, states were directed to submit the file with blanks for those values. If the state did have 

alternative route programs for one or more of these teacher types but data were not collected or 

missing, states were instructed to use “-1” to represent missing counts.

In an effort to obtain the required data from all states, the Department communicated frequently with 

states both prior to and during the data collection. The Department alerted states about the planned 

data collection in September 2013, and subsequently held additional conversations with individual 

state EDFacts coordinators and other SEA officials. In addition, all state EDFacts coordinators were 

required to attend a dedicated session at the annual NCES “Stats DC” conference in July 2014, to provide 

an opportunity to answer questions from states and encourage states to submit data. The Department 

also followed up repeatedly with states that had not responded to the information collection through 

both emails and phone calls.

The Department received data on HQTs enrolled in alternative route programs from 48 states and the 

District of Columbia. Two states and two jurisdictions did not submit the requested data: Mississippi, 

Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, and BIE. Pennsylvania and BIE stated that they would not submit the data 

because they did not have the ability to do so.

15 Mississippi and Puerto Rico provided ESS submissions

but reported missing values for the number of alternative route teachers (using the “-1” reporting 

convention), indicating that they did not have these data.

12 One state, Texas, originally submitted data through the ESS, but later submitted revised data outside the ESS system.

13 The ESS instructions for this data collection are referred to as “EDFacts file specification C500” and are available at 

http://www2.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/edfacts/eden/non-xml/c500-10-2.doc.

14 For this data collection, states were instructed to define a highly qualified Title III teacher as one who is highly qualified for 

teaching in Title III language instruction educational programs, regardless of the source of the teacher’s salary. A Title III 

language instruction educational program is a course of study designed to help limited English proficient children develop 

English proficiency and meet challenging state academic content and student academic achievement standards (Section 3211 

of ESEA).

15 The U.S. Virgin Islands also submitted data although it was not asked to do so. The data submitted by the U.S. Virgin Islands 

are not included in this report, but they are included in the publicly available dataset.

9

 
Data Quality Procedures

While data checks are a standard procedure in analyzing data, they are particularly important for the 

HQT data examined in this report because states had not reported these data previously and many 

states did not have data systems that tracked teacher highly qualified status linked with certification 

status and alternative route program enrollment. 

To help guard against possible data entry errors, the ESS data submission system was programmed to 

include the following checks:

(1) The number of FTE HQTs enrolled in alternative route programs reported for all teachers, special 

education teachers, and Title III teachers should not be greater than the total number of FTE 

HQTs reported for each of those groups of teachers.

(2) The number of FTE HQTs reported for special education teachers and for Title III teachers should 

not be greater than the total number of FTE HQTs reported for all teachers.

(3) The number of FTE HQTs reported for special education teachers and Title III teachers enrolled 

in alternative route programs should not be greater than the total number of FTE HQTs reported 

for all teachers enrolled in alternative route programs.

States whose data entries did not pass the first check were not allowed to complete the submission of 

these data. States whose data entries did not pass the second or third checks were warned about 

possible errors (but were allowed to submit data). 

A small number of LEAs (69 out of 15,676) were removed from the analysis dataset due to various data 

anomalies (Exhibit 4). Some states reported LEAs with a number of special education or Title III HQTs 

that exceeded the LEA’s total number of HQTs, and some reported a number of special education or 

Title III HQTs enrolled in alternative route programs that exceeded the LEA’s total number of HQTs 

enrolled in alternative route programs. In addition, one state (Texas) reported six LEAs with a number of 

HQTs enrolled in alternative route programs that was greater than their total number of HQTs (Texas 

submitted these data outside of the ESS, so the automated edit checks did not occur).

10
Exhibit 4. Number of LEAs and states with various data anomalies

Type of data anomaly Number of LEAs Number of states

Number of special education HQTs was greater than 

total number of HQTs

38 5

Number of special education alternative route HQTs was 

greater than total number of alternative route HQTs

15 6

Number of Title III HQTs was greater than 

total number of HQTs

10 4

Number of Title III alternative route HQTs was greater 

than total number of alternative route HQTs

1 1

Number of all HQTs enrolled in alternative routes was 

greater than total number of HQTs 1 1

Number of special education HQTs enrolled in alternative 

routes was greater than total number special 

education HQTs

6 1

At least one of the above anomalies 69 13

Exhibit reads: In five states, there were a total of 38 LEAs in which the reported number of special education HQTs 

was greater than the reported total number of HQTs.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, EDFacts state data submission, “Highly Qualified Teachers” 

2013–14.

11
In addition, some states reported state totals for alternative route HQTs or total HQTs that did not equal 

the sum of the LEA-level numbers (when rounded to the nearest integer) that they reported for such 

teachers. However, in most cases this difference was small, amounting to less than 1 percent of the 

relevant group of HQTs (Exhibit 5).

Exhibit 5. Number of states that reported state totals that did not equal the sum of their LEA-level numbers, 

and number of states in which this difference was greater than 1 percent of highly qualified 

teachers (HQTs) 

Type of teacher State total did not equal sum 

of LEA-level numbers

Difference was 

greater than 1%

All alternative route HQTs 7 4

a

Special education alternative route HQTs 2 1

b

Title III alternative route HQTs 1 1c

All HQTs 10 1d

Special education HQTs 6 2

e

Title III HQTs 3 2f

Exhibit reads: Seven states reported a total number of HQTs enrolled in alternative route programs that did not 

equal the sum of the LEA-level numbers that they reported for HQTs enrolled in alternative route programs; in four 

of these states, the difference between the state number and sum of the LEA numbers was greater than 1 percent.

Note: The states in which LEA-level sums differed from state totals by more than 1 percent were as follows: 

(a) all alternative route HQTs: Idaho (45 percent); Indiana (2 percent); Vermont (2 percent); and West Virginia (10 percent); 

(b) special education alternative route HQTs: Ohio (3 percent); 

(c) Title III alternative route HQTs: Idaho (31 percent), 

(d) all HQTs: Vermont (3 percent); 

(e) special education HQTs: Idaho (7 percent) and New Hampshire (41 percent); and 

(f) Title III HQTs: Idaho (11 percent) and Rhode Island (300 percent ― seven HQTs at state level but a total of 28 at the district level).

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, EDFacts state data submission, “Highly Qualified Teachers” 

2013–14.

Extent of Missing Data in Responding States

To examine the extent to which LEAs might be missing from the alternative route dataset submitted by 

the states, the study team compared the LEAs in this dataset to those in the NCES Common Core of Data 

(CCD) for the most recent available school year, 2012–13.16

The datasets submitted by the responding states included 99 percent of all regular LEAs in 

those states. 

More specifically, the alternative route datasets submitted by the 49 responding states and jurisdictions 

for the 2013–14 school year included 95 percent of all LEAs, and 99 percent of all regular LEAs, that 

were operational in those states in the preceding year (2012–13). Most of the “missing” LEAs were 

either charter school LEAs or other types of LEAs such as regional education service agencies (RESAs), 

supervisory unions, local school districts that are components of supervisory unions, state-operated 

agencies, and federally-operated agencies (Exhibit 6).

16 An LEA in the 2012–13 CCD was considered to be missing from the HQT alternative route programs dataset if it had a nonzero count of teachers and was coded with any of the “open” operational statuses (no change in enrollment boundaries since 

the prior year and still in operation; still operational, but significant changes in boundaries or responsibilities; new district now 

in operation; previously operational district now added to the CCD; or previously closed but reopened).

12

 
Exhibit 6. Number and percentage of operational LEAs in the 2012–13 Common Core of Data that were 

included in the dataset on highly qualified teachers enrolled in alternative route programs in

2013–14, by type of LEA

Type of LEA Total number

of LEAs

Number of LEAs 

included in 

dataset

Percentage of 

LEAs included in 

dataset

Number of LEAs

missing from 

dataset

Distribution of 

LEAs missing 

from dataset

All LEAs 16,340 15,467 95 873 100

Regular LEAs 12,280 12,154 99 126 14

Charter LEAs 2,409 2,159 90 250 29

Other LEAs 1,651 1,154 70 497 57

Exhibit reads: Across 49 responding states, there were 16,340 operational LEAs in the 2012–13 Common Core of 

Data; 15,467 of these LEAs (95 percent) were included in the dataset on highly qualified teachers enrolled in 

alternative route programs in 2013–14.

Note: The exhibit is based on data submitted by 48 states and the District of Columbia. See Exhibits B.2 and B.3 in Appendix B for state-by-state 

information.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, EDFacts state data submission, “Highly Qualified Teachers” 

2013–14; U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), "Local Education Agency 

Universe Survey" 2012–13, v.1a.

Thirty states reported data on alternative route teachers for 100 percent of their regular LEAs; the 

remaining states were missing data for less than 6 percent of their regular LEAs. In addition, states 

reported data for 209 LEAs that were not present in the 2012–13 CCD. 

Data Analysis Procedures

To examine the question of whether LEAs in rural areas or those serving high concentrations of poor 

children or English learners were more likely to have teachers in alternative route programs, the study 

team linked the alternative route data for LEAs to data on LEA characteristics from the CCD and the U.S. 

Census Bureau. Rural LEAs were identified based on the urbanicity codes in the 2012–13 CCD (7,126

LEAs).17

High-poverty LEAs were identified using data from the 2013 Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates 

(SAIPE) program from the U.S. Census Bureau.

18 For each LEA with available poverty data, the 

percentage of children living in poverty was calculated by dividing the number of school-age children 

(ages 5 to 17) living in households with incomes below the federal poverty threshold, by the total 

number of children in that age range. Within each state, the LEAs with poverty data were divided into 

quartiles based on the percentage of children living in poverty, and those in the highest quartile were 

identified as high-poverty LEAs (3,114 LEAs).

17 Using the CCD variable ULOCAL, rural districts are those coded as 41 (rural, fringe), 42 (rural, distant), or 43 (rural, remote).

18 The Census Bureau’s Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates (SAIPE) program produces annual estimates of population and 

poverty for LEAs that have been mapped to census tracts. A child is considered to be living in poverty if that child’s total family 

income is less than the Census Bureau’s poverty threshold for that family. Poverty thresholds vary according to family size and 

age of members. The SAIPE estimates are provided for the administration of federal programs and the allocation of federal 

funds to local jurisdictions. Of the 15,607 LEAs in the EDFacts dataset on HQTs enrolled in alternative route programs during the 

2013–14 school year, 15,398 (99 percent) were successfully matched to a record in the 2012–13 CCD and 12,521 (80 percent) 

were successfully matched to a 2013 SAIPE record. Most (73 percent) of the LEAs in the EDFacts dataset that did not match to a 

SAIPE record were charter school LEAs; 4 percent were regular LEAs, and 23 percent were “other” types of LEAs. 

13

 
Data Limitations

The data used in this report have several limitations. 

Five states reported data using specifications that were different from other states.

In order to obtain data from as many states as possible, the Department allowed five states that said 

they were unable to report the required data to instead report data that did not fully align with the 

reporting specifications. Three states said they could not report the data for the 2013–14 school year; 

Montana and Nevada instead reported data for 2012–13, and Texas reported data for 2014–15. Nevada 

reported data on the number of classes taught by HQTs, rather than FTEs, consistent with reporting 

requirements for the Department’s collection on classes taught by HQTs.19 Nebraska, New Hampshire, 

and Texas reported data using headcounts instead of FTEs. Instead of reporting total numbers of HQTs

(which were used to calculate the percentage of HQTs that were enrolled in alternative route programs

in each district), Texas reported total numbers of core academic teachers; however, these numbers

should closely approximate the total numbers of HQTs in Texas, because the state has reported that 99

percent of classes were taught by HQTs in 2014–15.

Five states reported missing some data on HQTs enrolled in alternative route programs.

Five states explicitly indicated (using the “-1” reporting convention) that some or all of their LEAs were 

missing data for one or more categories of HQTs enrolled in alternative route programs (Indiana, Iowa, 

Maryland, New Hampshire, and Ohio). Iowa reported that it was missing district-level data on special 

education HQTs (overall and enrolled in programs) for all districts. Indiana and New Hampshire reported 

that they did not have any state- or district-level data on Title III HQTs, either overall or for those 

enrolled in alternative route programs. Ohio reported that it was missing district-level data on Title III 

HQTs for 876 districts, on special education HQTS for 310 districts, and on all HQTs for 76 districts. 

Maryland reported that one district was missing district-level data on HQTs in all three categories. 

Despite the Department’s best efforts to obtain accurate reporting, it is possible that other states may 

have reported zeros or blank values in cases where they should have reported a “-1” to indicate they did 

not have information on HQTs enrolled in alternative route programs.

Only 16 states reported having Title III HQTs enrolled in alternative route programs, and 

over three-fourths of such Title III HQTs were in just four of those states.

Two-thirds (33) of the responding states did not report any Title III HQTs enrolled in alternative route 

programs. Three states did not report data on Title III HQTs, although they reported data on other 

teachers for this data collection (California, Indiana, and New Hampshire). Eight states indicated that 

they had no Title III HQTs; five of these states indicated that HQT status was not applicable for Title III 

teachers in their state (Colorado, Georgia, South Carolina, Texas, and Washington), and three states 

reported zero Title III HQTs (Missouri, Virginia, and Wyoming). The remaining 22 states reported having 

zero Title III HQTs enrolled in alternative route programs (including three states that reported having no 

HQTs enrolled in alternative route programs for any type of teacher).

In addition, among the 16 states that reported having Title III HQTs enrolled in alternative route 

programs, half reported very small numbers of such teachers (three states reporting having just one and

19 Nevada also differed from the other states in that it reported a total number of FTE HQTs for this data collection that was 

more than two times the number of FTE teachers that it reported for the NCES Common Core of Data for 2012–13. In general, 

the total number of HQTs is less than the total number of all teachers because not all teachers are subject to the ESEA highly 

qualified provision (e.g., those who do not teach core academic subjects). Despite this difference, including Nevada in the 

analyses did not substantively affect the national averages.

14

 
five states reported having between 4–10 Title III HQTs enrolled in alternative route programs). Among 

the remaining states, four states accounted for 76 percent of all reported Title III HQTs enrolled in 

alternative route programs (Florida, New Jersey, New Mexico, and Tennessee), and one of those states 

accounted for 32 percent of all such teachers (New Jersey).

As a result, the data presented in this report for Title III HQTs enrolled in alternative route programs 

should be viewed with caution as they largely represent patterns in four states. Because of this issue, 

the study also used an alternative approach to examine patterns related to EL students (i.e., examining

the proportion of HQTs enrolled in alternative route programs in districts with relatively high 

concentrations of EL students ― see Appendix A).

15
16
III. Findings

This chapter summarizes findings on the extent to which highly qualified teachers were enrolled in 

alternative route programs and how this varied across certain types of teachers and districts, based on 

data reported by 48 states and the District of Columbia.

While most states employed some HQTs who were enrolled in alternative route 

teacher preparation programs, these teachers made up a small proportion of total 

HQTs, both overall as well as for the four subgroups of HQTs examined in this 

report. 

Across 48 states and the District of Columbia, 1.5 percent of all HQTs were enrolled in alternative route 

programs. The average percentage of HQTs enrolled in alternative route programs was 1.9 percent for 

special education teachers, 1.3 percent for Title III teachers, 2.3 percent for high-poverty school districts, 

and 1.3 percent for rural school districts.20

A majority of the responding states reported that less than 1 percent of all HQTs 

were enrolled in alternative route programs.

In 30 out of 49 states and jurisdictions, less than 1 percent of all HQTs were enrolled in alternative route 

programs (Exhibit 7). Similarly, the number of states reporting that less than 1 percent of all HQTs were 

enrolled in alternative route programs was 25 out of 48 states for special education HQTs, 27 out of 38

states for Title III HQTs, 21 out of 47 states for high-poverty LEAs, and 31 out of 47 states for rural LEAs.

Exhibit 7. Number of states by percentage of highly qualified teachers (HQTs) who were enrolled in 

alternative route programs, overall and for selected types of teachers and LEAs: 2013–14

Exhibit reads: Four of the responding states reported that no HQTs were enrolled in alternative route programs.

Notes: The exhibit is based on data submitted by 48 states and the District of Columbia.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, EDFacts state data submission, “Highly Qualified Teachers” 

2013–14.

20 The median percentages were 0.9 percent for all HQTs, 0.6 percent for special education teachers, 0.0 percent for Title III 

teachers, 1.1 percent for teachers in high-poverty school districts, and 0.7 percent for teachers in rural districts.

4

15

22

4

9

26

10

5

17

22

15

16

8

18

14

4

7

3

8

2

0 10 20 30 40 50

All HQTs

Special education HQTs

Title III HQTs

HQTs in high-poverty LEAs

HQTs in rural LEAs

Zero >0% to <1% 1% to <4% 4% or more

17

 
Four states (Connecticut, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Wyoming) reported that none of 

their HQTs were enrolled in alternative route programs. 

According to data reported to the Department under Title II HEA requirements, Wyoming did not have 

alternative routes to certification. Minnesota allows organizations to offer alternative route programs 

but indicated that none were currently approved to do so. In Connecticut and Massachusetts, teachers 

enrolled in alternative route programs are not considered highly qualified under ESEA. In addition, 

among states that reported having some HQTs enrolled in alternative route programs, some states’ data 

showed no teachers in certain subgroups enrolled in such programs (15 states for special education 

HQTs, 22 states for Title III HQTs, nine states for HQTs in rural districts, and four states for high-poverty 

districts). State-by-state data are shown in Exhibits B.5 through B.9 in Appendix B.

Twelve states had one or more HQT subgroups in which 4 percent or more were enrolled in 

alternative route programs.

Four states reported that 4 percent or more of all HQTs were enrolled in such programs, as did seven

states for special education HQTs, three states for Title III HQTs, eight states for high-poverty districts, 

and two states for HQTs in rural districts. Within the 12 states, the highest percentages of HQTs enrolled 

in alternative route programs were in New Mexico (10.7 percent of special education HQTs) and New 

Jersey (8.9 percent of Title III HQTs) (Exhibit 8).

Exhibit 8. Percentage of highly qualified teachers (HQTs) enrolled in alternative route programs, in states 

that reported that 4 percent or more of HQTs were enrolled in such programs, for all HQTs and for 

selected types of teachers and LEAs: 2013–14

State All HQTs

Special 

education HQTs Title III HQTs

HQTs in highpoverty districtsHQTs in rural 

districts

Alabama 5.0 5.7 – 8.2 4.5

District of Columbia 5.5 8.3 6.6 – –

Georgia – – – 4.6 –

Kentucky – 5.6 – – –

Missouri – 7.7 – 5.2 –

Nevada – – – 4.8 –

New Jersey – – 8.9 – –

New Mexico 4.5 10.7 – 6.3 –

South Carolina – – – 4.9 –

Tennessee – – 4.7 4.1 –

Texas 4.3 4.7 – 6.1 4.5

West Virginia – 4.4 – – –

Exhibit reads: Four states reported that at least 4 percent of all HQTs were enrolled in alternative route programs 

during the reporting year.

– Not applicable (state reported that less than 4 percent of HQTs in this category were enrolled in alternative route programs).

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, EDFacts state data submission, “Highly Qualified Teachers” 

2013–14.

18
Most LEAs had no HQTs enrolled in alternative route programs, and in the LEAs that did 

have such teachers, they usually accounted for less than 4 percent of all HQTs.

Over two-thirds of all LEAs (71 percent) had no HQTs enrolled in alternative route programs, according 

to the state-reported data. Another 7 percent of LEAs had less than 1 percent of HQTs enrolled in 

alternative route programs; 12 percent of LEAs had between 1 and 4 percent and 11 percent of LEAs had 

more than 4 percent in alternative route programs (Exhibit 9).

Exhibit 9. Percentage distribution of districts by percentage of highly qualified teachers (HQTs) who were 

enrolled in alternative route programs, overall and for selected subgroups of teachers and LEAs: 

2013–14

Exhibit reads: Across the 49 responding states and jurisdictions, 71 percent of districts had zero HQTs enrolled in 

alternative route programs.

Note: The exhibit is based on data submitted by 48 states and the District of Columbia.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, EDFacts state data submission, “Highly Qualified Teachers” 

2013–14.

For special education HQTs and Title III HQTs, the percentage of LEAs that had none of these HQTs 

enrolled in alternative route programs was higher (93 percent and 99 percent, respectively) than the 

percentage for all HQTs (71 percent). The percentage of districts with 4 percent or more of their HQTs 

enrolled in alternative route programs was 5 percent for special education teachers and 1 percent for 

Title III teachers.

Among high-poverty districts, 67 percent had no HQTs enrolled in alternative route programs and 13

percent had 4 percent or more of their HQTs enrolled in alternative route programs.

Among rural districts, 77 percent had no HQTs enrolled in alternative route programs and 10 percent 

had 4 percent or more of their HQTs enrolled in alternative route programs.

71%

93%

99%

67%

77%

7%

0%

0%

6%

3%

12%

2%

0%

15%

10%

11%

5%

1%

13%

10%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

All HQTs

Special education HQTs

Title III HQTs

HQTs in high-poverty LEAs

HQTs in rural LEAs

Zero >0% to <1% 1% to <4% 4% or more

19
Among LEAs that had HQTs enrolled in alternative route programs, most had fewer than 

five such teachers.

For all HQTs, 75 percent of the LEAs with HQTs enrolled in alternative route programs had fewer than 

five such teachers (3,424 out of 4,591 such LEAs). Looked at another way, the 1,167 LEAs with five or 

more HQTs enrolled in alternative route programs accounted for 8 percent of all LEAs in the dataset. 

This percentage was lower for special education HQTs (1 percent), Title III HQTs (<0.5 percent), and 

rural LEAs (4 percent), and it was higher for high-poverty LEAs (11 percent). 

Exhibit 10. Number and percentage of LEAs with highly qualified teachers (HQTs) who were enrolled in 

alternative route programs, overall and for selected subgroups of teachers and LEAs: 2013–14

Type of teacher or LEA

Number of 

LEAs with HQTs 

enrolled in 

alternative

route programs

Total 

number of 

LEAs in 

dataset

Number of LEAs with 

5 or more HQTs 

enrolled in 

alternative route 

programs

Percent of LEAs with 

5 or more HQTs 

enrolled in 

alternative route 

programs

All HQTs 4,591 13,805 1,167 8

Special education HQTs 1,165 12,111 151 1

Title III HQTs 144 8,343 18 <0.5

High-poverty LEAs 1,032 2,754 304 11

Rural LEAs 1,614 6,297 235 4

Exhibit reads: States reported that 4,591 out of 13,805 LEAs had HQTs enrolled in alternative route programs and 

that 1,167 LEAs (8 percent of all LEAs) had five or more HQTs enrolled in alternative route programs.

Note: The exhibit is based on data submitted by 48 states and the District of Columbia.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, EDFacts state data submission, “Highly Qualified Teachers” 

2013–14.

20
High-poverty school districts had higher percentages of HQTs enrolled in alternative route

programs, on average, than districts with low poverty rates.

Across all LEAs, the average percentage of HQTs enrolled in alternative route programs was 2.3 percent 

in the highest poverty quartile of districts, compared with 1.0 percent in the lowest poverty quartile. The 

pattern was similar when using only HQTs in LEAs that had HQTs enrolled in alternative route programs

as the denominator for calculating averages (Exhibit 11).

Exhibit 11. Percentage of highly qualified teachers (HQTs) enrolled in alternative route programs, by LEA 

poverty rate: 2013–14

Exhibit reads: In districts in the highest poverty quartile, the average percentage of HQTs who were enrolled in 

alternative route programs was 2.3 percent across all LEAs in the dataset and 3.4 percent when calculated only for 

those LEAs that had HQTs enrolled in alternative route programs.

Note: The exhibit is based on data submitted by 47 states; Hawaii and the District of Columbia are excluded from this chart because calculations 

by poverty quartile are not possible.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, EDFacts state data submission, “Highly Qualified Teachers” 

2013–14.

2.3

3.4

1.5

2.4

1.1

1.9

1.0

1.5

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

Average across all LEAs Average for LEAs with HQTs in alternative route programs

Highest Poverty Quartile 2nd Highest Quartile 2nd Lowest Quartile Lowest Poverty Quartile

21
Across all LEAs, rural school districts had a lower percentage of HQTs enrolled in 

alternative route programs than urban districts and comparable percentages compared with 

LEAs in town and suburban areas.

Across all LEAs, the average percentage of HQTs enrolled in alternative route programs was 1.3 percent 

in rural school districts, compared with 2.2 percent in urban districts, 1.1 percent in suburban districts, 

and 1.5 percent in town districts. However, when considering only LEAs with HQTs enrolled in 

alternative route programs, the percentages of HQTs enrolled in alternative route programs in urban 

and rural districts were comparable (Exhibit 12).

Exhibit 12. Percentage of highly qualified teachers (HQTs) enrolled in alternative route programs, by LEA

urbanicity: 2013–14

Exhibit reads: In urban school districts, the average percentage of HQTs who were enrolled in alternative route 

programs was 2.2 percent across all LEAs in the dataset and 2.9 percent when calculated only for those LEAs that 

had HQTs enrolled in alternative route programs.

Note: The exhibit is based on data submitted by 47 states; Hawaii and the District of Columbia are excluded from this chart because they do not 

have rural LEAs.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, EDFacts state data submission, “Highly Qualified Teachers” 

2013–14.

2.2

2.9

1.1

1.7 1.5

3.2

1.3

3.1

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

Average across all LEAs Average for LEAs with HQTs in alternative route programs

Urban Suburban Town Rural

22
The percentage of HQTs enrolled in alternative route programs showed mixed patterns by 

district enrollment size.

Across all LEAs, the average percentage of HQTs enrolled in alternative route programs was highest in 

the largest districts, defined as those with 10,000 or more students (1.8 percent). However, when the 

averages are calculated using a denominator of HQTs only in those LEAs that had HQTs enrolled in 

alternative route programs, the smallest districts (those with fewer than 2,500 students) showed the 

highest percentage of HQTs enrolled in alternative route programs (5.2 percent) (Exhibit 13).

Exhibit 13. Percentage of highly qualified teachers (HQTs) enrolled in alternative route programs, by LEA

enrollment size: 2013–14

Exhibit reads: In large districts with 10,000 or more students, the average percentage of HQTs who were enrolled 

in alternative route programs was 1.8 percent across all LEAs in the dataset and 2.1 percent when calculated only 

for those LEAs that had HQTs enrolled in alternative route programs.

Note: The exhibit is based on data submitted by 48 states and the District of Columbia.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, EDFacts state data submission, “Highly Qualified Teachers” 

2013–14.

1.8

2.1

1.1

2.2

1.5

5.2

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

Average across all LEAs Average for LEAs with HQTs in alternative route programs

Large (10,000 or more students) Medium (2,500 to <10,000 students) Small (<2,500 students)

23
24
References

Clark, Melissa A., Hanley S. Chiang, Tim Silva, Sheena McConnell, Kathy Sonnenfeld, Anastasia Erbe, and 

Michael Puma (2013). The Effectiveness of Secondary Math Teachers from Teach For America 

and the Teaching Fellows Programs (NCEE 2013-4015). U.S. Department of Education, Institute 

of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation. Available at 

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20134015/pdf/20134015.pdf, accessed May 21, 2015.

Constantine, Jill, Daniel Player, Tim Silva, Kristen Hallgren, Mary Grider, and John Deke (2009). An 

Evaluation of Teachers Trained Through Different Routes to Certification: Final Report 

(NCEE 2009-4043). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education 

Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation. Available at 

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20094043/pdf/20094043.pdf, accessed January 15, 2015.

Delaware Department of Education, DEEDS – Alternate Routes (n.d.).

https://deeds.doe.k12.de.us/registration/deeds_reg_artc.aspx, accessed January 16, 2015.

National Research Council (2010). Preparing Teachers: Building Evidence for Sound Policy. Committee on 

the Study of Teacher Preparation Programs in the United States, Center for Education. 

Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Available at 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12882/preparing-teachers-building-evidence-for-sound-policy/, 

accessed January 15, 2015. 

U.S. Department of Education (2014). C500–Highly Qualified Teachers File Specifications–V10.1 

(SY 2013–14). Washington, DC: EDFacts. Available at http://www.ed.gov/edfacts.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2014). EDFacts state data 

submission, Highly Qualified Teachers 2013–14. Dataset is available at 

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html, accessed January 28, 2015.

Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2014). Common Core of Data (CCD), 

Local Education Agency Universe Survey 2012–13, v.1a. Dataset is available at 

http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/pubagency.asp, accessed December 17, 2014.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (2014). A Summary of 

Highly Qualified Teacher Data for School Year 2012-13. Available at 

http://www2.ed.gov/programs/teacherqual/resources.html, accessed January 21, 2015.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Innovation and Improvement (2004). Innovations in Education: 

Alternative Routes to Teacher Certification, Washington, DC: Author. Available at

https://www2.ed.gov/admins/tchrqual/recruit/altroutes/report.pdf, accessed September 2, 

2014.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education (2014). Higher Education Act Title II 

State Report Card System (STRC) User Manual. Available at 

https://title2.ed.gov/Public/TA/STRCManual.pdf, accessed October 23, 2014.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education (2013). Higher Education Act Title II 

Reporting System. Dataset is available at https://title2.ed.gov/Public/DataTools/Files.aspx,

accessed October 23, 2014.

25
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education (2009). The Secretary’s Sixth Annual 

Report on Teacher Quality: A Highly Qualified Teacher in Every Classroom. Washington, DC: 

Author. Available at https://title2.ed.gov/Public/Title_II_09.pdf, accessed October 23, 2014.

26
Appendix A: Analysis of LEAs with High Concentrations of English Learners

As noted in this report, 33 of the 49 responding states and jurisdictions did not report any Title III highly 

qualified teachers (HQTs) enrolled in alternative route programs, including nine states that indicated 

that they had no Title III HQTs. In addition, among the 16 states that reported having Title III HQTs 

enrolled in alternative route programs, many reported very small numbers of such teachers, and four 

states accounted for 76 percent of all reported Title III HQTs enrolled in alternative route programs (and 

one state, New Jersey, accounted for 32 percent of all such teachers).

Because of this issue, this appendix uses an alternative approach to examine patterns related to English 

learner (EL) students, by examining the proportion of HQTs enrolled in alternative route programs in

districts with relatively high concentrations of EL students.

School districts with high concentrations of EL students had a higher percentage of HQTs 

enrolled in alternative route programs than districts with no EL students.

Across all local education agencies (LEAs), the average percentage of HQTs who were enrolled in 

alternative route programs was 2.7 percent in districts with 20 percent or more EL students, which was 

higher than the average for districts with lower numbers of EL students (1.7 percent for districts with 

medium EL concentrations, 1.1 percent for districts with low EL concentrations, and 1.6 percent for 

districts with no ELs). Averages calculated using a denominator of HQTs only in those LEAs that had 

HQTs enrolled in alternative route programs showed a similar pattern (Exhibit A.1), except that districts 

with no EL students, on average, had a much higher percentage of HQTs enrolled in alternative route 

programs. 

Exhibit A.1. Percentage of highly qualified teachers (HQTs) enrolled in alternative route programs, by LEA 

percentage of English learner (EL) students: 2013–14

Exhibit reads: In districts with 20 percent or more ELs, the average percentage of HQTs who were enrolled in 

alternative route programs was 2.7 percent across all LEAs in the dataset and 3.3 percent when calculated only for 

those LEAs that had HQTs enrolled in alternative route programs.

Note: The exhibit is based on data submitted by 48 states and the District of Columbia.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, EDFacts state data submission, “Highly Qualified Teachers” 

2013–14.).

2.7

3.3

1.7

2.2

1.1

2.0

1.6

6.5

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

Average across all LEAs Average for LEAs with HQTs in alternative route programs

High ELs (20% or more) Medium ELs (5 to <20%) Low ELs (>0 to <5%) No EL students

27
Districts with high concentrations of EL students were more likely to have HQTs enrolled in 

alternative route programs compared with districts with no EL students, but in those LEAs, 

such teachers usually accounted for less than 4 percent of all HQTs.

More than half (56 percent) of LEAs with 20 percent or more EL students had no HQTs enrolled in 

alternative route programs, compared with 82 percent of LEAs with no EL students. Among LEAs with 

20 percent or more EL students, 13 percent had less than 1 percent of HQTs enrolled in alternative route 

programs; 17 percent had between 1 and 4 percent, and 15 percent had more than 4 percent in 

alternative route programs. The percentage of LEAs with 4 percent or more HQTs enrolled in alternative

route programs was highest in LEAs with 20 percent or more EL students (15 percent compared with 13 

percent or less in LEAs with lower percentages of ELs) (Exhibit A.2).

Exhibit A.2. Percentage distribution of LEAs, by percentage of all highly qualified teachers (HQTs) who were 

enrolled in alternative route programs, by LEA percentage of English learner (EL) students: 2013–

14

Percentage of EL students Zero >0 to <1% 1% to <4% 4% or more

High (20% or more) 56 13 17 15

Medium (5% to >20%) 56 13 18 13

Low (>0 to <5%) 68 9 15 8

No EL students 82 1 6 11

Exhibit reads: Across the 49 responding states, 56 percent of districts with 20 percent or more ELs had zero HQTs 

enrolled in alternative route programs.

Note: The exhibit is based on data submitted by 48 states and the District of Columbia.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, EDFacts state data submission, “Highly Qualified Teachers” 

2013–14.

28
Appendix B: Supplemental Tables

29
Exhibit B.1. Number of candidates enrolled in teacher preparation programs and number who completed such 

programs, for alternative and traditional route programs, by state: 2011–12

State

Alternative route 

program 

enrollment

Traditional route 

program 

enrollment

Alternative route 

program 

completers

Traditional 

route program 

completers

Total 

program 

enrollment

Total 

program 

completers

Total 62,961 551,166 29,212 172,252 614,127 201,464

Alabama 1,534 5,036 760 2,363 6,570 3,123

Alaska 50 2,088 7 296 2,138 303

Arizona 788 42,297 363 6,681 43,085 7,044

Arkansas 2,090 5,668 547 1,569 7,758 2,116

California 2,393 23,838 1,597 10,293 26,231 11,890

Colorado 300 9,304 588 2,469 9,604 3,057

Connecticut 293 5,498 234 1,858 5,791 2,092

Delaware 144 3,418 41 680 3,562 721

District of Columbia 803 828 489 296 1,631 785

Florida 3,525 16,613 1,725 5,404 20,138 7,129

Georgia 615 11,981 500 5,945 12,596 6,445

Hawaii 428 1,017 241 359 1,445 600

Idaho 154 6,755 37 1,195 6,909 1,232

Illinois 994 25,051 280 9,410 26,045 9,690

Indiana 1,243 11,786 758 3,424 13,029 4,182

Iowa 5 9,303 3 2,569 9,308 2,572

Kansas 182 6,009 153 1,973 6,191 2,126

Kentucky 1,009 11,075 435 2,777 12,084 3,212

Louisiana 2,785 3,309 1,460 1,252 6,094 2,712

Maine 211 2,558 211 652 2,769 863

Maryland 731 8,403 428 2,571 9,134 2,999

Massachusetts 507 16,080 365 4,369 16,587 4,734

Michigan 59 18,424 63 4,657 18,483 4,720

Minnesota 136 8,720 22 3,572 8,856 3,594

Mississippi 1,479 3,422 816 1,399 4,901 2,215

Missouri 1,365 11,203 496 4,167 12,568 4,663

Montana 142 3,015 68 760 3,157 828

Nebraska 21 4,301 33 1,695 4,322 1,728

Nevada 340 3,072 110 757 3,412 867

New Hampshire 289 2,585 93 957 2,874 1,050

New Jersey 1,507 17,720 1,940 4,699 19,227 6,639

New Mexico 1,588 4,570 432 981 6,158 1,413

New York 3,798 58,023 1,124 18,781 61,821 19,905

North Carolina 6,775 13,470 1,311 5,302 20,245 6,613

North Dakota – 1,710 – 576 1,710 576

Ohio – 29,291 – 6,768 29,291 6,768

Oklahoma 557 7,328 557 1,708 7,885 2,265

Oregon – 3,416 – 1,964 3,416 1,964

Pennsylvania 1,440 33,908 602 11,278 35,348 11,880

Rhode Island 44 2,337 39 807 2,381 846

South Carolina 894 6,570 313 2,377 7,464 2,690

South Dakota 28 2,882 44 707 2,910 751

Tennessee 1,837 9,371 947 4,042 11,208 4,989

Texas 18,233 32,425 8,072 11,502 50,658 19,574

Utah 320 9,246 196 2,590 9,566 2,786

Vermont 231 1,577 80 399 1,808 479

Virginia 449 12,633 286 3,542 13,082 3,828

Washington 305 5,584 151 2,464 5,889 2,615

West Virginia 56 4,456 28 1,199 4,512 1,227

Wisconsin 284 10,714 167 3,908 10,998 4,075

Wyoming – 1,278 – 289 1,278 289

– Not applicable (state reported zero alternative route teacher preparation providers).

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education. Higher Education Act Title II Reporting System.

30
Exhibit B.2. Total number of operational LEAs in 2012–13 Common Core of Data (CCD) that were not included in the 

alternative route teachers (AR) dataset for 2013–14, by type of LEA and by state

LEAs not included in alternative routes dataset Total number of LEAs in 2012–13 CCD

State All LEAs not included in AR datasetRegular

LEAs not included in AR dataset

Charter

LEAs not included in AR dataset

Other

LEAs not included in AR dataset

All Number of LEAs in 2012–13 CCDRegular Number of LEAs in 2012–13 CCDCharter

Number of LEAs in 2012–13 CCD

Other Number of LEAs in 2012–13 CCD

All reporting states a 873 126 250 497 16,340 12,280 2,409 1,651

Alabama 0 0 0 0 135 133 0 2

Alaska 0 0 0 0 54 53 0 1

Arizona 8 3 0 5 586 211 359 16

Arkansas 3 1 2 0 275 238 17 20

California 178 12 23 143 1,182 939 30 213

Colorado 4 0 0 4 195 178 1 16

Connecticut 0 0 0 0 194 169 17 8

Delaware 1 0 1 0 41 19 22 0

District of Columbia 1 0 1 0 62 1 60 1

Florida 0 0 0 0 74 67 0 7

Georgia 13 0 0 13 211 180 15 16

Hawaii 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0

Idaho 0 0 0 0 149 116 32 1

Illinois 124 26 0 98 1,070 863 2 205

Indiana 6 0 6 0 404 294 73 37

Iowa 11 2 0 9 357 348 0 9

Kansas 4 3 0 1 305 301 0 4

Kentucky 1 1 0 0 176 174 0 2

Louisiana 10 0 5 5 126 70 45 11

Maine 19 4 0 15 202 179 2 21

Maryland 0 0 0 0 25 24 0 1

Massachusetts 3 0 3 0 403 237 77 89

Michigan 35 5 18 12 878 547 275 56

Minnesota 22 8 7 7 527 335 153 39

Missouri 8 1 2 5 566 521 37 8

Montana b 87 3 0 84 496 410 0 86

Nebraska 33 0 0 33 286 249 0 37

Nevada b 0 0 0 0 18 17 0 1

New Hampshire 8 0 8 0 181 0 17 164

New Jersey 5 0 5 0 671 585 86 0

New Mexico 0 0 0 0 147 89 52 6

New York 6 4 2 0 948 696 209 43

North Carolina 109 0 108 1 224 115 108 1

North Dakota 11 4 0 7 213 180 0 33

Ohio 17 0 17 0 1,096 616 372 108

Oklahoma 4 4 0 0 529 521 5 3

Oregon 21 10 3 8 215 179 17 19

Rhode Island 0 0 0 0 54 32 13 9

South Carolina 13 0 0 13 99 82 1 16

South Dakota 2 0 0 2 170 151 0 19

Tennessee 7 7 0 0 141 141 0 0

Texas b 60 21 39 0 1,230 1,027 201 2

Utah 0 0 0 0 132 41 89 2

Vermont 12 0 0 12 292 0 0 292

Virginia 1 0 0 1 133 130 0 3

Washington 10 7 0 3 300 295 0 5

West Virginia 0 0 0 0 57 55 0 2

Wisconsin 16 0 0 16 462 423 22 17

Wyoming 0 0 0 0 48 48 0 0 a Two states and two jurisdictions did not report the requested data: Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, and the Bureau of Indian Education. b Montana and Nevada reported data for school year 2012–13; Texas reported data for school year 2014–15.

Sources: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, EDFacts state data submission, “Highly Qualified Teachers” 2013–14; U.S. 

Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), "Local Education Agency Universe Survey" 2012–13, v.1a.

31
Exhibit B.3. Percentage of operational LEAs in 2012–13 Common Core of Data (CCD) that were not included in the 

alternative route teachers dataset for 2013–14, and distribution of such LEAs within each state, by type of 

LEA and by state

Percent of LEAs not included in alternative routes dataset Distribution of missing LEAs

State All LEAs not included in AR datasetRegular

LEAs not included in AR dataset

Charter

LEAs not included in AR dataset

Other

LEAs not included in AR dataset

Regular

Distribution of missing Regular LEAs

Charter

Distribution of missing Charter LEAs

Other Distribution of missing Other LEAs

All reporting states a 5 1 10 30 14 29 57

Alabama 0 0 – 0 – – –

Alaska 0 0 – 0 – – –

Arizona 1 1 0 31 38 0 63

Arkansas 1 0 12 0 33 67 0

California 15 1 77 67 7 13 80

Colorado 2 0 0 25 0 0 100

Connecticut 0 0 0 0 – – –

Delaware 2 0 5 – 0 100 0

District of Columbia 2 0 2 0 0 100 0

Florida 0 0 – 0 – – –

Georgia 6 0 0 81 0 0 100

Hawaii 0 0 – – – – –

Idaho 0 0 0 0 – – –

Illinois 12 3 0 48 21 0 79

Indiana 1 0 8 0 0 100 0

Iowa 3 1 – 100 18 0 82

Kansas 1 1 – 25 75 0 25

Kentucky 1 1 – 0 100 0 0

Louisiana 8 0 11 45 0 50 50

Maine 9 2 0 71 21 0 79

Maryland 0 0 – 0 – – –

Massachusetts 1 0 4 0 0 100 0

Michigan 4 1 7 21 14 51 34

Minnesota 4 2 5 18 36 32 32

Missouri 1 0 5 63 13 25 63

Montana b 18 1 – 98 3 0 97

Nebraska 12 0 – 89 0 0 100

Nevada b 0 0 – 0 – – –

New Hampshire 4 – 47 0 0 100 0

New Jersey 1 0 6 – 0 100 0

New Mexico 0 0 0 0 – – –

New York 1 1 1 0 67 33 0

North Carolina 49 0 100 100 0 99 1

North Dakota 5 2 – 21 36 0 64

Ohio 2 0 5 0 0 100 0

Oklahoma 1 1 0 0 100 0 0

Oregon 10 6 18 42 48 14 38

Rhode Island 0 0 0 0 – – –

South Carolina 13 0 0 81 0 0 100

South Dakota 1 0 – 11 0 0 100

Tennessee 5 5 – – 100 0 0

Texas b 5 2 19 – 35 65 –

Utah 0 0 0 0 – – –

Vermont 4 – – 4 0 0 100

Virginia 1 0 – 33 0 0 100

Washington 3 2 – 60 70 0 30

West Virginia 0 0 – 0 – – –

Wisconsin 3 0 0 94 0 0 100

Wyoming 0 0 – – – – –

– Not applicable (no LEAs in this category). a Two states and two jurisdictions did not report the requested data: Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, and the Bureau of Indian Education. b Montana and Nevada reported data for school year 2012–13; Texas reported data for school year 2014–15.

Sources: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, EDFacts state data submission, “Highly Qualified Teachers” 2013–14; U.S. 

Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), "Local Education Agency Universe Survey" 2012–13, v.1a.

32
Exhibit B.4. Number of LEAs with highly qualified teachers enrolled in alternative route programs (AR HQTs), overall 

and for various types of LEAs and teachers, by state: 2013–14

State

Total LEAs 

in dataset

LEAs with 

AR HQTs

LEAs with AR HQTs 

in special education

LEAs with AR HQTs 

in Title III 

programs

High-poverty 

LEAs with AR 

HQTs

Rural LEAs 

with AR 

HQTs

All reporting states a 15,607 4,591 1,165 144 1,032 1,614 

Alabama 133 131 31 1 33 60

Alaska 52 21 2 0 6 14

Arizona 592 146 67 10 26 24

Arkansas 269 169 0 0 43 80 

California 1,005 427 – – 95 43 

Colorado 192 84 23 0 18 42

Connecticut 195 0 0 0 0 0 

Delaware 40 20 2 0 3 2

District of Columbia 62 21 10 1 0 0 

Florida 74 27 17 3 3 3

Georgia 198 163 74 0 39 72

Hawaii 1 1 1 0 0 0 

Idaho 149 21 0 7 5 7

Illinois 950 185 47 6 59 33

Indiana 407 41 2 – 12 4

Iowa 346 20 0 0 4 12

Kansas 301 50 0 0 13 27

Kentucky 176 146 98 5 37 74

Louisiana 121 32 9 0 4 2

Maine 184 44 25 1 6 31 

Maryland 25 5 3 1 1 0 

Massachusetts 407 0 0 0 0 0 

Michigan 875 37 0 0 1 0 

Minnesota 511 0 0 0 0 0 

Missouri 560 327 102 0 75 168

Montana b 407 8 0 0 1 6

Nebraska b 253 23 0 0 7 14

Nevada b 19 1 0 0 1 0 

New Hampshire b 172 65 4 – 20 32

New Jersey 672 341 107 43 77 38

New Mexico 151 87 29 19 14 24

New York 970 118 26 0 5 4

North Carolina 115 85 33 5 21 49 

North Dakota 200 21 0 0 7 18

Ohio 1,083 215 37 0 52 66

Oklahoma 544 286 32 24 60 172

Oregon 190 9 0 0 2 0 

Rhode Island 57 12 5 0 3 0 

South Carolina 86 67 11 0 18 28

South Dakota 168 19 0 0 8 17

Tennessee 135 88 16 5 20 41

Texas b 1,172 729 308 – 167 302 

Utah 133 89 2 0 7 13

Vermont 281 57 0 2 15 37

Virginia 132 53 0 0 12 19

Washington 290 29 2 0 7 6

West Virginia 56 11 8 0 4 7

Wisconsin 448 60 32 11 21 23

Wyoming 48 0 0 0 0 0 

– Not available (state did not provide the requested data for this group of teachers). a Two states and two jurisdictions did not report the requested data: Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, and the Bureau of Indian Education. b Six states reported data that differed from the requested data specifications. Nebraska, New Hampshire, and Texas reported headcounts, not FTEs. 

Nevada reported classes at the elementary level and FTEs at the secondary level. Montana and Nevada reported data for school year 2012–13; Texas 

reported data for school year 2014–15.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, EDFacts state data submission, “Highly Qualified Teachers” 2013–14.

33
Exhibit B.5. Number and percentage of highly qualified teachers (HQTs) enrolled in alternative route programs, by 

state: 2013–14

State Total number of HQTs

Number enrolled in 

alternative route programs

Percent enrolled in 

alternative route programs

All reporting states a 2,301,636 35,574 1.5

Alabama 35,344 1,753 5.0

Alaska 5,692 55 1.0

Arizona 48,164 459 1.0

Arkansas 21,729 521 2.4

California 202,199 1,933 1.0

Colorado 41,741 476 1.1

Connecticut 35,923 0 0.0

Delaware 6,489 59 0.9

District of Columbia 2,967 164 5.5

Florida 129,951 1,131 0.9

Georgia 85,374 2,203 2.6

Hawaii 7,145 122 1.7

Idaho 8,425 69 0.8

Illinois 117,577 1,190 1.0

Indiana 44,001 103 0.2

Iowa 29,011 18 0.1

Kansas 28,997 93 0.3

Kentucky 41,822 990 2.4

Louisiana 26,043 436 1.7

Maine 10,314 76 0.7

Maryland 39,755 286 0.7

Massachusetts 50,135 0 0.0

Michigan 65,690 313 0.5

Minnesota 35,312 0 0.0

Missouri 39,262 998 2.5

Montana b 6,714 5 0.1

Nebraska b 16,041 23 0.1

Nevada b 45,921 1,536 3.3

New Hampshire b 10,963 147 1.3

New Jersey 79,236 1,419 1.8

New Mexico 17,433 787 4.5

New York 145,632 1,291 0.9

North Carolina 70,764 696 1.0

North Dakota 5,918 24 0.4

Ohio 90,268 306 0.3

Oklahoma 35,810 1,097 3.1

Oregon 18,140 9 0.0

Rhode Island 8,452 38 0.4

South Carolina 36,137 512 1.4

South Dakota 6,507 33 0.5

Tennessee 56,763 1,216 2.1

Texas b 283,531 12,264 4.3

Utah 20,477 264 1.3

Vermont 6,387 49 0.8

Virginia 63,377 154 0.2

Washington 44,530 38 0.1

West Virginia 17,971 117 0.7

Wisconsin 49,303 102 0.2

Wyoming 6,300 0 0.0

a Two states and two jurisdictions did not report the requested data: Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, and the Bureau of Indian Education. b Six states reported data that differed from the requested data specifications. Nebraska, New Hampshire, and Texas reported headcounts, not FTEs. 

Nevada reported classes at the elementary level and FTEs at the secondary level. Montana and Nevada reported data for school year 2012–13; Texas 

reported data for school year 2014–15.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, EDFacts state data submission, “Highly Qualified Teachers” 2013–14.

34
Exhibit B.6. Number and percentage of special education highly qualified teachers (HQTs) enrolled in alternative route 

programs, by state: 2013–14

State

Total number of

special education HQTs

Number enrolled in 

alternative route programs

Percent enrolled in 

alternative route programs

All reporting states a 196,320 3,780 1.9

Alabama 1,333 76 5.7

Alaska 472 8 1.6

Arizona 5,973 111 1.9

Arkansas 3,968 0 0.0

Colorado 2,777 67 2.4

Connecticut 5,265 0 0.0

Delaware 531 2 0.4

District of Columbia 544 45 8.3

Florida 10,385 54 0.5

Georgia 8,668 340 3.9

Hawaii 741 22 3.0

Idaho 185 0 0.0

Illinois 16,790 375 2.2

Indiana 1,142 2 0.2

Iowa 5,462 1 0.0

Kansas 4,222 0 0.0

Kentucky 6,582 368 5.6

Louisiana 1,392 25 1.8

Maine 1,427 45 3.1

Maryland 1,985 35 1.8

Massachusetts 2,569 0 0.0

Michigan 4,874 0 0.0

Minnesota 2,290 0 0.0

Missouri 1,921 148 7.7

Montana b 239 0 0.0

Nebraska b 727 0 0.0

Nevada b 2,070 0 0.0

New Hampshire b 175 6 3.4

New Jersey 5,637 212 3.8

New Mexico 2,167 231 10.7

New York 16,748 180 1.1

North Carolina 5,248 72 1.4

North Dakota 984 1 0.1

Ohio 16,371 72 0.4

Oklahoma 3,126 62 2.0

Oregon 2,192 0 0.0

Rhode Island 1,564 6 0.4

South Carolina 1,494 19 1.3

South Dakota 188 0 0.0

Tennessee 1,513 31 2.0

Texas b 22,488 1,048 4.7

Utah 649 2 0.3

Vermont 69 0 0.0

Virginia 7,557 0 0.0

Washington 3,318 2 0.1

West Virginia 1,498 66 4.4

Wisconsin 7,873 47 0.6

Wyoming 924 0 0.0

a Three states and two jurisdictions did not report the requested data: California, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, and the Bureau of Indian 

Education.

b Six states reported data that differed from the requested data specifications. Nebraska, New Hampshire, and Texas reported headcounts, not FTEs. 

Nevada reported classes at the elementary level and FTEs at the secondary level. Montana and Nevada reported data for school year 2012–13; Texas 

reported data for school year 2014–15.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, EDFacts state data submission, “Highly Qualified Teachers” 2013–14.

35
Exhibit B.7. Number and percentage of Title III highly qualified teachers (HQTs) enrolled in alternative route programs,

by state: 2013–14 

State

Total number of

Title III HQTs

Number enrolled in 

alternative route programs

Percent enrolled in 

alternative route programs

All reporting states a 37,100 466 1.3

Alabama 87 1 1.1

Alaska 30 0 0.0

Arizona 2,209 10 0.4

Arkansas 2,485 0 0.0

Colorado c 0 – –

Connecticut 684 0 0.0

Delaware 41 0 0.0

District of Columbia 100 7 6.6

Florida 9,359 48 0.5

Georgia c 0 – –

Hawaii 287 0 0.0

Idaho 474 16 3.4

Illinois 3,465 10 0.3

Iowa 418 0 0.0

Kansas 56 0 0.0

Kentucky 365 10 2.7

Louisiana 444 0 0.0

Maine 100 4 4.0

Maryland 1,015 1 0.1

Massachusetts 593 0 0.0

Michigan 196 0 0.0

Minnesota 288 0 0.0

Missouri c 0 – –

Montana b 245 0 0.0

Nebraska b 62 0 0.0

Nevada b 467 0 0.0

New Jersey 1,655 148 8.9

New Mexico 2,545 86 3.4

New York 1,086 0 0.0

North Carolina 812 5 0.6

North Dakota 71 0 0.0

Ohio 1,307 0 0.0

Oklahoma 2,847 33 1.2

Oregon 497 0 0.0

Rhode Island 7 0 0.0

South Carolina c 0 – –

South Dakota 3 0 0.0

Tennessee 1,478 70 4.7

Texas c 0 – –

Utah 43 0 0.0

Vermont 62 1 1.8

Virginia c 0 – –

Washington c 0 – –

West Virginia 13 0 0.0

Wisconsin 1,203 18 1.5

Wyoming c 0 – –

– Not applicable. a Five states and two jurisdictions are not included in this table because they did not report the requested data on Title III HQTs. Mississippi, Pennsylvania, 

Puerto Rico, and the Bureau of Indian Education did not report any data for this data collection. In addition, California, Indiana, and New Hampshire did 

not report data on Title III HQTs. b Six states reported data that differed from the requested data specifications. Nebraska reported headcounts, not FTEs. Nevada reported classes at the 

elementary level and FTEs at the secondary level. Montana and Nevada reported data for school year 2012–13. c Eight states indicated that they had no Title III HQTs. Five of these states indicated that HQT status was not applicable for Title III teachers in their state 

(Colorado, Georgia, South Carolina, Texas, and Washington), and three states reported zero Title III HQTs (Missouri, Virginia and Wyoming).

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, EDFacts state data submission, “Highly Qualified Teachers” 2013–14.

36
Exhibit B.8. Number and percentage of highly qualified teachers (HQTs) enrolled in alternative route programs in highpoverty LEAs, by state: 2013–14

State

Total number of HQTs in

high-poverty LEAs

Number enrolled in 

alternative route programs

Percent enrolled in 

alternative route programs

All reporting states a 581,220 13,584 2.3

Alabama 4,192 344 8.2

Alaska 596 17 2.8

Arizona 8,726 135 1.6

Arkansas 4,336 170 3.9

California 55,892 635 1.1

Colorado 8,665 250 2.9

Connecticut 14,322 0 0.0

Delaware 1,027 14 1.4

Florida 6,641 5 0.1

Georgia 8,835 402 4.6

Idaho 1,159 10 0.9

Illinois 45,017 992 2.2

Indiana 15,067 45 0.3

Iowa 10,097 4 0.0

Kansas 10,211 46 0.5

Kentucky 5,221 177 3.4

Louisiana 2,667 44 1.6

Maine 1,383 10 0.7

Maryland 4,988 91 1.8

Massachusetts 19,720 0 0.0

Michigan 14,558 47 0.3

Minnesota 7,508 0 0.0

Missouri 7,165 375 5.2

Montana b 1,205 1 0.1

Nebraska b 4,322 7 0.2

Nevada b 32,222 1,536 4.8

New Hampshire b 2,449 47 1.9

New Jersey 25,721 781 3.0

New Mexico 2,426 154 6.3

New York 66,415 729 1.1

North Dakota 758 7 0.9

Ohio 26,228 107 0.4

Oklahoma 10,295 315 3.1

Oregon 2,303 2 0.1

Rhode Island 2,994 12 0.4

South Carolina 3,091 151 4.9

South Dakota 1,084 25 2.3

Tennessee 13,289 539 4.1

Texas b 83,135 5,053 6.1

Utah 3,030 24 0.8

Vermont 1,142 13 1.1

Virginia 9,626 34 0.4

Washington 6,553 12 0.2

West Virginia 3,097 51 1.7

Wisconsin 14,985 58 0.4

Wyoming 932 0 0.0 a Two states and two jurisdictions did not report the requested data: Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, and the Bureau of Indian Education. In 

addition, Hawaii and the District of Columbia are excluded from this table because calculations by poverty quartile are not possible for these two 

jurisdictions.

b Six states reported data that differed from the requested data specifications. Nebraska, New Hampshire, and Texas reported headcounts, not FTEs. 

reported headcounts, not FTEs. Nevada reported classes at the elementary level and FTEs at the secondary level. Montana and Nevada reported data for 

school year 2012–13; Texas reported data for school year 2014–15.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, EDFacts state data submission, “Highly Qualified Teachers” 2013–14.

37
Exhibit B.9. Number and percentage of highly qualified teachers (HQTs) enrolled in alternative route programs in rural 

LEAs, by state: 2013–14

State

Total number of HQTs

in rural LEAs

Number enrolled in 

alternative route programs

Percent enrolled in 

alternative route programs

All reporting states a 365,952 4,925 1.3

Alabama 12,437 561 4.5

Alaska 1,586 27 1.7

Arizona 3,189 33 1.0

Arkansas 6,052 149 2.5

California 7,233 49 0.7

Colorado 3,204 54 1.7

Connecticut 3,916 0 0.0

Delaware 882 6 0.7

Florida 5,546 5 0.1

Georgia 17,426 330 1.9

Idaho 1,424 8 0.6

Illinois 10,965 34 0.3

Indiana 11,379 4 0.0

Iowa 9,598 11 0.1

Kansas 7,741 28 0.4

Kentucky 13,585 341 2.5

Louisiana 3,328 5 0.2

Maine 5,125 49 1.0

Maryland 4,208 0 0.0

Massachusetts 5,041 0 0.0

Michigan 12,250 0 0.0

Minnesota 6,681 0 0.0

Missouri 9,339 211 2.3

Montana b 2,700 3 0.1

Nebraska b 4,730 14 0.3

Nevada b 1,213 0 0.0

New Hampshire b 3,614 61 1.7

New Jersey 5,305 49 0.9

New Mexico 2,452 69 2.8

New York 17,849 3 0.0

North Dakota 2,693 19 0.7

Ohio 20,135 78 0.4

Oklahoma 11,484 283 2.5

Oregon 1,821 0 0.0

Rhode Island 752 0 0.0

South Carolina 6,999 117 1.7

South Dakota 2,946 31 1.0

Tennessee 13,090 121 0.9

Texas b 39,160 1,750 4.5

Utah 1,117 29 2.6

Vermont 3,370 33 1.0

Virginia 13,411 27 0.2

Washington 3,612 8 0.2

West Virginia 6,086 70 1.2

Wisconsin 10,296 24 0.2

Wyoming 1,464 0 0.0 a Two states and two jurisdictions did not report the requested data: Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, and the Bureau of Indian Education. In 

addition, Hawaii and the District of Columbia are excluded from this table because they do not have rural LEAs. b Six states reported data that differed from the requested data specifications. Nebraska, New Hampshire, and Texas reported headcounts, not FTEs. 

Nevada reported classes at the elementary level and FTEs at the secondary level. Montana and Nevada reported data for school year 2012–13; Texas 

reported data for school year 2014–15.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, EDFacts state data submission, “Highly Qualified Teachers” 2013–14.

38
Exhibit B.10. Number of LEAs, by percentage of highly qualified teachers (HQTs) enrolled in alternative route 

programs, for various types of LEAs and teachers: 2013–14

Type of LEA and teacher Type of LEA and teacher Total Zero

>0 to 

<1%

1% to 

<2%

2% to 

<4%

4% to 

<10%

10% or 

more

All LEAs All LEAs

All LEAs All teachers 13,693 9,102 1,049 855 1,033 1,114 540

All LEAs Special education teachers 8,837 7,672 46 86 177 345 511

All LEAs Title III teachers 2,408 2,264 6 15 14 35 74

All LEAs High-poverty LEAs 2,752 1,720 179 209 254 312 78

All LEAs Rural LEAs 6,258 4,644 190 261 461 536 166

Regular LEAs Regular LEAs

Regular LEAs All teachers 10,644 6,861 1,016 802 908 854 203

Regular LEAs Special education teachers 7,526 6,488 45 82 172 334 405

Regular LEAs Title III teachers 2,200 2,067 6 15 14 33 65

Regular LEAs High-poverty LEAs 2,634 1,643 173 201 244 300 73

Regular LEAs Rural LEAs 5,642 4,134 187 250 432 499 140

Charter LEAs Charter LEAs

Charter LEAs All teachers 2,013 1,450 5 16 72 199 271

Charter LEAs Special education teachers 823 719 0 1 1 8 94

Charter LEAs Title III teachers 124 121 0 0 0 0 3

Charter LEAs High-poverty LEAs 2 1 0 0 0 0 1

Charter LEAs Rural LEAs 155 7 134 1 1 3 9

Other LEAs Other LEAs

Other LEAs All teachers 878 686 27 36 53 46 30

Other LEAs Special education teachers 440 422 1 2 4 3 8

Other LEAs Title III teachers 71 67 0 0 0 1 3

Other LEAs High-poverty LEAs 110 73 5 7 10 11 4

Other LEAs Rural LEAs 455 376 2 10 26 28 13

LEAs with fewer than five HQTs enrolled in 

alternative route programs

LEAs with fewer than five HQTs 

enrolled in alternative route programs LEAs with fewer than five HQTs enrolled in 

alternative route programs All teachers 12,526 9,102 928 671 757 763 305 LEAs with fewer than five HQTs enrolled in 

alternative route programs Special education teachers 8,686 7,672 45 81 157 281 450 LEAs with fewer than five HQTs enrolled in 

alternative route programs Title III teachers 2,390 2,264 6 12 14 29 65 LEAs with fewer than five HQTs enrolled in 

alternative route programs High-poverty LEAs 2,448 1,720 161 172 195 165 35 LEAs with fewer than five HQTs enrolled in 

alternative route programs Rural LEAs 6,023 4,644 179 236 410 450 104

Note: This table is based on data reported by 48 states and the District of Columbia. Two states and two jurisdictions did not report the 

requested data: Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, and the Bureau of Indian Education. Hawaii and the District of Columbia are excluded 

from analyses for rural and high-poverty LEAs. 

Sources: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, EDFacts state data submission, “Highly Qualified Teachers” 

2013–14; U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), "Local Education Agency 

Universe Survey" 2012–13, v.1a.

39
Exhibit B.11. Percentage distribution of LEAs, by percentage of highly qualified teachers (HQTs) enrolled in 

alternative route programs, for various types of LEAs and teachers: 2013–14

Type of LEA and teacher Type of LEA and teacher Zero

>0 to 

<1%

1% to 

<2%

2% to 

<4%

4% to 

<10%

10% or 

more

All LEAs All LEAs

All LEAs All teachers 66 8 6 8 8 4

All LEAs Special education teachers 87 1 1 2 4 6

All LEAs Title III teachers 94 0 1 1 1 3

All LEAs High-poverty LEAs 63 7 8 9 11 3

All LEAs Rural LEAs 74 3 4 7 9 3

Regular LEAs Regular LEAs

Regular LEAs All teachers 64 10 8 9 8 2

Regular LEAs Special education teachers 86 1 1 2 4 5

Regular LEAs Title III teachers 94 0 1 1 2 3

Regular LEAs High-poverty LEAs 62 7 8 9 11 3

Regular LEAs Rural LEAs 73 3 4 8 9 2

Charter LEAs Charter LEAs

Charter LEAs All teachers 72 0 1 4 10 13

Charter LEAs Special education teachers 87 0 0 0 1 11

Charter LEAs Title III teachers 98 0 0 0 0 2

Charter LEAs High-poverty LEAs 50 0 0 0 0 50

Charter LEAs Rural LEAs 5 86 1 1 2 6

Other LEAs Other LEAs

Other LEAs All teachers 78 3 4 6 5 3

Other LEAs Special education teachers 96 0 0 1 1 2

Other LEAs Title III teachers 94 0 0 0 1 4

Other LEAs High-poverty LEAs 66 5 6 9 10 4

Other LEAs Rural LEAs 83 0 2 6 6 3

LEAs with fewer than five HQTs enrolled in 

alternative route programs

LEAs with fewer than five HQTs 

enrolled in alternative route programs LEAs with fewer than five HQTs enrolled in 

alternative route programs All teachers 73 7 5 6 6 2 LEAs with fewer than five HQTs enrolled in 

alternative route programs Special education teachers 88 1 1 2 3 5 LEAs with fewer than five HQTs enrolled in 

alternative route programs Title III teachers 95 0 1 1 1 3 LEAs with fewer than five HQTs enrolled in 

alternative route programs High-poverty LEAs 70 7 7 8 7 1 LEAs with fewer than five HQTs enrolled in 

alternative route programs Rural LEAs 77 3 4 7 7 2

Note: This table is based on data reported by 48 states and the District of Columbia. Two states and two jurisdictions did not report the 

requested data: Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, and the Bureau of Indian Education. Hawaii and the District of Columbia are excluded 

from analyses for rural and high-poverty LEAs. 

Sources: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, EDFacts state data submission, “Highly Qualified Teachers” 

2013–14; U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), "Local Education Agency 

Universe Survey" 2012–13, v.1a.

40
Exhibit B.12. Number of LEAs with highly qualified teachers (HQTs) enrolled in alternative route programs, for 

various types of LEAs and teachers: 2013–14

Type of LEA and teacher Type of LEA and teacher All LEAs Regular LEAs Charter LEAs Other LEAs

All LEAs in dataset All LEAs in dataset

All LEAs in dataset All teachers 13,693 10,644 2,013 878

All LEAs in dataset Special education teachers 8,837 7,526 823 440

All LEAs in dataset Title III teachers 2,408 2,200 124 71

All LEAs in dataset High-poverty LEAs 2,752 2,634 2 110

All LEAs in dataset Rural LEAs 6,258 5,642 155 455

LEAs with HQTs enrolled in alternative route 

programs LEAs with HQTs enrolled in alternative route programs

LEAs with HQTs enrolled in alternative route 

programs All teachers 4,591 3,783 563 192 LEAs with HQTs enrolled in alternative route 

programs Special education teachers 1,165 1,038 104 18 LEAs with HQTs enrolled in alternative route 

programs Title III teachers 144 133 3 4 LEAs with HQTs enrolled in alternative route 

programs High-poverty LEAs 1,032 991 1 37 LEAs with HQTs enrolled in alternative route 

programs Rural LEAs 1,614 1,508 148 79

Note: This table is based on data reported by 48 states and the District of Columbia. Two states and two jurisdictions did not report the 

requested data: Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, and the Bureau of Indian Education. Hawaii and the District of Columbia are excluded 

from analyses for rural and high-poverty LEAs.

Sources: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics, EDFacts state data submission, “Highly Qualified Teachers” 

2013–14; U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), "Local Education Agency 

Universe Survey" 2012–13, v.1a.

Exhibit B.13. Percentage of LEAs with highly qualified teachers (HQTs) enrolled in alternative route programs, 

for various types of LEAs and teachers: 2013–14

Type of teacher or LEA All LEAs Regular LEAs Charter LEAs Other LEAs

All teachers 34 36 28 22

Special education teachers 13 14 13 4

Title III teachers 6 6 2 6

High-poverty LEAs 38 38 * 34

Rural LEAs 26 27 95 17

Note: This table is based on data reported by 48 states and the District of Columbia. Two states and two jurisdictions did not report the 

requested data: Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, and the Bureau of Indian Education. Hawaii and the District of Columbia are excluded 

from analyses for rural and high-poverty LEAs. Asterisk indicates data not shown due to small number of districts in this category (<30).

Sources: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, EDFacts state data submission, “Highly Qualified Teachers” 

2013–14; U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), "Local Education Agency 

Universe Survey" 2012–13, v.1a.

41
Exhibit B.14. Number of highly qualified teachers (HQTs) enrolled in alternative route programs, for various 

types of LEAs and teachers: 2013–14

Type of teacher and LEA Type of teacher and LEA All LEAs Regular LEAs Charter LEAs Other LEAs

All HQTs All HQTs

All HQTs All teachers 2,296,626 2,191,075 50,167 44,487

All HQTs Special education teachers 189,637 179,227 2,465 7,694

All HQTs Title III teachers 34,945 34,242 278 126

All HQTs High-poverty LEAs 581,220 567,342 93 5,238

All HQTs Rural LEAs 365,952 349,408 3,090 13,453

HQTs enrolled in alternative route programs

HQTs enrolled in alternative route 

programs

HQTs enrolled in alternative route programs All teachers 35,469 31,998 2,498 347

HQTs enrolled in alternative route programs Special education teachers 3,727 3,527 154 38

HQTs enrolled in alternative route programs Title III teachers 459.43 423.24 3 2

HQTs enrolled in alternative route programs High-poverty LEAs 13,584 13,035 5 66

HQTs enrolled in alternative route programs Rural LEAs 4,925 4,748 73 103

Note: This table is based on data reported by 48 states and the District of Columbia. Two states and two jurisdictions did not report the 

requested data: Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, and the Bureau of Indian Education. Hawaii and the District of Columbia are excluded 

from analyses for rural and high-poverty LEAs.

Sources: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics, EDFacts state data submission, “Highly Qualified Teachers” 

2013–14; U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), "Local Education Agency 

Universe Survey" 2012–13, v.1a.

Exhibit B.15. Percentage of highly qualified teachers (HQTs) enrolled in alternative route programs, for various 

types of LEAs and teachers: 2013–14

Type of teacher or LEA All LEAs Regular LEAs Charter LEAs Other LEAs

All teachers 1.5 1.5 5.0 0.8

Special education teachers 2.0 2.0 6.2 0.5

Title III teachers 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.7

High-poverty LEAs 2.3 2.3 5.7 1.3

Rural LEAs 1.3 1.4 2.4 0.8

Note: This table is based on data reported by 48 states and the District of Columbia. Two states and two jurisdictions did not report the 

requested data: Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, and the Bureau of Indian Education. Hawaii and the District of Columbia are excluded 

from analyses for rural and high-poverty LEAs. 

Sources: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics, EDFacts state data submission, “Highly Qualified Teachers” 

2013–14; U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), "Local Education Agency 

Universe Survey" 2012–13, v.1a.

42
Exhibit B.16. Number of highly qualified teachers (HQTs) enrolled in alternative route programs, by percentage 

of teachers enrolled in alternative route programs in the LEA, for various types of LEAs and 

teachers: 2013–14

Type of LEA and teacher Type of LEA and teacher Total <1%

1% to 

<2%

2% to 

<4%

4% to 

<10%

10% or 

more

All LEAs All LEAs

All LEAs All teachers 35,469 2,674 4,934 8,091 13,664 6,107

All LEAs Special education teachers 3,727 60 155 579 1,563 1,371

All LEAs Title III teachers 459 10 80 31 131 208

All LEAs High-poverty LEAs 13,584 429 1,707 2,032 7,247 2,168

All LEAs Rural LEAs 4,925 302 506 1,099 1,814 1,203

Regular LEAs Regular LEAs

Regular LEAs All teachers 31,998 2,636 4,859 7,898 12,460 4,146

Regular LEAs Special education teachers 3,527 59 150 576 1,547 1,196

Regular LEAs Title III teachers 423 10 80 31 129 173

Regular LEAs High-poverty LEAs 13,035 417 1,697 2,012 6,751 2,158

Regular LEAs Rural LEAs 4,748 300 495 1,064 1,751 1,138

Charter LEAs Charter LEAs

Charter LEAs All teachers 2,498 4 17 112 614 1,750

Charter LEAs Special education teachers 154 0 1 <0.5 9 144

Charter LEAs Title III teachers 3 0 0 0 0 3

Charter LEAs High-poverty LEAs 5 0 0 0 0 5

Charter LEAs Rural LEAs 73 2 <0.5 2 19 50

Other LEAs Other LEAs

Other LEAs All teachers 347 33 57 81 88 89

Other LEAs Special education teachers 38 1 3 3 7 24

Other LEAs Title III teachers 2 0 0 0 1 1

Other LEAs High-poverty LEAs 66 12 9 20 21 4

Other LEAs Rural LEAs 103 <0.5 10 33 44 15

Note: This table is based on data reported by 48 states and the District of Columbia. Two states and two jurisdictions did not report the 

requested data: Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, and the Bureau of Indian Education. Hawaii and the District of Columbia are excluded 

from analyses for rural and high-poverty LEAs. 

Sources: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics, EDFacts state data submission, “Highly Qualified Teachers” 

2013–14; U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), "Local Education Agency 

Universe Survey" 2012–13, v.1a.

43
Exhibit B.17. Percentage distribution of highly qualified teachers (HQTs) enrolled in alternative route programs, 

by percentage of teachers enrolled in alternative route programs in the LEA, for various types of 

LEAs and teachers: 2013–14

Type of LEA and teacher Type of LEA and teacher <1% 1% to <2% 2% to <4% 4% to <10% 10% or more

All LEAs All LEAs

All LEAs All teachers 8 14 23 39 17

All LEAs Special education teachers 2 4 16 42 37

All LEAs Title III teachers 2 17 7 29 45

All LEAs High-poverty LEAs 3 13 15 53 16

All LEAs Rural LEAs 6 10 22 37 24

Regular LEAs Regular LEAs

Regular LEAs All teachers 8 15 25 39 13

Regular LEAs Special education teachers 2 4 16 44 34

Regular LEAs Title III teachers 2 19 7 30 41

Regular LEAs High-poverty LEAs 3 13 15 52 17

Regular LEAs Rural LEAs 6 10 22 37 24

Charter LEAs Charter LEAs

Charter LEAs All teachers <0.5 1 4 25 70

Charter LEAs Special education teachers 0 <0.5 <0.5 6 94

Charter LEAs Title III teachers 0 0 0 0 100

Charter LEAs High-poverty LEAs 0 0 0 0 100

Charter LEAs Rural LEAs 3 1 3 26 68

Other LEAs Other LEAs

Other LEAs All teachers 10 16 23 25 26

Other LEAs Special education teachers 3 8 9 18 62

Other LEAs Title III teachers 0 0 0 47 53

Other LEAs High-poverty LEAs 18 14 31 32 6

Other LEAs Rural LEAs <0.5 10 32 43 15

Note: This table is based on data reported by 48 states and the District of Columbia. Two states and two jurisdictions did not report the 

requested data: Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, and the Bureau of Indian Education. Hawaii and the District of Columbia are excluded 

from analyses for rural and high-poverty LEAs. 

Sources: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics, EDFacts state data submission, “Highly Qualified Teachers” 

2013–14; U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), "Local Education Agency 

Universe Survey" 2012–13, v.1a.

44
Exhibit B.18. Number of LEAs, by percentage of all highly qualified teachers (HQTs) who were enrolled in 

alternative route programs and by LEA characteristics: 2013–14

Type of LEA Type of LEA Total Zero

>0 to 

<1%

1% to 

<2%

2% to 

<4%

4% to 

<10%

10% or 

more

All LEAs All LEAs 13,693 9,102 1,049 855 1,033 1,114 540

By poverty level By poverty level

By poverty level Highest poverty quartile 2,752 1,720 179 209 254 312 78

By poverty level Second highest poverty quartile 2,755 1,812 235 193 249 223 43

By poverty level Second lowest poverty quartile 2,731 1,820 241 202 219 202 47

By poverty level Lowest poverty quartile 2,786 1,801 381 217 217 135 35

By urbanicity By urbanicity

By urbanicity Urban 2,046 1,178 205 105 114 208 236

By urbanicity Suburban 3,010 1,848 478 256 217 160 51

By urbanicity Town 2,221 1,327 175 232 241 195 51

By urbanicity Rural 6,258 4,644 190 261 461 536 166

By enrollment size By enrollment size

By enrollment size Large (10,000 or more students) 811 156 334 131 106 77 7

By enrollment size Medium (2,500 to <10,000 students) 2,458 1,203 514 281 252 183 25

By enrollment size Small (fewer than 2,500 students) 10,130 7,531 195 439 671 833 461

By percentage of EL students By percentage of EL students

By percentage of EL students High (20% or more) 883 459 121 91 71 92 49

By percentage of EL students Medium (5% to >20%) 2,203 1,133 316 202 228 231 93

By percentage of EL students Low (>0 to <5%) 5,711 3,660 566 471 495 413 106

By percentage of EL students No EL students 4,581 3,609 43 87 236 355 251

Note: This table is based on data reported by 48 states and the District of Columbia. Two states and two jurisdictions did not report the 

requested data: Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, and the Bureau of Indian Education.

Sources: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics, EDFacts state data submission, “Highly Qualified Teachers” 

2013–14; U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), "Local Education Agency 

Universe Survey" 2012–13, v.1a. 

45
Exhibit B.19. Percentage distribution of LEAs, by percentage of all highly qualified teachers (HQTs) who were 

enrolled in alternative route programs and by LEA characteristics: 2013–14

Type of LEA Type of LEA Zero >0 to <1% 1% to <2% 2% to <4%

4% to 

<10%

10% or 

more

By poverty level By poverty level

By poverty level Highest poverty quartile 63 7 8 9 11 3

By poverty level Second highest poverty quartile 66 9 7 9 8 2

By poverty level Second lowest poverty quartile 67 9 7 8 7 2

By poverty level Lowest poverty quartile 65 14 8 8 5 1

By urbanicity By urbanicity

By urbanicity Urban 58 10 5 6 10 12

By urbanicity Suburban 61 16 9 7 5 2

By urbanicity Town 60 8 10 11 9 2

By urbanicity Rural 74 3 4 7 9 3

By enrollment size By enrollment size

By enrollment size Large (10,000 or more students) 19 41 16 13 9 1

By enrollment size Medium (2,500 to <10,000 students) 49 21 11 10 7 1

By enrollment size Small (fewer than 2,500 students) 74 2 4 7 8 5

By percentage of EL students By percentage of EL students

By percentage of EL students High (20% or more) 52 14 10 8 10 6

By percentage of EL students Medium (5% to >20%) 51 14 9 10 10 4

By percentage of EL students Low (>0 to <5%) 64 10 8 9 7 2

By percentage of EL students No EL students 79 1 2 5 8 5

Note: This table is based on data reported by 48 states and the District of Columbia. Two states and two jurisdictions did not report the 

requested data: Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, and the Bureau of Indian Education.

Sources: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics, EDFacts state data submission, “Highly Qualified Teachers” 

2013–14; U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), "Local Education Agency 

Universe Survey" 2012–13, v.1a.

46
Exhibit B.20. Number of highly qualified teachers (HQTs) who were enrolled in alternative route programs, by 

percentage of teachers enrolled in alternative route programs in the LEA and by LEA

characteristics: 2013–14 

Type of LEA Type of LEA Total <1% 1% to <2% 2% to <4%

4% to 

<10%

10% or 

more

By poverty level By poverty level

By poverty level Highest poverty quartile 13,584 429 1,707 2,032 7,247 2,168

By poverty level Second highest poverty quartile 6,219 545 583 1,458 2,779 853

By poverty level Second lowest poverty quartile 5,499 603 909 1,568 2,009 411

By poverty level Lowest poverty quartile 7,208 1,086 1,694 2,890 924 614

By urbanicity By urbanicity

By urbanicity Urban 15,813 744 2,151 2,797 7,023 3,098

By urbanicity Suburban 10,032 1,412 1,804 3,265 2,835 716

By urbanicity Town 4,073 215 471 929 1,490 969

By urbanicity Rural 4,925 302 506 1,099 1,814 1,203

By enrollment size By enrollment size

By enrollment size Large (10,000 or more students) 20,889 1,824 3,448 5,412 8,333 1,874

By enrollment size Medium (2,500 to <10,000 students) 6,854 702 990 1,653 2,841 669

By enrollment size Small (fewer than 2,500 students) 7,052 143 491 1,024 1,968 3,425

By percentage of EL students By percentage of EL students

By percentage of EL students High (20% or more) 7,259 314 782 623 3,863 1,677

By percentage of EL students Medium (5% to >20%) 14,787 1,109 2,295 4,455 5,187 1,742

By percentage of EL students Low (>0 to <5%) 10,477 1,219 1,774 2,728 3,469 1,287

By percentage of EL students No EL students 2,295 30 78 282 629 1,275

Note: This table is based on data reported by 48 states and the District of Columbia. Two states and two jurisdictions did not report the 

requested data: Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, and the Bureau of Indian Education.

Sources: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics, EDFacts state data submission, “Highly Qualified Teachers” 

2013–14 ; U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), "Local Education Agency 

Universe Survey" 2012–13, v.1a.

47
Exhibit B.21. Percentage distribution of highly qualified teachers (HQTs) who were enrolled in alternative route 

programs, by percentage of teachers enrolled in alternative route programs in the LEA and by LEA

characteristics: 2013–14

Type of LEA Type of LEA <1% 1% to <2% 2% to <4% 4% to <10%

10% or 

more

By poverty level By poverty level

By poverty level Highest poverty quartile 3 13 15 53 16

By poverty level Second highest poverty quartile 9 9 23 45 14

By poverty level Second lowest poverty quartile 11 17 29 37 7

By poverty level Lowest poverty quartile 15 24 40 13 9

By urbanicity By urbanicity

By urbanicity Urban 5 14 18 44 20

By urbanicity Suburban 14 18 33 28 7

By urbanicity Town 5 12 23 37 24

By urbanicity Rural 6 10 22 37 24

By enrollment size By enrollment size

By enrollment size Large (10,000 or more students) 9 17 26 40 9

By enrollment size Medium (2,500 to <10,000 students) 10 14 24 41 10

By enrollment size Small (fewer than 2,500 students) 2 7 15 28 49

By percentage of EL students By percentage of EL students

By percentage of EL students High (20% or more) 4 11 9 53 23

By percentage of EL students Medium (5% to >20%) 7 16 30 35 12

By percentage of EL students Low (>0 to <5%) 12 17 26 33 12

By percentage of EL students No EL students 1 3 12 27 56

Note: This table is based on data reported by 48 states and the District of Columbia. Two states and two jurisdictions did not report the 

requested data: Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, and the Bureau of Indian Education. Detail may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.

Sources: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics, EDFacts state data submission, “Highly Qualified Teachers” 

2013–14; U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), "Local Education Agency 

Universe Survey" 2012–13, v.1a.

48
Exhibit B.22. Percentage distribution of LEAs with highly qualified teachers (HQTs) enrolled in alternative route 

programs, by LEA characteristics: 2013–14

Type of LEA Type of LEA

LEAs with data on 

HQTs enrolled in 

alternative route 

programs

LEAs with HQTs 

enrolled in 

alternative route 

programs

LEAs with 4% or 

more of HQTs 

enrolled in

alternative route 

programs

By poverty level By poverty level By poverty level Highest poverty quartile 25 27 36 By poverty level Second highest poverty quartile 25 24 25

By poverty level Second lowest poverty quartile 25 24 23 By poverty level Lowest poverty quartile 25 25 16

By urbanicity By urbanicity By urbanicity Urban 15 19 28 By urbanicity Suburban 22 26 13 By urbanicity Town 16 20 15 By urbanicity Rural 46 36 44

By enrollment size By enrollment size By enrollment size Large (10,000 or more students) 6 15 5 By enrollment size Medium (2,500 to <10,000 students) 18 28 13 By enrollment size Small (fewer than 2,500 students) 76 58 82

By percentage of EL students By percentage of EL students By percentage of EL students High (20% or more) 7 9 9 By percentage of EL students Medium (5% to >20%) 16 24 20 By percentage of EL students Low (>0 to <5%) 43 45 33 By percentage of EL students No EL students 35 22 38

Note: This table is based on data reported by 48 states and the District of Columbia. Two states and two jurisdictions did not report the 

requested data: Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, and the Bureau of Indian Education. Detail may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.

Sources: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics, EDFacts state data submission, “Highly Qualified Teachers” 

2013–14; U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), "Local Education Agency 

Universe Survey" 2012–13, v.1a.

49
Exhibit B.23. Percentage distribution of LEAs with special education highly qualified teachers (HQTs) enrolled in 

alternative route programs, by LEA characteristics: 2013–14

Type of LEA Type of LEA

LEAs with data on 

special education 

HQTs enrolled in 

alternative route 

programs

LEAs with special 

education HQTs 

enrolled in alternative 

route programs

LEAs with 4% or more 

of special education 

HQTs enrolled in 

alternative route 

programs

By poverty level By poverty level

By poverty level Highest poverty quartile 25 27 30

By poverty level Second highest poverty quartile 25 23 25

By poverty level Second lowest poverty quartile 25 22 22

By poverty level Lowest poverty quartile 25 28 24

By urbanicity By urbanicity

By urbanicity Urban 14 22 20

By urbanicity Suburban 22 32 26

By urbanicity Town 17 19 22

By urbanicity Rural 48 27 33

By enrollment size By enrollment size

By enrollment size Large (10,000 or more students) 5 27 16

By enrollment size Medium (2,500 to <10,000 students) 18 35 34

By enrollment size Small (fewer than 2,500 students) 77 38 49

By percentage of EL students By percentage of EL students

By percentage of EL students High (20% or more) 4 7 7

By percentage of EL students Medium (5% to >20%) 15 28 26

By percentage of EL students Low (>0 to <5%) 45 52 51

By percentage of EL students No EL students 36 13 16

Note: This table is based on data reported by 48 states and the District of Columbia. Two states and two jurisdictions did not report the 

requested data: Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, and the Bureau of Indian Education. Detail may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.

Sources: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics, EDFacts state data submission, “Highly Qualified Teachers” 

2013–14; U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), "Local Education Agency 

Universe Survey" 2012–13, v.1a.

50
Exhibit B.24. Percentage distribution of LEAs with Title III highly qualified teachers (HQTs) enrolled in 

alternative route programs, by LEA characteristics: 2013–14

Type of LEA Type of LEA

LEAs with data on Title III 

HQTs enrolled in 

alternative route 

programs

LEAs with Title III 

HQTs enrolled in 

alternative route 

programs

LEAs with 4% or more 

of Title III HQTs 

enrolled in alternative 

route programs

By poverty level By poverty level

By poverty level Highest poverty quartile 25 47 53 By poverty level Second highest poverty quartile 25 19 20 By poverty level Second lowest poverty quartile 25 16 15 By poverty level Lowest poverty quartile 25 19 12

By urbanicity By urbanicity By urbanicity Urban 14 27 20 By urbanicity Suburban 23 41 41 By urbanicity Town 16 21 26 By urbanicity Rural 47 11 13

By enrollment size By enrollment size By enrollment size Large (10,000 or more students) 4 38 19 By enrollment size Medium (2,500 to <10,000 students) 18 31 40 By enrollment size Small (fewer than 2,500 students) 77 31 41

By percentage of EL students By percentage of EL students By percentage of EL students High (20% or more) 4 14 14 By percentage of EL students Medium (5% to >20%) 13 50 47 By percentage of EL students Low (>0 to <5%) 44 24 24 By percentage of EL students No EL students 40 11 15

Note: This table is based on data reported by 48 states and the District of Columbia. Two states and two jurisdictions did not report the 

requested data: Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, and the Bureau of Indian Education. Detail may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.

Sources: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics, EDFacts state data submission, “Highly Qualified Teachers” 

2013–14; U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), "Local Education Agency 

Universe Survey" 2012–13, v.1a.

51
Exhibit B.25. Percentage of highly qualified teachers (HQTs) enrolled in alternative route programs, by LEA 

characteristics: 2013–14

Type of LEA Type of LEA

LEAs with data on 

HQTs enrolled in 

alternative route 

programs

LEAs with at least one 

HQT enrolled in 

alternative route 

programs

LEAs with 4% or more 

of HQTs enrolled in 

alternative route 

programs

All LEAs All LEAs 1.7 2.4 7.3

By poverty level By poverty level

By poverty level Highest poverty quartile 2.5 3.4 6.7

By poverty level Second highest poverty quartile 1.6 2.4 6.9

By poverty level Second lowest poverty quartile 1.3 1.9 6.3

By poverty level Lowest poverty quartile 1.0 1.5 7.8

By urbanicity By urbanicity

By urbanicity Urban 2.3 2.9 6.9

By urbanicity Suburban 1.1 1.7 7.0

By urbanicity Town 1.7 3.2 8.4

By urbanicity Rural 1.5 3.1 8.5

By enrollment size By enrollment size

By enrollment size Large (10,000 or more students) 1.8 2.1 6.2

By enrollment size Medium (2,500 to <10,000 students) 1.2 2.2 6.9

By enrollment size Small (fewer than 2,500 students) 1.7 5.2 11.5

By percentage of EL students By percentage of EL students

By percentage of EL students High (20% or more) 2.8 3.3 7.3

By percentage of EL students Medium (5% to >20%) 1.8 2.2 6.6

By percentage of EL students Low (>0 to <5%) 1.2 2.0 7.2

By percentage of EL students No EL students 1.8 6.5 12.1

Note: This table is based on data reported by 48 states and the District of Columbia. Two states and two jurisdictions did not report the 

requested data: Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, and the Bureau of Indian Education.

Sources: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics, EDFacts state data submission, “Highly Qualified Teachers” 

2013–14; U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), "Local Education Agency 

Universe Survey" 2012–13, v.1a.

52
Exhibit B.26. Percentage of special education highly qualified teachers (HQTs) enrolled in alternative route 

programs, by LEA characteristics: 2013–14

Type of LEA Type of LEA

LEAs with data on 

special education 

HQTs enrolled in 

alternative route 

programs

LEAs with at least one 

special education HQT 

enrolled in alternative 

route programs

LEAs with 4% or more 

of special education 

HQTs enrolled in 

alternative route 

programs

All LEAs All LEAs 2.2 5.1 9.5

By poverty level By poverty level

By poverty level Highest poverty quartile 2.6 5.1 9.2

By poverty level Second highest poverty quartile 2.4 6.4 9.6

By poverty level Second lowest poverty quartile 2.0 5.1 11.1

By poverty level Lowest poverty quartile 1.9 4.2 7.7

By urbanicity By urbanicity

By urbanicity Urban 3.0 4.8 9.1

By urbanicity Suburban 1.8 4.0 7.9

By urbanicity Town 2.1 9.2 11.9

By urbanicity Rural 2.0 9.4 12.8

By enrollment size By enrollment size

By enrollment size Large (10,000 or more students) 2.7 4.1 7.8

By enrollment size Medium (2,500 to <10,000 students) 1.8 6.9 10.0

By enrollment size Small (fewer than 2,500 students) 1.8 16.4 19.1

By percentage of EL students By percentage of EL students

By percentage of EL students High (20% or more) 4.0 5.9 9.2

By percentage of EL students Medium (5% to >20%) 2.6 4.6 8.6

By percentage of EL students Low (>0 to <5%) 1.7 5.2 9.7

By percentage of EL students No EL students 1.7 12.0 20.3

Note: This table is based on data reported by 48 states and the District of Columbia. Two states and two jurisdictions did not report the 

requested data: Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, and the Bureau of Indian Education.

Sources: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics, EDFacts state data submission, “Highly Qualified Teachers” 

2013–14; U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), "Local Education Agency 

Universe Survey" 2012–13, v.1a.

53
Exhibit B.27. Percentage of Title III highly qualified teachers (HQTs) enrolled in alternative route programs, by 

LEA characteristics: 2013–14

Type of LEA Type of LEA

LEAs with data 

on Title III HQTs 

enrolled in 

alternative route 

programs

LEAs with at 

least one Title III 

HQT enrolled in 

alternative route 

programs

LEAs with 4% or 

more of Title III 

HQTs enrolled in 

alternative route 

programs

All LEAs All LEAs 1.5 2.8 9.8

By poverty level By poverty level By poverty level Highest poverty quartile 2.6 5.6 12.4 By poverty level Second highest poverty quartile 1.9 4.6 6.6 By poverty level Second lowest poverty quartile 0.6 0.9 7.7 By poverty level Lowest poverty quartile 1.0 1.8 7.8

By urbanicity By urbanicity By urbanicity Urban 1.5 2.8 6.5 By urbanicity Suburban 1.2 1.9 14.2 By urbanicity Town 2.3 10.1 12.1 By urbanicity Rural 1.0 11.1 13.8

By enrollment size By enrollment size By enrollment size Large (10,000 or more students) 1.3 1.9 7.7 By enrollment size Medium (2,500 to <10,000 students) 1.7 10.4 11.6 By enrollment size Small (fewer than 2,500 students) 1.4 24.5 24.5

By percentage of EL students By percentage of EL students By percentage of EL students High (20% or more) 2.9 6.6 12.3 By percentage of EL students Medium (5% to >20%) 1.4 2.4 8.1 By percentage of EL students Low (>0 to <5%) 0.9 1.9 16.6 By percentage of EL students No EL students 2.1 * *

Note: This table is based on data reported by 48 states and the District of Columbia. Two states and two jurisdictions did not report the 

requested data: Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, and the Bureau of Indian Education. Asterisk indicates data not shown due to small 

number of districts in this category (<30).

Sources: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics, EDFacts state data submission, “Highly Qualified Teachers” 

2013–14; U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), "Local Education Agency 

Universe Survey" 2012–13, v.1a.

54
Exhibit B.28. Percentage distribution of highly qualified teachers (HQTs) enrolled in alternative route programs, 

by LEA characteristics: 2013–14

Type of LEA Type of LEA

LEAs with HQTs enrolled in 

alternative route programs

LEAs with 4% or more 

of HQTs enrolled in 

alternative route programs

By poverty level By poverty level

By poverty level Highest poverty quartile 42 55

By poverty level Second highest poverty quartile 19 21

By poverty level Second lowest poverty quartile 17 14

By poverty level Lowest poverty quartile 22 9

By urbanicity By urbanicity

By urbanicity Urban 45 53

By urbanicity Suburban 29 19

By urbanicity Town 12 13

By urbanicity Rural 14 16

By enrollment size By enrollment size

By enrollment size Large (10,000 or more students) 60 53

By enrollment size Medium (2,500 to <10,000 students) 20 18

By enrollment size Small (fewer than 2,500 students) 20 28

By percentage of EL students By percentage of EL students

By percentage of EL students High (20% or more) 21 29

By percentage of EL students Medium (5% to >20%) 42 36

By percentage of EL students Low (>0 to <5%) 30 25

By percentage of EL students No EL students 7 10

Note: This table is based on data reported by 48 states and the District of Columbia. Two states and two jurisdictions did not report the 

requested data: Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, and the Bureau of Indian Education.

Sources: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics, EDFacts state data submission, “Highly Qualified Teachers” 

2013–14; U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), "Local Education Agency 

Universe Survey" 2012–13, v.1a.

55
Exhibit B.29. Percentage distribution of special education highly qualified teachers (HQTs) enrolled in 

alternative route programs, by LEA characteristics: 2013–14

Type of LEA Type of LEA

LEAs with special education 

HQTs enrolled in alternative 

route programs

LEAs with 4% or more 

of special education HQTs 

enrolled in alternative route 

programs

By poverty level By poverty level

By poverty level Highest poverty quartile 35 34

By poverty level Second highest poverty quartile 18 21

By poverty level Second lowest poverty quartile 17 17

By poverty level Lowest poverty quartile 29 27

By urbanicity By urbanicity

By urbanicity Urban 42 41

By urbanicity Suburban 32 29

By urbanicity Town 11 13

By urbanicity Rural 14 17

By enrollment size By enrollment size

By enrollment size Large (10,000 or more students) 62 56

By enrollment size Medium (2,500 to <10,000 students) 22 24

By enrollment size Small (fewer than 2,500 students) 16 20

By percentage of EL students By percentage of EL students

By percentage of EL students High (20% or more) 11 12

By percentage of EL students Medium (5% to >20%) 49 47

By percentage of EL students Low (>0 to <5%) 34 34

By percentage of EL students No EL students 6 7

Note: This table is based on data reported by 48 states and the District of Columbia. Two states and two jurisdictions did not report the 

requested data: Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, and the Bureau of Indian Education.

Sources: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics, EDFacts state data submission, “Highly Qualified Teachers” 

2013–14; U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), "Local Education Agency 

Universe Survey" 2012–13, v.1a.

56
Exhibit B.30. Percentage distribution of Title III highly qualified teachers (HQTs) enrolled in alternative route 

programs, by LEA characteristics: 2013–14

Type of LEA Type of LEA

LEAs with Title III HQTs 

enrolled in alternative route 

programs

LEAs with 4% or more 

of Title III HQTs enrolled in 

alternative route programs

By poverty level By poverty level

By poverty level Highest poverty quartile 53 64

By poverty level Second highest poverty quartile 17 21

By poverty level Second lowest poverty quartile 13 7

By poverty level Lowest poverty quartile 17 8

By urbanicity By urbanicity

By urbanicity Urban 39 37

By urbanicity Suburban 41 37

By urbanicity Town 15 20

By urbanicity Rural 5 7

By enrollment size By enrollment size

By enrollment size Large (10,000 or more students) 66 54

By enrollment size Medium (2,500 to <10,000 students) 24 32

By enrollment size Small (fewer than 2,500 students) 10 14

By percentage of EL students By percentage of EL students

By percentage of EL students High (20% or more) 18 23

By percentage of EL students Medium (5% to >20%) 60 63

By percentage of EL students Low (>0 to <5%) 19 10

By percentage of EL students No EL students 3 5

Note: This table is based on data reported by 48 states and the District of Columbia. Two states and two jurisdictions did not report the 

requested data: Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, and the Bureau of Indian Education.

Sources: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics, EDFacts state data submission, “Highly Qualified Teachers” 

2013–14; U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), "Local Education Agency 

Universe Survey" 2012–13, v.1a.

57
Exhibit B.31. Percentage distribution of LEAs with 4 percent or more of highly qualified teachers (HQTs) enrolled 

in alternative route programs, by LEA characteristics: 2013–14

Type of LEA Type of LEA All HQTs Special education HQTs Title III HQTs

By poverty level By poverty level

By poverty level Highest poverty quartile 36 30 53

By poverty level Second highest poverty quartile 25 25 20

By poverty level Second lowest poverty quartile 23 22 15

By poverty level Lowest poverty quartile 16 24 12

By urbanicity By urbanicity

By urbanicity Urban 28 20 20

By urbanicity Suburban 13 26 41

By urbanicity Town 15 22 26

By urbanicity Rural 44 33 13

By enrollment size By enrollment size

By enrollment size Large (10,000 or more students) 5 16 19

By enrollment size Medium (2,500 to <10,000 students) 13 34 40

By enrollment size Small (fewer than 2,500 students) 82 49 41

By percentage of EL students By percentage of EL students

By percentage of EL students High (20% or more) 9 7 14

By percentage of EL students Medium (5% to >20%) 20 26 47

By percentage of EL students Low (>0 to <5%) 33 51 24

By percentage of EL students No EL students 38 16 15

Note: This table is based on data reported by 48 states and the District of Columbia. Two states and two jurisdictions did not report the 

requested data: Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, and the Bureau of Indian Education. Detail may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.

Sources: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics, EDFacts state data submission, “Highly Qualified Teachers” 

2013–14; U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), "Local Education Agency 

Universe Survey" 2012–13, v.1a.

58
Exhibit B.32. Percentage of highly qualified teachers (HQTs) enrolled in alternative route programs, for selected 

types of teachers, by LEA characteristics: 2013–14

Type of LEA Type of LEA All HQTs Special education HQTs Title III HQTs

All LEAs All LEAs 1.5 2.0 1.3

By poverty level By poverty level

By poverty level Highest poverty quartile 2.3 2.4 2.3

By poverty level Second highest poverty quartile 1.5 2.0 1.6

By poverty level Second lowest poverty quartile 1.1 1.7 0.5

By poverty level Lowest poverty quartile 1.0 1.7 0.9

By urbanicity By urbanicity

By urbanicity Urban 2.2 2.7 1.3

By urbanicity Suburban 1.1 1.5 1.1

By urbanicity Town 1.5 1.8 2.1

By urbanicity Rural 1.3 1.8 1.0

By enrollment size By enrollment size

By enrollment size Large (10,000 or more students) 1.8 2.5 1.2

By enrollment size Medium (2,500 to <10,000 students) 1.1 1.5 1.5

By enrollment size Small (fewer than 2,500 students) 1.5 1.5 1.3

By percentage of EL students By percentage of EL students

By percentage of EL students High (20% or more) 2.7 3.6 2.2

By percentage of EL students Medium (5% to >20%) 1.7 2.3 1.2

By percentage of EL students Low (>0 to <5%) 1.1 1.5 0.9

By percentage of EL students No EL students 1.6 1.4 2.0

Note: This table is based on data reported by 48 states and the District of Columbia. Two states and two jurisdictions did not report the 

requested data: Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, and the Bureau of Indian Education.

Sources: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics, EDFacts state data submission, “Highly Qualified Teachers” 

2013–14; U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), "Local Education Agency 

Universe Survey" 2012–13, v.1a.

59
Exhibit B.33. Percentage of highly qualified teachers (HQTs) enrolled in alternative route programs, in LEAs with 

HQTs enrolled in alternative route programs, for selected types of teachers, by LEA characteristics: 

2013–14

Type of LEA Type of LEA All HQTs Special education HQTs Title III HQTs

All LEAs All LEAs 2.4 5.1 2.8

By poverty level By poverty level

By poverty level Highest poverty quartile 3.4 5.1 5.6

By poverty level Second highest poverty quartile 2.4 6.4 4.6

By poverty level Second lowest poverty quartile 1.9 5.1 0.9

By poverty level Lowest poverty quartile 1.5 4.2 1.8

By urbanicity By urbanicity

By urbanicity Urban 2.9 4.8 2.8

By urbanicity Suburban 1.7 4.0 1.9

By urbanicity Town 3.2 9.2 10.1

By urbanicity Rural 3.1 9.4 11.1

By enrollment size By enrollment size

By enrollment size Large (10,000 or more students) 2.1 4.1 1.9

By enrollment size Medium (2,500 to <10,000 students) 2.2 6.9 10.4

By enrollment size Small (fewer than 2,500 students) 5.2 16.4 24.5

By percentage of EL students By percentage of EL students

By percentage of EL students High (20% or more) 3.3 5.9 6.6

By percentage of EL students Medium (5% to >20%) 2.2 4.6 2.4

By percentage of EL students Low (>0 to <5%) 2.0 5.2 1.9

By percentage of EL students No EL students 6.5 12.0 *

Note: This table is based on data reported by 48 states and the District of Columbia. Two states and two jurisdictions did not report the 

requested data: Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, and the Bureau of Indian Education. Asterisk indicates data not shown due to small 

number of districts in this category (<30).

Sources: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics, EDFacts state data submission, “Highly Qualified Teachers” 

2013–14; U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), "Local Education Agency 

Universe Survey" 2012–13, v.1a.

60
Exhibit B.34. Percentage of highly qualified teachers (HQTs) enrolled in alternative route programs, in LEAs with 

4 percent or more of HQTs enrolled in alternative route programs, for selected types of teachers, 

by LEA characteristics: 2013–14

Type of LEA Type of LEA All HQTs Special education HQTs Title III HQTs

All LEAs All LEAs 7.3 9.5 9.8

By poverty level By poverty level

By poverty level Highest poverty quartile 6.7 9.2 12.4

By poverty level Second highest poverty quartile 6.9 9.6 6.6

By poverty level Second lowest poverty quartile 6.3 11.1 7.7

By poverty level Lowest poverty quartile 7.8 7.7 7.8

By urbanicity By urbanicity

By urbanicity Urban 6.9 9.1 6.5

By urbanicity Suburban 7.0 7.9 14.2

By urbanicity Town 8.4 11.9 12.1

By urbanicity Rural 8.5 12.8 13.8

By enrollment size By enrollment size

By enrollment size Large (10,000 or more students) 6.2 7.8 7.7

By enrollment size Medium (2,500 to <10,000 students) 6.9 10.0 11.6

By enrollment size Small (fewer than 2,500 students) 11.5 19.1 24.5

By percentage of EL students By percentage of EL students

By percentage of EL students High (20% or more) 7.3 9.2 12.3

By percentage of EL students Medium (5% to >20%) 6.6 8.6 8.1

By percentage of EL students Low (>0 to <5%) 7.2 9.7 16.6

By percentage of EL students No EL students 12.1 20.3 *

Note: This table is based on data reported by 48 states and the District of Columbia. Two states and two jurisdictions did not report the 

requested data: Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, and the Bureau of Indian Education. Asterisk indicates data not shown due to small 

number of districts in this category (<30).

Sources: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics, EDFacts state data submission, “Highly Qualified Teachers” 

2013–14; U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), "Local Education Agency 

Universe Survey" 2012–13, v.1a.

61
The Department of Education’s mission is to promote 

student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness 

by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.

www.ed.gov