U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

State Efforts to Promote Equitable Access 

to Effective Teachers

State Efforts to Promote Equitable Access 

to Effective Teachers

Prepared by

Andrew Wayne

Courtney Tanenbaum

Delphinia Brown

Andrea Boyle

American Institutes for Research

Washington, D.C. 

Prepared for

Policy and Program Studies Service

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development

U.S. Department of Education

2017 
This report was prepared for the U.S. Department of Education under Contract Number ED-04-CO-0025/ 

0001 with American Institutes for Research. Andrew Abrams served as contracting officer’s 

representative for this report. 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 is 

intended or should be inferred. In addition, any mention of trade names, commercial products, services, 

or organizations in this report does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education.

U.S. Department of Education

John B. King, Jr.

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

January 2017

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 suggested citation is U.S. Department of 

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

State Efforts to Promote Equitable Access to Effective Teachers, Washington, D.C., 2017.

This publication is also available at the Department’s website at 

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

On request, this publication is available in alternative formats, such as Braille, large print or computer 

diskette. For more information, contact the Department’s Alternate Format Center at 202-260-0852 or 

202-260-0818.

Content Contact

Andrew Abrams

202-401-1232

andrew.abrams@ed.gov
i 

Contents

Executive Summary...........................................................................................................................iv

Policy and Research Context ............................................................................................................... iv

Research Questions and Study Design ................................................................................................ vi

Findings................................................................................................................................................ vi

Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................... viii

I. Overview and Introduction......................................................................................................... 1

Policy Context....................................................................................................................................... 3

Research Questions and Study Design ................................................................................................. 6

II. Monitoring Equitable Access to Qualified and Effective Teachers Among Schools......................... 7

Challenges Related to Using Measures of Teacher Quality to Monitor Equitable Access to 

Qualified and Effective Teachers Among Schools ................................................................. 11

State Updating of Equity Plans ...........................................................................................................12

Chapter Summary ...............................................................................................................................12

III. Developing Multiple Measures of Teacher Performance............................................................15

State Status and Reasons for Developing Measures of Teacher Performance ..................................15

Key Features of State Measures of Teacher Performance ................................................................. 23

Chapter Summary ...............................................................................................................................25

IV. State Strategies for Promoting Equitable Access to Qualified and Effective Teachers..................27

Strategies to Promote Equitable Access to Qualified and Effective Teachers ...................................27

Use of Teacher Quality Measures in Targeted Strategies ..................................................................29

Chapter Summary ...............................................................................................................................33

V. Summary and Conclusions........................................................................................................35

References.......................................................................................................................................37

Appendix. SEA Interview Protocol ....................................................................................................39

iii

Exhibits

Exhibit 1 Key Terms Related to Teacher Quality Used in This Report....................................... 2

Exhibit 2 Number of States Monitoring Equitable Access to Qualified and Effective 

Teachers Among Schools and the Quality of the Teacher Workforce, by 

Measures of Teacher Qualifications, 2011–12........................................................... 9

Exhibit 3 Among States Using Performance Measures to Monitor Equitable Access to 

Qualified and Effective Teachers Among Schools and the Quality of the 

Teacher Workforce, Types of Measures Used, 2011–12............................................ 9

Exhibit 4 Number of States, by Number of Times They Updated Their Equity Plan 

Since First Being Approved by the Department, Fall 2011.......................................15

Exhibit 5 Status of State Efforts to Develop and Implement Multiple Measures of

Teacher Performance, 2011–12 ...............................................................................19 

Exhibit 6 Among States That Had Adopted or Were in the Process of Developing 

Multiple Measures of Teacher Performance, Number of States Providing 

Reasons for Developing Such Measures, 2011–12...................................................24

Exhibit 7 Number of States Targeting Certain Strategies towards High-Poverty 

and/or High-Minority Schools to Promote Equitable Access to Qualified and 

Effective Teachers, by State, 2011–12......................................................................30
iv

Executive Summary 

In recent years, federal education programs and policies have increasingly focused on teacher quality as 

a means for closing achievement gaps, in part by directing states to measure teacher qualifications and 

performance and promote equitable access to qualified and effective teachers among schools within a 

district. Federal policy now encourages annual evaluation of teachers using measures of both student 

achievement growth and teacher practice among at least three performance levels, in contrast to twolevel rating systems in which “satisfactory” ratings are often provided to nearly all teachers. These rating 

systems are intended to provide better information about differences in teacher performance and 

inform professional development and human resource decisions (e.g., compensation, dismissal). This 

report provides a broad overview of state efforts, as of the 2011–12 school year, to monitor equitable 

access to qualified and effective teachers among schools; develop and implement multiple measures of 

teacher performance to rate teachers among at least three performance levels; and implement targeted 

strategies for promoting equitable access to qualified and effective teachers. Key findings from this 

study include: 

 In 2011–12, states most commonly monitored equitable access to qualified and effective 

teachers among schools by using measures of teacher qualifications.

 Four states reported using measures of teacher performance — student achievement growth 

and/or measures of teacher practice — to monitor equitable access to qualified and effective 

teachers among schools, and nine states used teacher performance measures to monitor the 

quality of the teacher workforce overall.

 In two of the four states that reported using teacher performance measures to monitor 

equitable access among schools, officials reported seeing larger inequities than were previously 

detected using measures of teacher qualifications alone.

 Six states reported that they were using multiple measures of teacher performance to rate 

teachers on at least three performance levels in 2011–12, and 38 states indicated that they 

were in the process of developing such measures. 

 Offering monetary incentives was the most common strategy that states reported using to 

promote equitable access to qualified and effective teachers among schools (24 states).

 Other state-reported strategies for promoting equitable access to qualified and effective 

teachers were specialized professional development (14 states) and teacher recruitment and 

preparation programs (14 states).

Policy and Research Context

The most recent reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), in 2001, 

required that all core subjects be taught by highly qualified teachers (HQTs) and that states develop 

equity plans for ensuring inexperienced, unqualified, and out-of-field teachers are not 

disproportionately assigned to teach poor and minority students. More recent federal policies have

focused on measuring teacher performance based on student achievement growth and measures of 

teacher practice. 

This report refers to both types of teacher quality measures:
v 

 Teacher Qualification Measures. ESEA generally defines the term “highly qualified teacher” 

(HQT) as a teacher who holds a bachelor’s degree, state certification, and demonstrated subjectmatter knowledge (Section 9101(23)). ESEA also requires each state to develop a state plan that 

describes the “specific steps that the State educational agency will take to ensure that poor and 

minority children are not taught at higher rates than other children by inexperienced, 

unqualified, or out-of-field teachers, and the measures that the State educational agency will 

use to evaluate and publicly report the progress of the State educational agency with respect to 

such steps” (Section 1111(b)(8)(C)).

 Teacher Performance Measures. Recent programs and initiatives such as Race to the Top, 

Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF), and the 2011 ESEA Flexibility initiative have encouraged annual 

evaluation of teachers using measures of student achievement growth and measures of teacher 

practice. In this report, a state that was using both measures of student achievement growth 

and measures of teacher practice to rate teachers on at least three performance levels in 2011–

12 is said to be using multiple measures of teacher performance. 

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) reinforced the ESEA requirements 

regarding equitable access to qualified and effective teachers. In ARRA’s Race to the Top competitive 

grant program, applicants earned additional points for proposing strategies that addressed inequities in 

access to qualified and effective teachers. ARRA also boosted funding for the Teacher Incentive Fund

(TIF), a competitive grant program first authorized in 2006 that supports state and district efforts to 

retain effective teachers in schools with high proportions of poor students. Supplemental compensation 

for high-performing teachers in grant-funded schools is a key retention strategy promoted through the 

program. 

Research shows that most teachers already meet the federal HQT definition (U.S. Department of 

Education 2013). At the same time, a recent study of 10 large districts in seven states found that the 

extent of differences in teacher quality among schools — measured by teachers’ contributions to 

student achievement — differed widely from district to district (Glazerman and Max 2011). States and 

districts have started conducting similar analyses (see, e.g., Lemke, Thomsen, Wayne, and Birman 2012; 

Tennessee Department of Education 2007). 

In 2006, the U.S. Department of Education provided guidance on the specific criteria and evidence the 

Department would use in monitoring state efforts to ensure that disadvantaged and minority students 

are not taught by unqualified teachers at greater rates than other students and called for evidence of 

states’ written “equity plans.” In this report, we use the term “equity plans” to refer to states’ written 

plans for meeting the requirements of the law related to equitable access to teachers.

More recently, in June 2015, the Department required each state to submit a “State Plan to Ensure Equitable 

Access to Excellent Educators,” as part of the “Excellent Educators for All” initiative that had been launched in 

July 2014. Under these plans, states are required to take steps to ensure that students from low-income 

families and students of color are not taught by inexperienced, unqualified, or out-of-field teachers at higher 

rates than other students. To support states’ work to develop and implement these plans, the Department 

launched the Equitable Access Support Network (EASN). Through the EASN, as well as through the 

Department’s Regional Comprehensive Centers, Regional Education Labs, and Equity Assistance Centers, 

states can access supports such as regional meetings, topical communities of practice, tools and resources to 

support implementation, and state-specific coaching and support. These more recent state plans — and the 

policies they reflect — are beyond the scope of this report.
vi

Research Questions and Study Design

This report examines three questions about state efforts during the 2011–12 school year:

1. What measures did states use to monitor equitable access to qualified and effective teachers 

among schools?

2. To what extent were states developing or using multiple measures of teacher performance to 

rate teachers among at least three performance levels? 

3. What strategies did states use to promote equitable access to qualified and effective teachers in 

schools serving high proportions of poor and/or minority students? 

The study draws on telephone interviews with state officials from all 50 states, the District of Columbia, 

and Puerto Rico between August 2011 and January 2012. State officials were invited to participate in the 

interviews for this study on the basis of their involvement in and knowledge of state policies, programs, 

and practices related to monitoring, measuring, and promoting equitable access to qualified and 

effective teachers among schools. These interviews asked about state-level efforts that were in place or 

initiated prior to the implementation of the fall 2011 ESEA Flexibility initiative. It is possible that states 

may have made changes since January 2012 in their activities related to monitoring and promoting 

equitable access to qualified and effective teachers among schools. For example, states may have 

implemented new activities or modified their activities through approved ESEA Flexibility requests, Race 

to the Top amendment letters, or subsequent state-level legislation.

Findings

Monitoring Equitable Access to Qualified and Effective Teachers Among 

Schools

In 2011–12, states most commonly monitored equitable access to qualified and 

effective teachers among schools using measures of teacher qualifications, but four 

states also reported using measures of teacher performance for this purpose.

Officials from all of the states reported monitoring equitable access to qualified and effective teachers 

among schools using the federal definition of HQT under the 2001 reauthorization of ESEA. Officials 

from 22 states also reported monitoring equitable access to qualified and effective teachers among 

schools using a measure of teacher experience. 

Officials from nine states reported using at least one measure of teacher performance to monitor the 

quality of the teacher workforce, and four of these states also used such measures to monitor equitable

access to qualified or effective teachers among schools. Officials from two of these four states reported 

that using performance measures revealed larger inequities in access to qualified and effective teachers 

among schools than were previously detected using measures of teacher qualifications alone. 

Officials from 37 states reported that their state had updated its equity plan at least once since the plan 

was first approved by the Department. These state officials described making changes to their plan that 

ranged from updating tables with more recent data to revising monitoring strategies. 
vii

Developing Multiple Measures of Teacher Performance

Six states reported that they were using multiple measures of teacher performance 

to rate teachers among at least three performance levels in 2011–12, and 38 states 

indicated that they were in the process of developing such measures. 

Reasons provided by officials from these 44 states included improving existing practices for assessing 

teacher quality (38 states), aligning state-level policies for evaluating teachers with shifts in federal 

program guidance (19 states), and making their state more competitive for a federal grant (19 states).

Officials from nine of the 19 states who indicated that a desire to align state practice with shifts in 

federal program guidance was a reason for developing multiple measures of teacher performance also 

indicated that making their state more competitive for a federal grant factored into their states’ 

decisions. 

In eight states, respondents reported no efforts during the 2011–12 school year to develop or 

implement measures of teacher performance based on student achievement growth. Reasons provided

by these officials included state laws prohibiting the use of such measures (two states); a history of 

strong local control over teacher evaluation systems (one state); lack of a data system that linked 

student data with teacher data (one state); an interest in further exploring the validity of summative 

teacher performance measures (two states); or a decision to focus state activities in 2011–12 on refining 

one type of performance measure, specifically measures of teacher practice (two states). Among the 

eight states that were not developing measures of teacher performance based on student achievement 

growth, officials from four states reported that their state had, however, adopted or was piloting 

measures of teacher performance based on teacher practice.

State Strategies to Promote Equitable Access to Qualified and 

Effective Teachers

Offering monetary incentives was the most common strategy that states reported 

using to promote equitable access to qualified and effective teachers among 

schools; states also used strategies involving specialized professional development 

and teacher recruitment and preparation programs.

Officials from 30 states reported using at least one of three strategies to promote equitable access to 

qualified and effective teachers in schools serving high proportions of poor and/or minority students: 

monetary incentives (24 states), professional development (14 states), and teacher recruitment and 

preparation programs (14 states). Eight states reported using all three of these strategies and another 

eight states reported using two of these strategies. 

Among the 24 states with monetary incentives for teachers in high-need schools, 13 states offered 

incentives to teachers with certain qualifications (e.g., National Board Certification, certification in a 

specific subject area, number of endorsements, or years of experience), seven states offered incentives 

to teachers rated effective on the basis of teacher performance measures, and four states used a 

combination of these two approaches. 
viii

Conclusion

Although ESEA requirements on the equitable distribution of teachers focus on teacher qualifications, 

more recent federal initiatives have encouraged states to develop and implement multiple measures of 

teacher performance, including measures of student achievement growth as well as teacher practice. As 

of the 2011–12 school year, most states were either developing or already using multiple measures of 

teacher performance. Four states were using at least one measure of teacher performance to monitor 

equitable access to qualified and effective teachers among schools, and officials from two of these 

states indicated that the teacher performance measures revealed larger inequities in access to qualified 

and effective teachers than had been detected using measures of teacher qualifications alone. Since the 

time of this data collection, states have likely continued their implementation of teacher performance 

measures and strategies for promoting equitable access to effective teachers. Future research should 

examine the further evolution of these state practices and the extent to which the distribution of such 

teachers has changed.
1

I. Overview and Introduction

Since the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) in 2001,1

various federal programs and policies have required or encouraged states to measure teacher quality,

2

using measures that include teacher qualifications and teacher performance, and to promote equitable 

access to qualified and effective teachers among schools in a district. Recent federal policies have

encouraged annual evaluation of teachers using measures of both student achievement growth and 

teacher practice (i.e., “multiple measures”) among at least three performance levels, in contrast to twolevel rating systems in which “satisfactory” ratings are often provided to nearly all teachers.

3 These 

rating systems are intended to provide better information about differences in teacher performance, 

and inform professional development and human resource decisions (e.g., compensation, dismissal). 

This report describes state efforts in the 2011–12 school year to monitor differences in equitable access 

to qualified and effective teachers among schools, develop and implement multiple measures of teacher 

performance to rate teachers among at least three performance levels, and promote equitable access to 

qualified and effective teachers in schools serving high proportions of poor and/or minority students. 

This report examines two types of measures encouraged or required in federal policy:

 Teacher Qualification Measures. The 2001 reauthorization of ESEA generally defined the term 

“highly qualified teacher” (HQT) as a teacher who holds a bachelor’s degree, state certification, 

and demonstrated subject matter knowledge (Section 9101(23)). The reauthorized ESEA also 

requires each state to develop a state plan that describes the “specific steps that the State 

educational agency will take to ensure that poor and minority children are not taught at higher 

rates than other children by inexperienced, unqualified, or out-of-field teachers, and the 

measures that the State educational agency will use to evaluate and publicly report the progress 

of the State educational agency with respect to such steps” (Section 1111(b)(8)(C)).

 Teacher Performance Measures. Recent federal policy, subsequent to the 2001 reauthorization

of ESEA, has focused on measuring teacher performance rather than just teacher qualifications. 

Through programs and initiatives such as Race to the Top, Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF), and the 

2011 ESEA Flexibility Initiative,4 federal policy encourages annual evaluation of teachers using 

measures of student achievement growth and measures of teacher practice.

In this report, a state that was using both measures of student achievement growth and measures of 

teacher practice to rate teachers among at least three performance levels in 2011–12 is said to be using 

multiple measures of teacher performance. This report uses terms from various federal policies, 

programs, and initiatives addressing teacher quality, ranging from the 2001 reauthorization of ESEA

through the U.S. Department of Education’s fall 2011 ESEA Flexibility initiative. 

1 References to ESEA in this report are referring to the ESEA as reauthorized in 2001.

2 This report uses the term teacher quality as a concise reference to qualified and effective teachers.

3 For example, one study of teacher evaluation systems in 12 districts found that in the districts that used binary 

evaluation ratings (generally “satisfactory” or “unsatisfactory”), more than 99 percent of teachers received the 

satisfactory rating (Weisberg et al. 2009).

4 See http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/esea-flexibility/index.html. 
2

Exhibit 1 provides a list and definitions of key terms related to teacher quality used in this report.

Exhibit 1

Key Terms Related to Teacher Quality Used in This Report

In discussing policies and practices related to teacher quality, this report uses the terms qualified teachers and 

effective teachers and applies specific criteria and measures to define these terms.

Qualified teacher. Federal, state, and local policies describe various qualifications that are considered to be 

indicators of teachers’ education, credentials, experience, knowledge, and skills. Such qualifications may include 

degree attainment, state certification and licensure, years of teaching experience, and passing tests of content 

knowledge or pedagogical knowledge. Although definitions of the term qualified teacher vary, this report discusses 

two specific types of measures of teacher qualifications that are used by states and districts:

 Highly qualified teacher (HQT). Under the 2001 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act (ESEA), generally, a teacher is considered a highly qualified teacher if he or she possesses at 

least a bachelor’s degree, holds full state certification, and has demonstrated subject matter competence 

for each core academic subject he or she is assigned to teach. States further specify what a teacher must 

do to be deemed highly qualified.

 Teacher experience. ESEA requirements regarding equitable access to qualified teachers among schools 

call attention to inexperienced teachers and do not specify a definition of teacher experience or 

inexperience. States that monitor the percentage of teachers who are inexperienced vary in the 

definitions they use (e.g., teachers in their first year of teaching, teachers with fewer than five years of 

teaching experience). This report examines the number of states that use some measure of teacher 

experience or inexperience; it does not distinguish among these different measures. 

Effective teacher. Beginning with the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), federal 

education initiatives, such as Race to the Top and the Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF), have encouraged states and 

districts to develop and implement new teacher evaluation systems that measure teacher performance based in 

significant part on measures of student achievement growth. These initiatives have also encouraged states and 

districts to supplement measures of student growth with multiple observation-based assessments of teacher 

practice or other measures that the state or district deems appropriate. For purposes of this report, we focus only 

on student achievement growth and observation-based assessments of teacher practice. This report uses the 

following categories of measures, called measures of teacher performance:

 Measures of student achievement growth. These measures are based on changes in student 

achievement on the state’s assessments under ESEA across two points in time. For grades and subjects for

which statewide assessments were not administered, alternative measures of student learning and 

performance may be used (e.g., student performance on pretests and posttests, end-of-course tests, and 

objective performance-based assessments; performance against student learning objectives (SLOs); 

performance on English language proficiency tests; and other student achievement measures that the 

state or district considers rigorous and are comparable across schools within a district.) 

 Measures of teacher practice. This report defines measures of teacher practice as observation-based 

assessments of teacher classroom performance that are supported by the following elements: (1) a 

requirement that teachers be observed multiple times per year and evaluated at least once per year, (2) a 

form or instrument for rating classroom practice, (3) a summative rating scale that includes three or more 

levels of performance, and (4) established policies regarding the training and inter-rater reliability of 

those who observe and rate teachers. 

A state was considered to have a system for measuring teacher effectiveness if it had adopted both measures of 

student achievement growth and measures of teacher practice and was using these measures in 2011–12 to rate 

teachers among at least three performance levels.
3

Policy Context 

Since the implementation of the 2001 ESEA reauthorization requirement that all core subjects be taught by 

teachers who meet the federal HQT definition, federal policy has continued to use teacher quality — as 

measured by teacher qualifications and, more recently, teacher performance — as a tool for closing 

achievement gaps. This study seeks to provide an overview of state activities in 2011–12 that were 

relevant to promoting equitable access to qualified and effective teachers among schools, focusing on 

three areas:

 Monitoring equitable access to qualified and effective teachers among schools. The 2001 

reauthorization of ESEA requires each state to develop a state plan that describes: (a) the 

specific steps the state will take to ensure that poor and minority children are not taught at 

higher rates than other children by inexperienced, unqualified, or out-of-field teachers; and (b) 

the measures that the state will use to evaluate and publicly report the progress of the state 

with respect to such steps. In its implementation of this statute, the Department specified that 

each state’s “written equity plan” should include an analysis of inequities in teacher assignment 

among schools in the state and the strategies the state would implement to address such 

inequities.5

 Developing multiple measures of teacher performance. Beginning with ARRA, federal policies 

called for new state systems for measuring teacher quality. The second objective of this study 

was to report the status of state efforts to develop and implement multiple measures of teacher 

performance and use those measures to rate teachers among at least three performance levels. 

The criteria used to determine whether a state had implemented or was developing multiple 

measures of teacher performance were based on a scan of policy initiatives and guidelines for 

developing comprehensive teacher evaluation systems that could meaningfully differentiate 

performance across teachers. Included in this review were the ESEA Blueprint for Reform (U.S. 

Department of Education 2010), ESEA Flexibility initiative document (U.S. Department of 

Education 2012), and the TIF program guidance.6 The criteria used in this study to categorize 

states also were informed by the key components of a comprehensive evaluation system 

identified by the National Center on Teacher Quality (NCTQ 2011). 

 Implementing strategies to promote equitable access to qualified and effective teachers. ESEA

reauthorization provisions and subsequent federal policies require states to address inequities 

in access to qualified and effective teachers among schools. The third objective of this study was 

to describe states’ targeted strategies to promote equitable access to qualified and effective 

teachers among schools. In this report, targeted strategies are defined as state strategies that 

focus on the needs of schools with high proportions of poor and/or minority students. This 

report addresses the prevalence and features of these strategies among states; it does not 

assess their effectiveness. 

5 See Department protocol for “Reviewing Revised State Plans” (March 21, 2006), available at 

http://www2.ed.gov/programs/teacherqual/legislation.html (under the heading “Policy Guidance”).

6 See http://www2.ed.gov/programs/teacherincentive/faqs2012.pdf.
4

Monitoring Equitable Access to Qualified and Effective Teachers Among 

Schools 

The 2001 reauthorization of ESEA requires each state to develop a state plan that describes the specific 

steps the state educational agency will take to ensure that poor and minority children are not taught at 

higher rates than other children by inexperienced, unqualified, or out-of-field teachers, and the 

measures that the state educational agency will use to evaluate and publicly report the progress of the 

state educational agency with respect to such steps (Section 1111(b)(8)(C)).

In March 2006, the Department provided guidance on plans for assessing state progress in meeting 

ESEA’s goal of having all students taught by highly qualified teachers in the 2006–07 school year, 

including the specific criteria and evidence the Department would include in its assessment and 

monitoring of states’ efforts to ensure that disadvantaged and minority students are not taught by 

unqualified teachers at greater rates than other students.

7 Specifically, the materials from the 

Department called for evidence of states’ written “equity plans.” In this report, we use this same term 

(“equity plans”) to refer to states’ written plans for meeting the requirements of the law related to 

equitable access to teachers. 

More recently, in June 2015, the Department required each state to submit a “State Plan to Ensure Equitable 

Access to Excellent Educators,” as part of the “Excellent Educators for All” initiative that had been launched in 

July 2014. Under these plans, states are required to take steps to ensure that students from low-income 

families and students of color are not taught by inexperienced, unqualified, or out-of-field teachers at higher 

rates than other students. To support states’ work to develop and implement these plans, the Department 

launched the Equitable Access Support Network (EASN). Through the EASN, and the Department’s Regional 

Comprehensive Centers, Regional Education Labs, and Equity Assistance Centers, states can access supports 

such as regional meetings, topical communities of practice, tools and resources to support implementation, 

and state-specific coaching and support. These more recent state plans — and the policies they reflect — are

beyond the scope of this report.

Developing Multiple Measures of Teacher Performance 

Since the reauthorization of ESEA in 2001, federal programs have expanded the measurement of 

teacher quality, moving away from a primary focus on measures of teacher qualifications to a focus on 

measures of teacher performance. Although most teachers already meet the federal definition of 

“highly qualified teacher” (U.S. Department of Education 2013), the use of measures of teacher 

performance may change states’ and districts’ assessments of the degree to which students have 

7 See March 21, 2006, “Letter to Chief State School Officers Regarding States’ Progress in Meeting the HQT Goal” 

and accompanying enclosures, “Assessing State Progress in Meeting the Highly Qualified Teacher (HQT) Goal” and 

“Reviewing Revised State Plans,” available at http://www2.ed.gov/programs/teacherqual/legislation.html under 

the heading “Policy Guidance.”8 A 2011 study of 10 large, economically diverse districts found that these districts 

exhibited varying degrees of inequity or equity in the distribution of effective teachers as measured on the basis of 

contributions to student achievement (Glazerman and Max 2011). In one district, high-performing middle school 

mathematics teachers were 12 times more prevalent in low-poverty schools than in high-poverty schools. In 

contrast, in another district, high-performing teachers were three times more prevalent in the district’s highpoverty elementary schools than in its low-poverty elementary schools.
5

equitable access to qualified and effective teachers.8 Race to the Top and the Teacher Incentive Fund

are two federal competitive grant programs that have been promoting the use of multiple measures of 

teacher performance to assess teacher quality by requiring that grantees’ teacher evaluation systems 

use measures of teacher performance based on student achievement growth and teacher practice.9 The 

TIF grant program further requires grantees to develop and implement systems that use multiple 

measures of teacher performance to rate teachers among at least three performance levels.10

In addition, the Department’s ESEA Flexibility initiative that was announced in 2011 emphasized this new 

direction of using performance measures for rating teacher quality and monitoring equitable access to 

qualified and effective teachers among schools. In order to participate in ESEA Flexibility, states had to 

develop and implement systems that include the use of multiple valid measures of teacher performance, 

including data on achievement growth for all students as a significant factor, and the use of other 

measures of professional practice to assess teacher performance among at least three performance levels, 

as well as meet other specific requirements described in the ESEA Flexibility initiative.11 At the time of data 

collection for this study (August 2011 – January 2012), many states had submitted Flexibility requests, 

though none had yet been approved by the Department.12

Implementing Strategies to Promote Equitable Access to Qualified and 

Effective Teachers 

As discussed in the preceding sections, ARRA reinforced the guidance states and districts had received 

through the Department’s implementation of ESEA as reauthorized in 2001 by providing further support 

for states to implement steps to promote equitable access to qualified and effective teachers in schools

serving high proportions of poor and/or minority students. For example, ARRA’s Race to the Top

competitive grant program awarded state applicants additional points for proposed strategies to 

address inequities in access to qualified and effective teachers.

13 ARRA also boosted funding for TIF, a 

competitive grant program that requires grantees to implement teacher evaluation systems using 

multiple measures of teacher performance. One objective of TIF, which was first authorized in 2006, is 

 

8 A 2011 study of 10 large, economically diverse districts found that these districts exhibited varying degrees of 

inequity or equity in the distribution of effective teachers as measured on the basis of contributions to student 

achievement (Glazerman and Max 2011). In one district, high-performing middle school mathematics teachers 

were 12 times more prevalent in low-poverty schools than in high-poverty schools. In contrast, in another district, 

high-performing teachers were three times more prevalent in the district’s high-poverty elementary schools than 

in its low-poverty elementary schools. 9 For Race to the Top, such measures and systems are one basis for scoring applications from states and districts, 

which then use Race to the Top funds to support the design, piloting, and implementation of such systems. For TIF, 

which was enacted in legislation passed in 2006, such measures and systems became an increasing focus in its 

criteria for reviewing applications after the passage of ARRA. 

10 See http://www2.ed.gov/programs/teacherincentive/faqs2012.pdf. 

11 See http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/esea-flexibility/index.html. 

12 Thirty-seven states had submitted Flexibility requests by February 2012,including 11 states that had submitted 

such requests by November 2011. 

13 The Race to the Top competitive grant program awarded grants to 18 states and the District of Columbia in three

phases between 2010 and 2011. 
6 

to support state and district efforts to retain effective teachers in high-poverty schools by 

supplementing the compensation of teachers who perform well in such schools.14

Research Questions and Study Design

This report examines three main study questions:

1. What measures did states use to monitor equitable access to qualified and effective teachers 

among schools?

2. To what extent were states developing or using multiple measures of teacher performance to 

rate each teacher among at least three performance levels?

3. What strategies did states use to promote equitable access to qualified and effective teachers in 

schools serving high proportions of poor and/or minority students? 

The researchers conducted telephone interviews with officials in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, 

and Puerto Rico (n = 52) to address the study’s questions. State officials were invited to participate in 

the interviews on the basis of their involvement in and knowledge of state policies, programs, and 

practices related to the development and use of measures of teacher qualifications and measures of 

teacher performance, and state actions around monitoring and promoting equitable access to qualified 

and effective teachers among schools. 

Interviews with state officials lasted approximately 90 minutes each and were guided by a state official 

interview protocol (included in Appendix A). Interviewers reviewed extant sources prior to each 

interview so that respondents could confirm or clarify information from those sources where available. 

The extant sources included equity plans, Consolidated State Performance Reports (CSPRs), reports from 

federal monitoring visits, and other information on state websites. In addition, prior to each interview, 

states were asked to identify a respondent who was most likely to be knowledgeable about the topics to 

be addressed, and in some cases, this meant interviewing multiple respondents. The data collected 

through these interviews are primarily self-reported, and the research team did not assess the 

effectiveness or quality of the strategies described by the respondents. 

Readers should note the interviews with state officials took place between August 2011 and January 

2012 and collected information on state actions that were in place or initiated prior to the 

implementation of the Department’s ESEA Flexibility initiative. Therefore, we recognize that the data 

presented in this report are reflective of a specific time period (in most cases, the 2010–11 and/or 

2011–12 school years) and that states may have since modified their activities related to monitoring and 

promoting equitable access to qualified and effective teachers among schools. States may have 

implemented new activities or modified their activities through approved ESEA Flexibility requests, Race 

to the Top amendment letters, or subsequent state-level legislation. 

In interpreting the findings presented in this report, readers should keep in mind that this study 

is descriptive and is not intended to identify best practices or causal relationships.

 

14 The TIF program awarded 129 grants to states and school districts in four phases between 2006 and 2012.
7 

II. Monitoring Equitable Access to Qualified and 

Effective Teachers Among Schools 

Federal policies, programs, and initiatives include provisions for states to promote equitable access to 

qualified and effective teachers by monitoring the extent to which teachers who meet certain measures 

of teacher quality are equitably distributed among schools. To examine how states were monitoring 

equitable access to qualified and effective teachers among schools, this study asked state officials to 

identify the measures they used for monitoring the distribution of qualified and effective teachers 

among schools in the districts in their states and for monitoring the quality of their overall teacher 

workforce.

15 The study team also asked officials to report on state efforts to update their equity plans. 

States developed and submitted these equity plans for the Department’s approval as part of their 

revised state plans for achieving the goal of having all teachers meet HQT criteria in the 2006-07 school 

year. Per the Department’s policy guidance, these plans were to include analyses of inequities in teacher 

assignment among schools and specific strategies for addressing identified inequities.16

Key Findings

 States most commonly monitored equitable access to qualified and effective teachers among 

schools using measures of teacher qualifications, and a few states reported using measures 

of teacher performance for this purpose. 

 Officials from two of the four states using at least one teacher performance measure to 

monitor equitable access of qualified and effective teachers among schools reported that

using such measures revealed larger inequities in access than were previously detected using 

measures of teacher qualifications alone. 

 Officials from 37 states reported their state had updated its equity plan at least once since 

the plan was first approved by the Department.

Measures Used to Monitor Equitable Access

In 2011–12, all states monitored equitable access among schools to teachers who 

met the federal HQT requirements, and 22 states also reported using a measure of 

teacher experience to monitor equitable access to qualified and effective teachers. 

States are required to report annually, as part of their annual Consolidated State Performance Report 

(CSPR) submission to the Department, the percentages of teachers with HQT status in high-poverty 

 

15 For the purposes of this report, in order for a particular measure to be counted as one that was used to monitor 

the overall teacher workforce, states needed to conduct analyses using the measure on at least an annual basis 

(e.g., create annual tabulations), rather than just collect data on the measure. 

16 See March 21, 2006, “Letter to Chief State School Officers Regarding States’ Progress in Meeting the HQT Goal” 

and accompanying enclosures, “Assessing State Progress in Meeting the Highly Qualified Teacher (HQT) Goal” and 

“Reviewing Revised State Plans,” available at http://www2.ed.gov/programs/teacherqual/legislation.html.
8

schools and in low-poverty schools.

17 The Department also requires states to include similar 

comparisons in their state report cards (required under Title I, Part A). Interviews with state officials and 

a review of the most recent state CSPRs available at the time of this study confirmed that all states were 

in compliance with these reporting requirements and were using HQT as a measure in their efforts to 

monitor equitable access to qualified and effective teachers among schools and in their efforts to 

monitor the quality of their teacher workforce overall.

Officials from 22 states reported that, in addition to the HQT status of teachers, their states used at least 

one more measure of teacher qualification — teacher experience18 — to monitor equitable access 

among schools to qualified and effective teachers. In addition, officials from 34 states reported using 

this measure to monitor the quality of their teacher workforce overall (Exhibit 2).

Exhibit 2 

Number of States Monitoring Equitable Access to Qualified and Effective Teachers Among Schools and the 

Quality of the Teacher Workforce, by Measures of Teacher Qualifications Used, 2011–12

Exhibit reads: In the 2011–12 school year, officials from all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and 

Puerto Rico reported monitoring equitable access to qualified and effective teachers who were 

designated as highly qualified under ESEA.

Note: n = 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. 

Source: Interviews with state officials, 2011–12.

 

17 ESEA Section 1111(h)(1)(C)(viii) defines high-poverty schools as “schools in the top quartile of poverty in the 

state” and low-poverty schools as “schools in the bottom quartile of poverty in the state.” 

18According to interview data, state definitions of inexperienced teachers ranged from teachers in their first year 

of teaching to teachers with fewer than five years of teaching experience. State officials also reported tracking 

experience differently. In some cases, states measured experience on the basis of the total number of years in the 

teaching field, regardless of where such teaching occurred; others measured years of experience only by years of 

teaching in the current state.

52 52

22

34

0

10

20

30

40

50

Equitable access Teacher workforce

Highly qualified teacher

(HQT)

Teacher experience
9

Four states reported using measures of teacher performance — student 

achievement growth and/or measures of teacher practice — to monitor equitable 

access to qualified and effective teachers among schools, and nine states used

teacher performance measures to monitor the quality of the teacher workforce 

overall. 

States varied in their use of teacher performance measures to monitor equitable access to qualified and 

effective teachers among schools and the teacher workforce overall, with some states using one type of 

measure — either student achievement growth or teacher practice — and some using both (i.e., 

multiple measures of teacher performance). Not all states using performance measures to monitor the 

quality of the teacher workforce overall used such measures to monitor equitable access among 

schools. Officials from eight states reported using a measure of student growth to monitor the quality of 

the teacher workforce overall, and six of these states were also using a measure of teacher practice — 

multiple measures — for this purpose. Four states reported using at least one performance measure,

student achievement growth and/or teacher practice, to monitor equitable access to qualified and 

effective teachers among schools; two of these states were using multiple measures of teacher 

performance to monitor equitable access among schools (Exhibit 3). 

Exhibit 3

Types of Performance Measures Used by States to Monitor Equitable Access to 

Qualified and Effective Teachers and the Quality of the Teacher Workforce, 2011–12

State 

Student achievement 

growth measures 

used to monitor 

equitable access

Teacher practice

measures 

used to monitor 

equitable access

Student achievement 

growth measures 

used to monitor quality 

of teacher workforce

Teacher practice 

measures 

used to monitor quality 

of teacher workforce

Colorado X

Delaware X X

District of Columbia X X X X

Florida X X

Idaho X X

North Carolina X X

South Carolina X X

Tennessee X X X X

Wyoming X X

Total 3 3 8 7 

Exhibit reads: The state official from Colorado reported using a measure of student achievement growth 

to monitor the quality of the teacher workforce overall in the 2011–12 school year. 

Note: n = 8 states and the District of Columbia. 

Source: Interviews with state officials, 2011–12. 

In two of the four states that were using at least one measure of teacher 

performance to monitor equitable access, officials reported that using such 

measures revealed larger inequities in access to qualified and effective teachers

than were previously detected using measures of teacher qualifications alone. 

Among the states using at least one measure of teacher performance to monitor equitable access to 

qualified and effective teachers among schools, officials from two states — North Carolina and 
10

Tennessee — reported that their perceptions of the way teachers were distributed among schools had 

changed as a result of using measures of teacher performance. These officials indicated that when they 

used teacher qualifications to monitor equitable access to qualified and effective teachers among 

schools, the results of the analyses showed few or no inequities in access. However, when they used 

measures of teacher performance, analyses demonstrated that students in schools with high 

proportions of poor and/or minority students were being taught at a higher rate by teachers who had 

been rated at lower performance levels than teachers at schools with low proportions of poor and/or 

low-minority schools. In Tennessee, the state official interviewed remarked,

“This absolutely changes our understanding. If you just look at HQT status, it looks like there is little 

disparity in quality between teachers at high- and low-poverty schools and between the teachers at 

high- and low-minority schools. But, if you look at teacher effectiveness data, you see a different 

and more concerning story.”

Similarly, the official from North Carolina remarked that using student achievement growth as a 

performance measure provided a more “complete picture” of the extent to which students in high- and 

low-poverty schools had equitable access to high quality teachers. When the state used only teacher 

qualifications to examine differences among schools, the results showed that the percentage of 

qualified and experienced teachers in the state was slightly lower in higher-poverty schools compared 

with lower-poverty schools. However, when the state factored in student achievement growth as a 

measure, they found that the differences between teachers in high- and low-poverty schools were 

greater for measures of teacher performance than for measures of teacher qualifications. 

School Characteristics Used for Monitoring Equitable Access 

Officials from all states reported monitoring equitable access to qualified and 

effective teachers between schools with high and low percentages of poor students. 

Twenty-four states also monitored equitable access between schools serving high 

and low percentages of minority students. 

In 2011–12, all states had complied with CSPR reporting requirements and were monitoring the extent 

to which high- and low-poverty schools had equitable access to teachers who met federal HQT 

requirements. Specifically, states were monitoring and reporting the extent to which teachers who met 

federal HQT requirements were equitably distributed between schools identified as high-poverty (i.e., 

those in the top quartile of poverty in the state) and schools identified as low-poverty (i.e., those in the 

bottom quartile of poverty in the state). Officials from 24 states also reported examining equitable 

access to qualified and effective teachers between schools with high percentages of minority students 

and those with low percentages of minority students. Nineteen of these states examined teacher 

distribution between high- and low-minority schools using the HQT measure; 16 of these states 

examined teacher distribution between high- and low-minority schools using a measure of teacher 

experience.

Four states reported monitoring equitable access to qualified and effective teachers between schools 

designated as “high-need” or “hard-to-staff” and those without such designations. According to officials 

from these states, schools with high-need designations may have high proportions of poor and/or 

minority students but also have other characteristics. For example, the officials from these four states 

described high-need or hard-to-staff schools as schools that may be serving high percentages of English 

learners (ELs) or students with disabilities, schools that missed adequate yearly progress (AYP) targets, 
11

or schools in school improvement status. In addition, officials from 25 states described using measures of 

teacher qualifications to examine equitable access to qualified teachers between schools in urban and rural 

districts or among schools in regions in their state.

Challenges Related to Using Measures of Teacher Quality to Monitor 

Equitable Access

Among state officials, the most frequently reported challenge in using teacher 

quality measures to monitor equitable access to qualified and effective teachers

among schools was related to collecting and managing data. 

As reported earlier, all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico reported using at least one 

measure of teacher quality to monitor equitable access to qualified and effective teachers among 

schools in 2011–12. Officials from 18 states cited challenges in using various measures of teacher quality 

for this purpose that were related to the collection and management of such data.

Three examples highlight the types of challenges described by state officials. The official from Alaska 

indicated that although the state collected data on measures of teacher qualifications, it was difficult to 

conduct the types of equitable access analyses they sought because of the initial design of the state’s 

data system. This state official explained,

“When the data system is not originally set up for [a particular type of analysis], you are always 

playing catch up with the state data system in order to get the data you need to make 

comparisons... The state has faced challenges and tried to make it so that they have the data they 

need to do these analyses, but it will be an ongoing process.”

Similarly, the official from Connecticut reported that the state was in the process of building a new, 

more robust data system that would address the limitations of the existing system, namely that it did 

not require districts to enter the level of detail about teachers and new teacher hires that would 

facilitate more accurate monitoring of the extent to which students in different types of schools had 

equitable access to teachers who met certain quality measures. The official from Michigan described 

similar challenges and said,

“The state has concerns about the accuracy and quality of HQT data that are reported by districts. 

HQT is a moving target since teachers change positions, particularly with the current high rates of 

mobility.”

Officials from 11 states reported challenges related to the resistance from teachers and administrators

to analyze and report on whether students in different types of schools had equitable access to teachers 

on the basis of teacher performance measures. For example, officials from Louisiana and Illinois 

indicated that using teacher performance measures to evaluate and assess teacher quality and equitable 

access to qualified and effective teachers among schools reflected a shift in paradigm to which teachers 

and administrators were still adjusting. Officials from Mississippi and Missouri described needing to 

change teachers’ and administrators’ perceptions that teacher performance measures would not be 

used for punitive purposes but to support improved instructional practice and student outcomes. 
12

State Updating of Equity Plans 

Between 2007 and 2011, the Department conducted monitoring visits to approximately one quarter of 

all states during which states were asked to provide evidence of implementing their equity plans, 

including any measures and public reporting efforts related to their progress in implementing the plan

as well as any updates they had made to their plans. This section examines the extent to which states 

had updated their equity plans, based on interviews conducted in fall 2011.

Officials from 37 states reported that their states had updated their equity plans at 

least once since their plans were first approved by the Department.

Among the 37 states that had updated their equity plans at least once since first having their plans 

approved by the Department, officials from 18 states reported that they had updated their equity plans 

one to two times, and officials from 15 states reported that their states had updated their equity plans 

three or more times (Exhibit 4). States described making changes to their equity plans that ranged from 

updating tables with more recent data to revising the description of the state’s strategies for monitoring 

and promoting equitable access to qualified and effective teachers among schools serving high and low 

proportions of poor and/or minority students.

Exhibit 4 

Number of States, by Number of Times They Updated Their Equity Plan Since First Being Approved

by the Department, Fall 2011

Exhibit reads: As of fall 2011, officials from 37 states reported that they had updated their equity plans 

at least once since initial approval.

Note: n = 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.

Source: Interviews with state officials, 2011–12.
13

Chapter Summary 

The findings presented in this chapter indicate that all states used HQT as a measure for monitoring 

equitable access to qualified teachers among schools and to monitor the quality of the teacher 

workforce overall in 2011–12. Twenty-two states used a measure of teacher experience for monitoring 

equitable access to qualified and effective teachers among schools, and 34 states used this measure to 

monitor the quality of the teacher workforce overall. Four states used at least one measure of teacher 

performance to monitor equitable access among schools, and officials from two of these states 

remarked that using performance measures revealed larger inequities in access to qualified and 

effective teachers than were detected by using measures of teacher qualifications alone. Regardless of 

the measure used, all states examined equitable access to qualified or effective teachers between highpoverty and low-poverty schools.

15

III. Developing Multiple Measures of Teacher Performance

This chapter focuses on states’ efforts, as of 2011–12, to develop and implement multiple measures of 

teacher performance to assess teacher quality. This chapter also explores the key features of the 

performance measures that states had developed or were developing, as well as the reasons state 

officials described as influencing their state’s decision to develop these types of measures. 

Key Findings

 Most states reported they were using multiple measures of teacher performance to rate 

teachers among at least three performance levels in 2011–12 (six states) or that they were 

developing such measures (38 states).

 Most state officials reported wanting to improve on existing practices for assessing teacher 

quality as a reason for developing measures of teacher performance (38 states).

 State measures of student achievement growth were primarily based on standardized 

student achievement test data.

 State measures of teacher practice were based primarily on the results of classroom 

observation.

State Status and Reasons for Developing Measures of Teacher 

Performance

For the purposes of this report, states were categorized according to their efforts in the 

2011–12 school year to develop and implement multiple measures of teacher performance to rate 

teachers among at least three performance levels. The criteria used to determine whether a state had 

implemented or was in the process of developing multiple measures of teacher performance were 

based on policy initiatives and guidelines for teacher evaluation systems, including the ESEA Blueprint 

for Reform (U.S. Department of Education 2010), the ESEA Flexibility policy document,

19 and the TIF 

program guidance.20 The criteria used in this study to categorize states also were informed by the key 

components of a comprehensive evaluation system identified by the National Center for Teacher Quality 

(NCTQ 2011). The data presented in this chapter represent state efforts prior to the Department’s 2012 

implementation of the fall 2011 ESEA Flexibility initiative. The three categories of states and the criteria 

that were used to categorize states are as follows: 

1. States that were using multiple measures of teacher performance as part of their teacher 

evaluation systems. States in this category had officially adopted both measures of student 

achievement growth and measures of teacher practice as part of their teacher evaluation 

system policies and were using these measures in the 2011–12 school year to rate teachers 

 

19 See http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/esea-flexibility/index.html. 

20 See http://www2.ed.gov/programs/teacherincentive/faqs2012.pdf.
16

among at least three performance levels. States in this category were beyond the development 

and pilot-testing phase of implementation of these measures.

2. States that were developing multiple measures of teacher performance as part of their 

teacher evaluation systems. States in this category had recently passed legislation or state 

initiatives requiring the development of multiple measures of teacher performance, or were 

pilot-testing multiple measures of teacher performance in 2011–12, which included at least 

three rating levels of teacher performance.

3. States with no actions related to the development or implementation of multiple measures of 

teacher performance in 2011–12. These states were not using and had no plans in the 2011–12 

school year to develop multiple measures of teacher performance that included both measures 

of student achievement growth and measures of teacher practice to assess teacher quality and 

to rate teachers among at least three performance levels.

As of fall 2011, when data were collected for this study, six states were using multiple measures of teacher 

performance and 38 states were in the process of developing such measures.

21 Eight states reported that 

they were neither using nor developing such measures (Exhibit 5).

Six states reported that they were using multiple measures of teacher performance 

as part of new teacher evaluation systems.

Officials from these six states reported that their state had adopted measures of student achievement 

growth and measures of teacher practice and was using these measures to rate teachers among at least 

three performance levels in 2011–12. According to these officials, each of their state’s teacher evaluation 

systems required that teacher effectiveness be annually rated on the basis of multiple measures of teacher 

performance. The measures being used by these six states varied but exhibited some similarities in 

certain requirements and key features.

With respect to measures of student achievement growth, three of the six states relied on value-added 

models in which student achievement growth is used as a means for assessing teacher performance. The 

other three states used alternative methods for calculating and measuring student achievement growth, 

including student learning objectives (SLOs).22 With respect to measuring teacher practice, all six states 

 

21 States were categorized as implementing multiple measures of teacher performance in 2011–12 if they had 

adopted measures of both student achievement growth and teacher practice to rate teachers among at least three

performance levels and the measures were being used statewide. This definition is consistent with the 

requirements of the 2011 ESEA Flexibility initiative (see “ESEA Flexibility Policy Document” available at 

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/esea-flexibility/index.html). Our counts are lower than those of Hallgren 

et al. (2014), who used different criteria and reported that 30 states used two or more performance measures to 

evaluate teachers in 2011–12. Hallgren et al. included states that had policies in place in 2011–12 to use such 

measures to rate teachers’ performance, even if such policies had not been fully implemented, and they included 

states that rated teacher performance using just two performance levels.

22 An SLO is a measurable, long-term, academic goal informed by available data that a teacher or teacher team sets 

at the beginning of the year for all students or for subgroups of students (Lachlan-Haché, Cushing, and Bivona 

2012).
17

were similar in that they used formal classroom observation forms and scoring rubrics to document 

evidence of teacher performance in the classroom and to rate teachers’ practice.

Exhibit 5 

Status of State Efforts to Develop and Implement Multiple Measures of Teacher Performance, 2011–12

Implementing multiple measures 

of teacher performance

Developing multiple measures 

of teacher performance

No actions to develop or use multiple 

measures of teacher performance

6 states 38 states 8 states

District of Columbia

Florida

Idaho 

South Carolina

Tennessee

Wyoming

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

Georgia

Hawaii

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Rhode Island

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Alabama

California

Kansas

Maine

North Dakota

Pennsylvania

Puerto Rico

South Dakota

Exhibit reads: Officials from six states reported that they were using multiple measures of teacher 

performance to rate teachers among at least three performance levels in the 2011–12 school year. 

Note: n = 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.

Source: Interviews with state officials, 2011–12.
18

Specific examples of how three of these six states were using multiple measures of teacher performance

to assess teacher effectiveness in 2011–12 are provided below. 

 Tennessee required districts to implement annual evaluations that were based on student 

achievement growth (50 percent) and teacher practice (50 percent, based primarily on 

classroom observations). For the student achievement growth measure, 35 percent was based 

on the Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System (TVAAS) and the remaining 15 percent was 

based on other measures of student achievement selected by the principal and teacher. For 

teachers in tested grades and subjects, the TVAAS growth score was based on students in their 

classes; for teachers in untested grades and subjects, the growth score was based on averages 

across all students in the school for whom test score data were available. The “other measures 

of student achievement” were based on attainment of targeted levels of student achievement 

rather than student growth.

 Florida required districts to rate teachers using four levels of effectiveness based on student 

achievement growth (up to 50 percent) and teacher practice (the remaining portion of the 

rating). A value-added measure of student achievement growth was used for teachers of tested 

grades and subjects when three years of data were available. At the time of this study, the state 

had developed a value-added model for the state standardized assessments in reading (grades 

4–10) and mathematics (grades 3–8) and was developing value-added models for end-of-course 

tests for high school algebra I, biology, geometry, and U.S. history. For teachers of untested 

grades and subjects, the state required districts to use district-developed assessments, with the 

approval of the state. Measures of teacher practice were based on classroom observations; 

districts were also permitted to include parental input in calculating this measure.

 South Carolina required districts to use measures based on 10 performance standards.23 These 

performance standards reflected both measures of student achievement growth and measures 

of teacher practice. The state required all teachers to use student unit work samples as 

measures of student achievement growth. Teachers of tested grades and subjects were required 

to document student growth on standardized tests of achievement. For teachers of untested 

grades and subjects, the unit work samples did not have to include student scores on 

standardized tests of achievement. 

The student unit work sample was one of 10 performance measures — corresponding to the 10 

performance standards — against which teachers were assessed and that were combined to 

result in a summative performance rating. The other performance measures focused on 

instructional planning, instructional practice, classroom environment, and professionalism. 

Evidence of teacher practice was collected through classroom observations and walk-throughs, 

teacher self-assessments, and lesson plan documentation.

 

23 The 10 performance standards included long-range planning; short-range planning of instruction; planning 

assessments and using data; establishing and maintaining high expectations for learners; using instructional 

strategies to facilitate learning; providing content for learners; monitoring, assessing, and enhancing learning; 

maintaining an environment that promotes learning; managing the classroom; and fulfilling professional 

responsibilities. 
19

Thirty-eight states reported being in the process of developing multiple measures of 

teacher performance. 

The 38 states that fell within this category of development in 2011–12 varied in their stage of 

development. Nearly half of these states (17) had just recently passed state legislation or state initiatives 

that required the development and implementation of measures of teacher performance to rate

teachers among at least three performance levels. These 17 states were in the early stages of convening 

task forces, exploring the research, or examining other state policies to inform their own development 

of multiple measures. The following states are two examples:

 Michigan. Legislation passed in 2011 required creation of a teacher performance rating system 

with four performance levels — Highly Effective, Effective, Minimally Effective, and Ineffective

using multiple performance levels. A Governor’s Council on Educator Effectiveness was tasked 

with making recommendations for measuring educator effectiveness at each of these 

performance levels. 24

 New Mexico. A task force was established in April 2011 to help the state develop teacher quality 

measures based on teacher performance. The new system for evaluating teachers that was 

recommended by the task force would change the state’s binary assessment of teacher quality 

to a five-category rating system to assess teacher performance. According to the state official

interviewed, these performance measures would include value-added models based on student 

achievement growth to examine school and teacher effectiveness (50 percent of the total 

score), as well as observations of teacher practice (25 percent) and locally adopted, stateapproved performance rating systems (25 percent). For teachers in untested grades and 

subjects, the value-added measure of student achievement growth would be replaced by a 

measure of the school’s effectiveness, based on an A-F grading system (25 percent) and an 

increased percentage for the local performance rating systems (raised from 25 percent to 

50 percent).25

In addition to the 17 states in the early stages of developing measures of teacher performance, 15 states 

were in more advanced stages of developing multiple measures. These 15 states were in the process of 

pilot testing or gradually implementing proposed measures in 2011–12. Officials from these 15 states 

indicated that their states would be using the results of these pilot tests to refine their teacher 

evaluation system guidelines for using measures of student achievement growth and teacher practice. 

State pilot tests varied greatly in scope, ranging from statewide implementation to implementation in a 

small subset of districts or schools. For the most part, states that were pilot testing or gradually 

implementing measures of teacher performance in 2011–12 were not attaching any consequences to 

the performance ratings. Some states, however, were using their pilot tests of measures to also pilot

 

24 In 2013, the Michigan Council for Educator Effectiveness provided its recommendations for measuring educator 

effectiveness using three performance levels — Professional, Provisional, and Ineffective. Michigan Council for 

Educator Effectiveness: Final Recommendations (July 2013), available at 

http://archive.freep.com/assets/freep/pdf/C4208979723.PDF (accessed April 23, 2015). 25 New Mexico Effective Teaching Task Force: Final Report and Recommendations (August 2011), available at 

http://ped.state.nm.us/ped/TTFDocuments/NM%20TTF%20Report%20FINAL.826.pdf (accessed April 23, 2015).
20

test pay-for-performance systems, in which case the teachers participating in the pilot test were eligible 

to receive compensation based on their performance-level ratings. Below are some examples of the 

variation in states’ approaches to pilot testing new measures of teacher performance.

 Delaware had developed multiple measures of teacher performance that included measures of

student achievement growth and measures of teacher practice. In 2011–12, the state required

all its districts to implement these new performance measures but treated the school year as an 

“interim” or “development” year. According to the Delaware state official, the state was still in 

the process of formulating a policy regarding how to weight the student achievement growth

and teacher practice measures to create an overall teacher effectiveness rating for each 

teacher. Therefore, teachers would receive an overall rating based on these new performance 

measures for the 2011–12 school year, but there were no consequences associated with the 

rating. The state planned to use the results of the 2011–12 field testing year to finalize 

requirements and guidance for weighting and using multiple measures of teacher performance

as an official part of teacher evaluation systems beginning in 2012–13.26

 New Jersey was in the process of pilot testing multiple measures of teacher performance at the 

time of this study. According to the New Jersey state official, the state planned to roll out a new 

teacher evaluation system statewide after pilot testing the measures in a subset of districts. In

2011–12, 19 of New Jersey’s School Improvement Grant (SIG) schools were participating in the 

state’s pilot test program. For the 2011–12 pilot, teachers of tested grades and subjects would 

be evaluated as follows:

• Fifty percent of a teacher’s score would be based on student achievement, based on student 

growth on state-approved assessments or performance-based evaluations (25–45 percent 

of the total score); a state-approved, schoolwide performance measure (5 percent); and an 

additional performance measures determined by the district (optional, up to 20 percent).

• The remaining 50 percent of a teacher’s score would be based on teacher practice, based on 

a state-approved teacher practice evaluation framework and measurement tools to collect 

and review evidence of teacher practice, including classroom observation as a major 

component (25–47.5 percent), and at least one additional tool to assess teacher practice

(2.5–25 percent).

 West Virginia was also piloting multiple measures of teacher performance in a subset of schools

in 2011–12, including all 22 of its SIG schools and five non-SIG schools. As part of this pilot, 5 

percent of teachers’ summative performance ratings were based on school-level student

achievement growth on the state standardized achievement test. The remainder of their rating 

was based on student achievement growth on nonstandardized, classroom-based assessments 

and on the results of several classroom observations designed to assess teachers’ practice 

regarding adherence to the state standards. According to the West Virginia state official, the 

intent of the pilot was to formulate a statewide policy for the use of multiple measures of 

teacher performance.

 

26 Delaware updated its evaluation guide for teachers in August 2013. This revised guide included student growth 

targets as a performance measure for the 2013–14 school year.
21

State-Reported Reasons for Developing Measures of Teacher Performance 

Most state officials described wanting to improve on existing practices for 

assessing teacher quality as a reason for developing measures of teacher 

performance. 

As reported earlier, six states were using multiple measures of teacher performance to rate teachers 

among at least three performance levels, and an additional 38 states were in the process of developing 

multiple measures of teacher performance. The officials from these 44 states described reasons for their 

states’ decisions to develop and implement such measures that fell into three main categories: 

(1) improve existing practice for assessing teacher quality; (2) align state-level practices for evaluating 

teachers with recent federal program guidelines; and (3) make their state more competitive for a federal 

grant (Exhibit 6). 

Exhibit 6 

Among States That Had Implemented or Were in the Process of Developing Multiple Measures of Teacher 

Performance, Number of States Providing Reasons for Developing Such Measures, 2011–12

Exhibit reads: Among the 44 states and jurisdictions that had implemented or were in the process of 

developing measures of teacher performance, officials from 38 states reported a desire to improve on 

current practice as a reason for developing these measures in the 2011–12 school year. 

Note: n = 43 states and the District of Columbia. 

Source: Interviews with state officials, 2011–12.

The 38 state respondents who reported developing measures of teacher performance out of a desire to 

improve current practices for measuring teacher quality offered different explanations for why their 

former systems were not sufficient. These explanations included, but were not limited to, a perception 

that their current measures did not adequately distinguish or differentiate effectiveness among 

teachers; the perception of inconsistency among the ratings teachers were receiving and student 

performance; and a perception that existing measures were too narrow and did not accurately capture 

teacher performance. As one state official remarked, “Knowledge of content is important, but teachers 

19

19

38

0 10 20 30 40 50

Number of states

Make their state more competitive for a federal

grant

Align state-level practices for evaluating teachers

with recent federal program guidelines

Improve existing practice for assessing teacher

quality
22

still need to be able to teach kids.” This official explained that, despite research on the importance of a 

teacher’s content knowledge, state data did not indicate a correlation between a teacher’s HQT status 

and his or her performance in the classroom. As a result, the state had decided to develop measures of 

teacher quality that included not just measures of teacher qualifications but measures of teacher 

performance, which could be used to better support teachers and promote quality instruction in the 

classroom. 

Officials from 19 states said the desire to make their states more competitive for a federal grant, such as 

Race to the Top or TIF, factored into their states’ decisions to develop teacher performance measures. 

Similarly, officials from 19 states reported developing measures of teacher performance that resulted 

from their states’ efforts to align their practices with recent federal program or policy guidelines.

Officials from nine states indicated that both of these factors played a role in their states’ decisions. For 

example, the official from Wisconsin noted that, in the process of applying for a Race to the Top grant, 

the state realized that it needed to develop a system for evaluating teachers that relied more on 

measures of teacher performance than on teacher qualifications. Although the state did not receive a 

Race to the Top grant, Wisconsin decided to move forward with developing these types of measures. 

Similarly, the official from Michigan noted that the state had passed legislation to reform the state’s 

teacher evaluation system with the intent of increasing the state’s chances of being awarded a Race to 

the Top grant. Michigan was not awarded a grant, but this legislation remained in place and the state 

decided to advance its efforts to develop new measures of teacher performance.

Officials from Arizona, Massachusetts, and Mississippi, three states that had been awarded state-level 

TIF grants, reported that their TIF-related activities had informed their state’s development of new 

teacher evaluation system policies — policies that would require the use of multiple measures of 

teacher performance, not just in TIF-participating districts but statewide.

None of the state officials who were interviewed for this study reported that promoting equitable access 

to effective teachers was a major factor for developing these types of measures; however, officials from 

four of the states that were using multiple measures of teacher performance in 2011–12 indicated that 

they would be using these measures to examine equitable access to qualified and effective teachers

among schools. Officials from two states that were using at least one measure of teacher performance 

to monitor equitable access to qualified and effective teachers among schools reported seeing larger 

inequities in access among schools using performance measures than when using measures of teacher 

qualifications alone. 

In eight states, officials reported no state actions in 2011–12 to develop or 

implement measures of teacher performance based on student achievement growth. 

Officials in these states described various reasons for not developing such measures, including state 

laws prohibiting the use of such measures (two states); a history of strong local control over teacher 

evaluation systems (one state); lack of a data system that linked student data with teacher data (one 

state); a desire to further explore the validity of summative teacher performance measures (two states); 

or a decision to focus state activities in 2011–12 on refining one type of performance measure, 

specifically measures of teacher practice (two states).

For example, state officials from Pennsylvania noted that existing law barred them from using student 

achievement growth data as a measure of teacher performance. They explained that the state 

education agency was advocating legislation that would allow the state to use student achievement data 
23

as part of the teacher evaluation system, but that as of 2011–12, this legislation had not moved forward. 

Similarly, the state official from California explained that legislation had been introduced that would 

have changed California’s teacher evaluation measures to include measures of student achievement 

growth, but this legislation was currently stalled. The California official added that some teachers and 

administrators had expressed concern about using student achievement growth for evaluating teacher 

performance. 

Maine’s state official noted that recent state legislation had lifted policy barriers that had previously 

prohibited the use of student achievement growth to evaluate teachers. Nevertheless, the state was 

intending to move cautiously in developing measures of teacher performance. This official noted, 

“I think there’s some question about how to [develop and use these measures] legitimately and with 

some reliability and validity, how you gather these data for the nontested grades, and how you 

intersect all of the other factors that can have an impact on student success ... There are still a lot of 

questions out there about how to use multiple measures and what are valid and reliable measures.”

Among the eight states that were not developing measures of teacher performance based on student 

achievement growth, officials from four states reported that their state had, however, adopted or was 

piloting measures of teacher performance based on teacher practice.

Key Features of State Measures of Teacher Performance

State measures of student achievement growth were primarily based on 

standardized student achievement test data. However, 15 states also permitted or 

planned to permit the use of nonstandardized student assessment data as an 

additional indicator of growth. 

As illustrated in the state examples provided earlier, states that had implemented or were in the process 

of developing multiple measures of teacher performance based their measure of student achievement 

growth primarily on standardized student achievement test data. However, officials from 15 states 

reported permitting or planning to permit the use of student achievement data based on 

nonstandardized assessments as an additional measure of student achievement growth. States 

described the types of nonstandardized assessments that would be allowed as student work samples, 

end-of-course or end-of-grade tests, district tests, and classroom-based assessments. 

For example, Rhode Island was in the process of developing guidance for the use of nonstandardized 

assessments, in addition to standardized achievement test data, as a measure of student achievement 

growth at the time of this study. The nonstandardized assessment data were based on SLOs that were 

established at the local level by teachers and school administrators. State officials described these SLOs 

as specific, measurable goals for students’ learning based on demonstration of growth over the course 

of at least one semester or one full school year. The SLOs were to be based on prior student learning 

data and aligned to state standards, as well as any school or district priorities. SLOs could be specific to 

an individual teacher or to an entire grade level. However, even in cases where common SLOs were 

established for a grade level, each teacher would still be evaluated only on those SLOs based on their 

own assigned students’ performances. 

States varied in their approaches to using measures of student achievement growth to assess the 

performance of teachers of untested grades and subjects, and most states had not developed guidelines 
24

for using standardized student achievement growth data to measure the performance of these teachers.

Among the six states that had implemented multiple measures of teacher performance in 2011–12, 

officials from two (Florida and Tennessee) reported having guidelines in place that required the use of 

standardized student achievement data for evaluating teachers of untested grades and subjects. Among 

the 38 states that were in the process of developing multiple measures of student achievement, officials 

from six states (Idaho, North Carolina, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, and West Virginia) indicated 

that they had developed or were in the process of developing guidelines that required the use of 

standardized achievement data for this purpose. 

As an example of the type of guidelines that states had developed or were developing, an official from 

Florida explained that the use of teacher performance measures based on student-level standardized 

achievement growth data was a “nonnegotiable” for all teachers. At the same time, the state provided 

districts with some discretion in how this measure was applied to teachers of untested grades or 

subjects. For instance, in the case of a special education teacher who worked across classrooms, the 

state would permit the district to measure this teacher’s performance on the basis of a grade-level 

achievement growth measure or a school-wide growth measure, rather than on an individual student 

growth measure. Similarly, another Florida official described how the state offered guidance to districts 

in determining whether and how to link standardized test data to teachers of untested grades and 

subjects, depending on the extent to which the teacher’s grade level (e.g. an untested grade like 

kindergarten) or subject area (e.g., art, physical education) was expected to contribute to student 

outcomes on standardized assessments in tested grades and subjects.”

State measures of teacher practice were based primarily on the results of classroom 

observation. Officials from 10 of the 44 states that had implemented or were 

developing an observation-based measure of teacher practice also reported taking 

into account, or planning to take into account, evidence of teacher practice on the 

basis of portfolio assessments.

Officials from all of the states that had implemented or were developing multiple measures of teacher 

performance reported that formal classroom observations, using an observation form and scoring

rubric, served as the primary mechanism for collecting measures of teacher practice. In all of these 

states, trained principals or assistant principals were primarily responsible for conducting classroom 

observations and completing the teacher practice ratings. In some instances, states allowed other 

identified and trained staff, such as school content specialists and district leadership staff, to conduct 

these observations.

Officials from 10 states reported that they allowed or intended to allow portfolio assessments as 

additional evidence of teacher practice. South Carolina was one state that included portfolio 

assessments in its teacher evaluation system in addition to formal classroom observation procedures. 

Components of these portfolio assessments included a course syllabus that included a section on the 

identified instructional needs of the students (e.g., if students with disabilities were in the class, what 

were their needs and how would they be addressed), a student unit work sample, a written reflection on 

every observed lesson, and a teacher self-assessment.
25

Chapter Summary 

At the time of this study, states were in various stages of developing multiple measures of teacher 

performance. Six states were using multiple measures of teacher performance to rate teachers on at 

least three performance ratings in 2011–12, and many more jurisdictions (38 states) were developing or 

refining their teacher evaluation systems to include multiple measures of teacher performance. The 

most frequently reported reason that states cited for developing measures of teacher performance was 

the desire to improve on current practices for evaluating teachers. States that had implemented or were 

developing measures of student achievement growth were largely basing the measure on standardized 

student achievement tests for teachers of tested grades and subjects. Classroom observations, 

conducted by evaluators who had completed training described by officials as rigorous and intensive, 

served as the primary mechanism for collecting data and rating teachers on measures of teacher 

practice.

27

IV. State Strategies for Promoting Equitable Access to 

Qualified and Effective Teachers 

This chapter describes strategies that states reported using in 2011–12 to promote equitable access to

qualified and effective teachers, focusing on strategies that targeted the needs of schools with high 

percentages of poor and/or minority students. The strategies that states reported using can be divided 

into three broad categories: monetary incentives that were conditional on teaching in a school with high 

proportions of poor and/or minority students; specialized professional development programs that were 

targeted on meeting the needs of teachers currently working in such schools; and recruitment and 

preparation programs that were targeted on preparing future teachers and attracting them to such 

schools. 

Key Findings

 Offering monetary incentives was the most common strategy that states reported using to 

promote equitable access to qualified and effective teachers in schools serving high 

proportions of poor and/or minority students (24 states).

 Other state-reported strategies for promoting equitable access to qualified and effective

teachers in these types of schools were specialized professional development (14 states) and 

teacher recruitment and preparation programs (14 states).

Types of Strategies Used By States

In 2011–12, 30 states reported implementing at least one of three strategies — monetary incentives, 

specialized professional development, or teacher recruitment and preparation programs — to promote

equitable access to qualified and effective teachers in schools serving high proportions of poor and/or 

minority students. Officials from eight of these states reported implementing two types of strategies and 

officials from another eight reported implementing all three. 

This report is not exhaustive of all the strategies that may be used to promote equitable access to qualified 

and effective teachers among schools. The 22 states that did not report having strategies that specifically 

targeted high-need schools or teachers in high-need schools may have been implementing other strategies 

that targeted all schools or teachers statewide. For example, states may have been implementing 

strategies such as delegating hiring to the school rather than district level, or providing monetary 

incentives statewide to teachers who meet certain qualifications or performance measures, not just those 

in schools serving high proportions of poor and/or minority students. 

States most frequently reported the use of monetary strategies to promote equitable 

access to qualified and effective teachers. 

Officials from 24 of the 30 states reported providing monetary incentives, such as higher salaries, 

bonuses, or forgiveness of student loans, as one of their strategies for teachers who agreed to teach or 

were already teaching in schools with high percentages of poor and/or minority students. Officials from 

14 states reported implementing specialized professional development, and officials from a different set 
28

of 14 states reported using targeted recruitment and preparation programs as strategies for improving 

equitable access (Exhibit 7).

Exhibit 7 

States Targeting Certain Strategies towards High-Poverty and/or High-Minority Schools to 

Promote Equitable Access to Qualified and Effective Teachers, 2011–12

State Monetary incentives Professional development Recruitment and preparation

Total 24 14 14

Arizona X X X

Arkansas X

California X

Connecticut X

Delaware X X

District of Columbia X

Hawaii X X

Illinois X X

Indiana X X

Louisiana X

Maine X X X

Massachusetts X

Mississippi X X X

Missouri a X

Nebraska X

New York X X X

North Carolina X

Ohio X X

Oklahoma X

Puerto Rico X

Rhode Island X

South Carolina X X

South Dakota X X X

Tennessee X X

Texas X X

Utah X X X

Virginia X

West Virginia X

Wisconsin X X X

Wyoming X

Exhibit reads: Officials from 24 states and jurisdictions reported using monetary incentives in the 2011–

12 school year to promote equitable access to qualified and effective teachers in high-poverty and/or 

high-minority schools. 

a Missouri reported targeting monetary incentives to promote equitable access to qualified and effective teachers 

in low-achieving schools.

Notes: n = 28 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Examples of monetary incentives include higher 

salaries, bonuses, or forgiveness of student loans. States that did not report having strategies that specifically 

targeted high-need schools or teachers in high-need schools may have been implementing other strategies that 

targeted all schools or teachers statewide.

Source: Interviews with state officials, 2011–12.

The remainder of this chapter describes whether and how states were using measures of teacher quality 

in the design and implementation in their targeted programs and activities. 
29

Use of Teacher Quality Measures in Targeted Strategies 

Monetary Incentives 

Using monetary incentives such as recruitment bonuses and performance pay to recruit and retain highly 

qualified and effective teachers for high-need schools One strategy is the use of monetary recruitment 

incentives targeted specifically to teachers who have demonstrated success in raising student test scores 

(“value added”).

Among the 24 states with monetary incentives for teachers in high-need schools, 

13 states offered incentives to teachers with certain qualifications, seven states 

offered incentives to teachers rated effective on the basis of teacher performance 

measures, and four states offered incentives to both types of teachers. 

Among the 24 states that described using monetary incentives as a strategy for promoting equitable 

access to qualified and effective teachers in 2011–12, officials from 13 states reported that incentives were 

offered to teachers who met specific qualifications and agreed to teach in schools serving high proportions 

of poor and/or minority students. In these states, monetary incentives were offered to teachers with 

qualifications such as National Board Certification status, certification in a specific subject area, or a 

specific number of endorsements or years of teaching experience.

Officials from seven states reported that their states had programs in place that included performancebased monetary incentives for teachers who were identified as effective on the basis of measures of 

teacher performance. For example, Delaware was offering retention bonuses to teachers in high-need 

schools who met at least a “Satisfactory” rating on four standardized measures of teacher practice and 

an “Exceeds” rating on measures of student achievement growth. As another example, North Carolina 

was providing certified staff members in historically low-performing schools a $1,500 annual incentive 

on the basis of student-growth data over one school year. For 2011–12, the student-growth measure 

was based on school-level data. For 2012–13, the state planned to use a student-level achievement 

growth measure tied to individual teachers.

Four states reported having multiple monetary incentive programs in place, with at least one program that 

provided such incentives for teachers who met certain qualifications and at least one that provided 

performance-based monetary incentives for teachers. For example, South Carolina had a student loan 

forgiveness program that offered incentives to teachers on the basis of qualification measures. The state 

was also implementing the South Carolina Teacher Advancement Program, which included performancebased monetary incentives for teachers who were rated highly using multiple measures of teacher 

performance. 

South Carolina’s Teacher Loan Program was intended to entice talented and qualified students into the 

teaching profession, and specifically into high-need teaching positions, including positions in high-need 

schools. The program provided tuition loans for students in teacher education programs (either traditional 

programs or South Carolina’s alternative certification program) who ranked in the top 40 percent of their 

high school graduating class and performed at or above the state average on a college entrance 

examination. Career changers and teachers in the alternative certification program who demonstrated the 

potential for success in the classroom on the basis of their qualifications (i.e., bachelor’s degree from a U.S. 

Department of Education accredited college or university, passing score on a subject area examination, 

passing score on the American Board’s Professional Teaching Knowledge examination) also were eligible to 
30

participate. Available loan amounts ranged from $1,000 annually to an aggregate maximum of $60,000. 

A student’s loan would be canceled by teaching in South Carolina public schools in an area of critical need, 

including geographic or subject area. The cancelation rate was 20 percent or $3,000, whichever was 

greater, for each full year of teaching in a critical subject or high-need geographic area. For teachers in a 

critical subject in a critical geographic area, loans were canceled at the rate of 33 percent or $5,000, 

whichever amount was greater, for each year of full-time teaching.

Maine’s Schools for Excellence Initiative

Eighteen high-poverty schools that were providing performance bonuses to teachers on the basis of 

measures of student achievement were participating in this initiative in 2011–12. Teachers in schools 

participating in this initiative were not only eligible for performance bonuses but were also provided with 

ongoing professional development delivered through the National Board for Professional Teaching 

Standards and an opportunity to earn their National Board Certification. The purpose of the initiative was 

to recruit and retain teachers in high-need schools through monetary incentives and to support teachers 

in earning these incentives through professional development.

Maine also had programs that included monetary incentives for both qualified and effective teachers. 

The state offered an annual $3,000 stipend to National Board Certified teachers in high-need schools in 

the state. The state also had an initiative targeting teachers who were serving in schools that were both 

high-poverty and were implementing teacher evaluation systems that awarded performance bonuses to 

teachers based on evidence of student achievement (see text box “Maine’s Schools for Excellence 

Initiative”).

Officials from nine states described factors limiting and/or facilitating the potential 

effectiveness of their states’ provision of monetary incentives in promoting equitable 

access. 

Among the 24 states using monetary incentives as a strategy for promoting equitable access to qualified 

and effective teachers, officials from nine states described factors that they perceived as limiting and/or 

facilitating the effectiveness of the strategy in meeting their goals. Officials from six states cited 

challenges, officials from two states cited facilitating factors, and one state described both challenges 

and facilitating factors. For example, some of these officials citing challenges reported having 

insufficient personnel, time, and resources to effectively advertise the initiatives and implement them 

fully. As another example, officials from two states (Arizona and Texas) indicated that the schools in 

their states with the greatest need for qualified and effective teachers were not eligible for the 

incentives. In Texas, the only schools eligible for the grant program that provided incentives to teachers 

were those that were high-poverty and had demonstrated high performance. High-poverty schools with 

histories of low performance were not eligible to apply. 

Officials also described challenges in recruiting teachers to regions or schools that were especially 

depressed and had a history of low performance, even with the provision of monetary incentives. As the 

state official from Arkansas remarked, 

“Not a lot of people sign up for any of the state's targeted programs despite the large amounts of 

money involved. Frankly, the [region of the state] is not a desirable place to live for teachers, principals 
31

and their families because of high-crime, high-poverty, [low-achieving] school system, [and the] area is 

economically depressed.”

Officials from two other states, Delaware and North Carolina, did not indicate any challenges associated 

with offering monetary incentives as an effective strategy for promoting equitable access to qualified 

and effective teachers, but they did offer comments about factors facilitating their implementation of 

these strategies. As with Tennessee, the officials from these two states reported that the Race to the 

Top grant was supporting their efforts to develop and implement performance-based compensation 

systems for teachers in high-need schools that could help promote greater access to qualified and 

effective teachers in high-need schools. 

Specialized Professional Development Programs 

State officials reported that professional development offerings often were available to all teachers in 

the state or district, regardless of the type of school at which teachers worked and regardless of how 

teachers fared on any measures of teacher quality. However, officials from 14 states reported providing 

professional development that was specifically focused on promoting equitable access to qualified and 

effective teachers among schools. These professional development offerings were specialized in their 

content (i.e., content focused on strategies for working with and improving academic outcomes for 

students in schools serving high proportions of poor and/or minority students) and/or in the amount 

provided (i.e., a greater amount of the same type of support that teachers in all schools received). In 

some cases, states incorporated analyses of teacher quality or analyses examining the distribution of 

qualified and effective teachers among schools in order to better target such professional development. 

States described targeting specialized professional development to teachers on the 

basis of teacher performance results, and/or on the basis of analyses indicating 

areas in which teachers meeting certain qualifications were in short supply.

Official from six states reported using measures of teacher performance to determine how and to whom 

specialized professional development activities would be targeted. Officials from four of these states

were providing specialized professional development through the support of competitive grants, such as

state-awarded TIF grants. As discussed previously, TIF grants are designed to support districts’ efforts to 

improve the outcomes of students in high-poverty schools. One required component of the grant is 

specialized professional development for teachers. The professional development provided with the 

support of TIF is designed to address the identified needs of the teachers on the basis of multiple 

measures of teacher performance. Officials from two other states reported using school-level student 

achievement growth data to direct and differentiate professional development opportunities for staff in 

high-need schools. For example, West Virginia was directing professional development on how to 

establish and implement professional learning communities in schools that had been identified for

improvement. The intent of this professional development was to improve teacher practice in these 

schools, thereby helping promote equitable access to qualified and effective teachers.

Officials from other states described providing specialized professional development on the basis of 

measures of teacher qualifications. These states had identified critical teacher shortage areas, 

particularly in schools serving high proportions of poor and/or minority students. For example, states 

described shortages of teachers certified to teach English learners, shortages of special education 

teachers, and shortages of highly qualified teachers overall in specific regions, districts, or schools. These 
32

states were targeting professional development to address these shortages and promote equitable 

access to qualified teachers with these certifications and qualifications among schools. 

Texas, for example, had a competitive grant program that prioritized districts with high percentages of 

out-of-field teachers. Only districts that met a high-poverty threshold were eligible to apply for the 

grant, which provided awarded districts with an intensive summer professional development training 

(two to four weeks) focused on content and an academic-year professional development program that 

blended training in both content and discipline-related pedagogy. Similarly, Virginia prioritized schools 

with the highest numbers of teachers who had not obtained HQT status in selecting participants for a 

professional development program for which only disadvantaged schools were eligible. 

The Southside Virginia Region VIII No Child Left Behind Partnership Office

This office served as a regional center of professional development and was created in collaboration with 

12 school divisions in the state to provide a host of activities related to teacher quality, including 

individualized mentoring for teachers and instructional technology. According to the Virginia state official, 

school divisions in this region have traditionally served high percentages of students in poverty and have 

experienced challenges in recruiting and retaining high-quality teachers because of the rural locale and 

poor economic conditions of the region.

Three states specifically directed professional development to support teachers working in rural regions. 

According to state officials, rural districts in their states were more challenged than other districts in 

recruiting and retaining teachers who were highly qualified and certified in the content areas they were 

teaching. In addition, teachers in rural districts did not have the same access to professional 

development opportunities as teachers in more urban centers, exacerbating inequities in access to 

qualified and effective teachers between urban and rural schools. Utah established an online 

professional development platform specifically for teachers in rural settings to address these inequities 

in access. This platform helped teachers working in rural schools to participate in professional 

development at the same rate as teachers working in schools in more urban settings. Utah also was 

using this professional development platform to help rural school teachers obtain required teaching 

credentials. Similarly, Virginia was aiming support at teachers working in rural regions of the state 

through a specialized regional office (see text box “The Southside Virginia Region VIII No Child Left 

Behind Partnership Office”).

Teacher Recruitment and Preparation Programs 

Some state programs for recruiting new teachers into the profession and preparing them to teach may 

focus on the needs of schools serving high proportions of poor and/or minority students, including 

recruiting and training teachers to fill specific gaps in high-need schools. 

Officials from 14 states described implementing targeted teacher recruitment efforts 

or having teacher preparation programs that were intended to promote equitable 

access to qualified and effective teachers among schools. 

States using these types of strategies often described having systematic processes through which 

teacher candidates were screened based on whether they met certain initial qualifications for either 
33

enrolling in an alternative certification program or being placed in a school that served high proportions 

of poor and/or minority students.

For example, two states described activities they were undertaking with support of a Transition to 

Teaching (TTT) grant, a discretionary grant program that funds efforts to recruit and retain highly 

qualified midcareer professionals through alternative-route certification programs for teachers who 

commit to teaching in high-need schools for at least three years. Maine described using TTT funds to 

support the work of the Regional Education Collaborative Network, an outreach alternative certification 

program designed specifically to help overcome shortages of highly qualified special educators, 

particularly in rural and high-need schools in the state. New York used TTT funds to support 

development of a competitive grant program for institutions of higher education to develop teacher 

preparation programs that offer a substantial amount of teaching experience and fieldwork in high-need 

classrooms and schools. These programs aimed to fill teacher shortage areas that the state had 

identified in high-need schools, including special education and English as a second language. 

As another example, officials from three states highlighted partnerships with The New Teacher Project 

(TNTP), and an official from one state described a state partnership with Teach for America (TFA) as 

targeted efforts their states were taking to help fill identified gaps in their teacher workforces. TNTP and 

TFA are nonprofit organizations that partner with states and districts to recruit new teacher candidates 

into the profession, to provide these individuals with alternative routes to certification, and to prepare 

them to serve in disadvantaged schools. 

Louisiana, for example, partnered with TNTP to promote equitable access to qualified and effective 

teachers in six high-poverty districts with schools that were particularly hard to staff. Louisiana 

leveraged this partnership with TNTP to support its Statewide Staffing Initiative to develop and maintain 

a centralized pipeline of teachers and leaders to help fill educator vacancies. The initiative aimed to 

cultivate strong teacher applicants who could fill vacancies in high-poverty districts. Under this program, 

the state recruited highly qualified teacher candidates and interviewed them by telephone. Educators 

whom the state ranked highly on the basis of meeting HQT requirements and on their interview 

performance were strategically identified to fill district and school vacancies. As of fall 2011, 40 districts 

had participated or were participating in the program and the state initiative had helped fill 250 of 600 

posted vacancies. The state also had met two of the goals for the program: (1) that 95 percent of 

vacancies would receive at least one pipeline referral; and (2) that 33 percent of vacancies would be 

filled by a pipeline referral. 

Officials from four other states described state-funded “grow your own” targeted efforts to promote

equitable access to teachers with HQT status and certification in hard-to-staff subject areas among 

schools. For example, Mississippi had established a Future Educators Association to encourage middle 

and high school students to become teachers in high-need schools, and South Dakota was working to 

establish such an association. The official from South Dakota indicated that its program would specifically 

focus on building the pool of teacher candidates for schools located on or near tribal reservations. 

Chapter Summary 

Respondents in 30 states described having strategies in place in 2011–12 that were specifically intended 

to promote equitable access to qualified and effective teachers in schools serving high proportions of 

poor and/or minority students. The strategies described by the officials from these states fell into one or 
34

more of the following categories: monetary incentive programs, specialized professional development 

programs, and teacher recruitment and preparation programs. States described using measures of 

teacher quality, including measures of teacher qualifications and/or measures of teacher performance, 

in the implementation of these three types of targeted strategies. States’ use of measures of student 

achievement growth and measures of teacher practice was most prevalent in state-level initiatives that 

included monetary incentives. States with initiatives that focused on recruiting and attracting new 

teachers to schools serving high proportions of poor and/or minority students frequently described 

using measures of teacher qualifications in the implementation of these strategies. 
35

V. Summary and Conclusions

Since the 2001 reauthorization of ESEA, federal education programs and policies have increasingly 

focused on teacher quality as a means for closing achievement gaps, in part by directing states to 

measure teacher qualifications and performance and promote equitable access to qualified and 

effective teachers among schools. Recent federal policies have encouraged annual evaluation of 

teachers using multiple measures, including both student achievement growth and teacher practice, 

among at least three performance levels.

This report found that, in 2011-12, all states monitored equitable access to qualified and effective 

teachers among schools using measures of teacher qualifications, and a few states reported using 

measures of teacher performance for this purpose. Among the four states that reported using at least 

one measure of teacher performance to monitor equitable access among schools, officials from two of 

the states reported that these measures indicated larger inequities between higher-need and lowerneed schools than were previously detected using measures of teacher qualifications alone. 

Most states reported that they were either using multiple measures of teacher performance to rate 

teachers among at least three performance levels in 2011–12 (six states) or were in the process of 

developing such measures (38 states). 

Many states were implementing strategies to promote equitable access to qualified and effective 

teachers in schools serving high proportions of disadvantaged students, including offering monetary 

incentives (24 states), providing specialized professional development (14 states), and through teacher 

recruitment and preparation programs (14 states). States may also have been implementing other 

strategies that were not examined in this study, such as delegating hiring to the school rather than 

district level, or providing monetary incentives statewide to teachers who meet certain qualifications or 

performance measures, not just those in high-need schools. These types of state strategies to promote 

equitable access among schools may require further research.

Since the time of this data collection, states have likely continued their implementation of teacher 

performance measures and strategies for promoting equitable access to effective teachers. Future 

research should examine the further evolution of these state practices and the extent to which the 

distribution of such teachers has changed.
36
37

References 

Glazerman, Steven, and Jeffrey Max. 2011. Do low income students have equal access to the highestperforming teachers? (NCEE 2011-4016). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of 

Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Available at

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20114016/pdf/20114016.pdf (accessed April 23, 2015).

Hallgren, Kristin, Susanne James-Burdumy, and Irma Perez-Johnson. 2014. State requirements for 

teacher evaluation policies promoted by Race to the Top (NCEE 2014-4016). Washington, DC: 

Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. 

Available at http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20144016/pdf/20144016.pdf (accessed April 23, 2015).

Lachlan-Haché, Lisa, Ellen Cushing, and Lauren Bivona. 2012. Student learning objectives as measures of 

educator effectiveness, the basics. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research. Available at

http://educatortalent.org/inc/docs/SLOs_Measures_of_Educator_Effectiveness.pdf (accessed 

April 23, 2015).

Lemke, Mariann, Kerri Thomsen, Andrew Wayne, and Beatrice Birman. 2012. Providing effective 

teachers for all students: Examples from five districts. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

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

Service. Available at https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/teaching/providing-effectiveteachers/report.pdf (accessed April 23, 2015).

National Center on Teacher Quality. 2011. State of the states: Trends and early lessons on teacher 

evaluation and effectiveness policies. Washington, DC: Author. Available at 

http://www.nctq.org/dmsView/State_of_the_States_Teacher_Evaluation_and_Effectiveness_Policie

s_NCTQ_Report (accessed April 23, 2015).

Tennessee Department of Education. 2007. Tennessee’s most effective teachers: Are they assigned to

the schools that need them the most? Nashville, TN: Author. Available at 

http://www.gtlcenter.org/webcasts/addressingInequities/Tennessee_McCargar.pdf (accessed 

April 23, 2015).

U.S. Department of Education. 2015. Highly qualified teacher data: Summary of School Year 2013-14 

data. Available at http://www2.ed.gov/programs/teacherqual/hqtreport.pdf (accessed October 7, 

2015).

U.S. Department of Education. 2012. ESEA flexibility. Washington, DC: Author. Available at

http://www.ed.gov/esea/flexibility/documents/esea-flexibility.doc (see link on this page for “ESEA 

Flexibility Policy Document”) (accessed April 23, 2015).

U.S. Department of Education. 2010. A blueprint for reform: The reauthorization of the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act. Washington, DC: Author. Available at

https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/blueprint.pdf (accessed April 23, 2015).
38

Weisberg, Daniel, Susan Sexton, Jennifer Mulhern, and David Keeling. 2009. The widget effect: Our 

national failure to acknowledge and act on differences in teacher effectiveness. Washington, DC: The 

New Teacher Project. Available at http://tntp.org/assets/documents/TheWidgetEffect_2nd_ed.pdf

(accessed April 23, 2015).
39

Appendix

SEA Interview Protocol
40

SEA Title II Administrator Interview Protocol

October 2011

Prepared By: Prepared For:

American Institutes for Research U.S. Department of Education

Contract No. ED-04-CO-0025-0021

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of 

information unless it displays a valid OMB number. The valid OMB control number of this information collection is 

1875-0260. The time required to complete this information collection is estimated to average 120 minutes. If you 

have any comments concerning the accuracy of the time estimates(s) or suggestion for improving this form, please 

write to: U.S. Department of Education, Washington, 20202-4651. If you have comments or concerns regarding the 

status of your individual submission of this form, write directly to:

Policy and Program Studies Service, Office of the Deputy Secretary, US Department of Education, 400 Maryland 

Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20202.
41

SEA Interview Protocol

SEA: Interviewer:

Interviewee(s): Date/Time:

Note to Interviewer: 

• Instructions to interviewers appear in italics.

• ALL CAPS indicates that the interviewer needs to select or fill in a word or phrase.

• Numbered and lettered questions are all meant to be asked. Bulleted items are possible responses and 

may be used as probes — the interviewer would not necessarily ask about all of these. 

• Because of the open-ended nature of some questions, the respondent may answer a later question in 

the course of answering an earlier question. 

Introduction

Thank you for taking the time to speak with me today. Just as a reminder, this interview is for the 

Equitable Distribution of Effective Teachers study, which is funded by the U.S. Department of Education. 

There’s considerable evidence that disadvantaged students are less likely to be taught by high-quality 

teachers. Under the No Child Left Behind Act, federal legislation has used teacher qualifications, such as 

having a college degree or state certification, to measure teacher quality. Federal policy is now moving 

toward using measures of teacher effectiveness and encouraging the use of student achievement in 

those measures.

This study examines state and local efforts to develop measures of teacher effectiveness and to ensure 

that schools that serve high proportions of disadvantaged students have high-quality teachers. The 

study is intended to inform future federal policy making in these areas. 

We’ll use the terms teacher quality, teacher qualifications, and teacher effectiveness frequently during 

this interview. Just to clarify, when we talk about teacher quality during this interview, we are referring 

to the general concept only. We also refer to two types of “measures of teacher quality.” We call these: 

• “Measures of teacher qualifications,” which includes characteristics of teachers that are 

thought to be related to teacher quality, such as highly qualified teacher status or years of 

experience; and

• “Measures of teacher effectiveness,” which includes measures that use data on student 

achievement or instructional practice. 

Our questions are about your state’s policies or practices. You signed a consent form which stated that 

our reports will associate your responses with your state but not with you as an individual. In addition, 

to capture the large amount of data your responses will provide, your interview will be recorded. The 

audio record may be shared with others within our evaluation team for purposes of analysis but will not 

be shared outside the evaluation team. We know that state officials are very busy, so we’ve made an 

effort to collect as much information as possible through available documents. We’ll sometimes 

reference that information during the course of the interview to confirm that our information is correct. 

This interview will take about two hours, including time for follow-up.

Do you have any questions before we begin?
42

Overview

1. To begin with, can you tell me your title and a little about your responsibilities in the state related to 

teacher quality. Probe for relevant responsibilities regarding: 

• Federal programs

o ESEA Title II

o Race to the Top

• Data systems

• Teacher education, accreditation, or licensure

• Other responsibilities

2. If interviewer is unable to find definitions of high-quality or effective teachers online, ask: Does your 

state have a definition of what it means to be a “high-quality” teacher? Is that definition the same as 

HQT or does it go beyond it in any way? An “effective teacher”? If yes to either, ask a and b:

a. How long have you used these definitions? 

b. Are your definitions currently undergoing any revisions? 

3. If interviewer is able to find definitions of high-quality or effective teachers online, ask:

a. I found the following definition of a “high-quality” teacher on your state’s Web site: 

________________________. Is this the definition that the state currently uses?

b. I found the following definition of an “effective” teacher on your state’s Web site: 

__________________________. Is this the definition that the state currently uses?

c. How long have you used these definitions? 

d. Are your definitions currently undergoing any revisions? 

4. I’m interested in how your state approaches teacher quality in general. What are your top two or 

three approaches for improving the quality or effectiveness of teachers in your state? To give you an 

overview, the remainder of our interview will focus on three core areas:

(1) How the state measures teacher quality.

(2) How the state examines differences in teacher quality across different types of schools. 

(3) Targeted actions the state is taking to ensure an equitable distribution of teachers.

The interview will conclude with some questions about the role federal programs and policies may be 

playing in your state’s actions around equitable distribution, including some questions about processes 

for state and local equity plans.

Do you have any questions before we move forward with the rest of the interview?

Measures of Teacher Qualifications and Teacher Effectiveness

5. We know that states are required through the CSPR to report data on the percentage of classes 

taught by highly qualified teachers and the percentage of classes taught by certified general 

education teachers who have not demonstrated subject competency as part of the Consolidated 

State Performance Reports. We see you [WERE/WERE NOT] able to report such data for 2009–10. 
43

Did you collect and report the data for 2010–11 and do you plan to collect and report the data for 

2011–12?

6. Are there any other measures of teacher qualifications that you tabulated in 2010–11 or that you 

will be tabulating in 2011–12? We are particularly interested in measures that apply to the whole 

teaching force, not just new teachers. [See list below.]

Interviewer will confirm, for 2010–11 and 2011–12, which of the following measures the state is 

using:

a. Percentage of inexperienced teachers

• Percentage of teachers with degree higher than bachelor’s 

• Percentage of teachers who graduated from teacher preparation programs that were highlyrated, assuming that the state rates the quality of preparation programs

• Rate of teacher absenteeism

• Rate of teacher turnover

• Other measures (e.g., credentialing exam scores, time-to-passage for licensure)

7. We are also curious about any other measures of teacher qualifications that may exist in a state 

database but are not tabulated. Are you aware of any such indicators? Interviewer will record any 

specific indicators.

As I mentioned earlier, federal policy is moving toward measuring teacher quality using measures of 

effectiveness. One of the objectives of this study is to determine what states and districts are doing now 

with respect to such measures, using student achievement data, teacher observations, or some 

combination of measures. 

8. During the 2011–12 school year, is the state promoting the use of student achievement data, data 

based on demonstrations of instructional practice (such as observations or portfolios), or a 

combination, to measure teacher quality? If yes, ask a and b.

a. Does the state require all districts to use the same measures, or does the state provide 

guidelines for the districts to create such measures?

b. Just briefly, for what purposes are these measures used?

• Teacher evaluation 

• Teacher compensation

• Other

Measures of Effectiveness Using Data on Student Achievement

Questions for states that have measures that use student achievement data

If state does not have a measure that uses student achievement data, skip to the subsection “Measures of 

Effectiveness Using Data on Instructional Practice.”

I’d like to learn about how student achievement is used to measure teacher quality. My questions are 

mostly about the use of scores from standardized tests, although I’ll ask a question at the end about 

nonstandardized tests. When I say “standardized,” I mean that the same test is used, under the same 

testing conditions (e.g., the SAT-9 or your state test, [NAME]). Also, when I say “tested grades and 
44

subjects,” I mean any grades or subjects that are given a standardized student achievement test that 

you use to measure teacher quality. 

Let me start by asking you to provide an overview of how you use student achievement data from 

standardized tests to measure teacher quality. 

(Interviewer should ask the items below, if not addressed by the interviewee in his/her response)

9. Ask a-c: For teachers in tested grades and subjects, does your state base your [TEACHER QUALITY 

MEASURE / GUIDELINES FOR A TEACHER QUALITY MEASURE] at least in part on... 

a. Analyses of standardized test data using scores from all students in that teacher’s school? 

(Yes/No)

b. Analyses of standardized test data using scores from all students in that teacher’s grade? 

(Yes/No)

c. Analyses of standardized test data using scores from that teacher’s assigned students? (Yes/No)

10. I want to make sure I understand how your state may use student achievement data to measure 

teacher quality in subjects and grades that are not tested. Does your state require the use of, or 

provide guidelines for districts to use, student achievement data from standardized tests or other 

measures of student achievement to measure teacher quality in untested subjects and grades? If 

yes, please describe what tests are used and how the data are analyzed for these teachers.

(Interviewer should ask items 11 and 12 below, if not addressed by the interviewee in his/her response)

11. Does your state base your [TEACHER QUALITY MEASURE / GUIDELINES FOR A TEACHER QUALITY 

MEASURE] for teachers of untested subjects at least in part on... 

a. Analyses of data from an achievement test in another subject, using scores from all students in 

that teacher’s school? (Yes/No)

b. Analyses of data from an achievement test in another subject, using scores from all students in 

that teacher’s grade? (Yes/No)

c. Analyses of data from an achievement test in another subject, using scores from that teacher’s 

assigned students? (Yes/No)

12. Does your state base your [TEACHER QUALITY MEASURE / GUIDELINES FOR A TEACHER QUALITY 

MEASURE] for teachers in untested grades at least in part on... 

a. Analyses of data using scores from all students in that teacher’s school? (Yes/No)

b. Analyses of another configuration of students (please explain)? (Yes/No)

Thank you. I also have a couple of questions that apply more generally. 

13. In general, do you have any [MEASURES / GUIDELINES FOR MEASURES] that use student 

achievement data from assessments that are not standardized assessments? If yes, identify exactly 

how and when data from nonstandardized assessments are used (e.g., use in grades/subjects 

without standardized achievement tests?) and describe any guidelines about the required features of 

nonstandardized assessments.
45

14. In general, do the measures we’ve discussed focus on achievement status at a point of time, or on 

changes in achievement? 

15. Is there anything else you’d like to tell me about how your state measures teacher quality using 

student achievement data?

Measures of Effectiveness Using Data on Instructional Practice

Questions for states that have measures that use instructional practice data

If state does not have a measure that uses instructional practice data (observations, portfolios, or other practice 

data), skip to the subsection called “Developing Measures of Effectiveness.”

Now I’d like to talk about your polices regarding use of data on instructional practice to evaluate 

teachers. 

16. Does your state require specific measures of instructional practice, or does it instead provide 

guidelines to districts about using instructional practice measures to evaluate teachers? 

If the state requires districts to use specific measures or provides guidelines to districts, ask: 

17. First, is instructional practice data given more weight for teachers in untested grades, or in untested 

subjects, than it is for teachers of tested grades or subjects?

18. Could you just briefly describe the nature of any [MEASURES / GUIDELINES FOR MEASURES] that use 

data on instructional practice? And, does the description differ across the applicable grade levels 

and subject areas? Confirm whether state uses a-c.

a. Classroom observations (Yes/No)

b. Portfolio assessment (Yes/No)

c. Other assessment that uses data on instructional practice (Yes/No)

19. If state uses or has guidelines on classroom observations, ask a-e: Who conducts the classroom 

observations?

a. School principal (Yes/No)

b. School-based content-area specialist (e.g., department chair) (Yes/No)

c. District-based content-area specialist (Yes/No)

d. Other district-based staff (Yes/No)

e. Other. Obtain explanation (Yes/No)

20. Does your state have policies regarding the training of those who gather these data and determine 

the instructional practice ratings?

a. The state provides training directly to those who observe/rate

b. The state sets parameters regarding the training of those who observe/rate

21. Does your state set parameters regarding the qualifications of those who observe/rate teachers? If 

yes, please explain.
46

22. While we have examined information available online, do you have any additional documentation 

about this that I can access on the internet, or could you send me a copy? I’d like to see any forms 

that show how instructional practice is documented. For example, is there a standard observation 

form or a description of what should go into a portfolio? If found in extant documents, confirm that

the documents are up-to-date.

Developing Measures of Effectiveness

Questions for states that have any measure of teacher effectiveness

Ask Question 19 and Question 20 if the state has either a measure that uses student achievement, a measure that 

uses demonstration of instructional practice, or both.

I’d like to learn about why you developed these [EFFECTIVENESS MEASURES / GUIDELINES FOR 

EFFECTIVENESS MEASURES], and what your experience with them has been. 

23. Why did you develop these [MEASURES / GUIDELINES] and what year did you begin using them? 

Probe for separate responses, as applicable, regarding (1) measures that use student achievement 

and (2) measures that use instructional practice.

• Because of dissatisfaction with other measures

• Other measures did not distinguish adequately among teachers

• Because of grant requirements/to obtain a grant 

• Because of federal requirements/policies

• Other reasons

24. Are there any state initiatives underway to refine the [MEASURES / GUIDELINES], or implement 

them in a better way? Probe for separate responses, as applicable, regarding (1) measures that use 

student achievement and (2) measures that use instructional practice.

Questions for states that DO NOT have measures that use student achievement data and/or measures that use 

demonstration of instructional practice

25. Are there any state initiatives underway to develop a measure of teacher effectiveness that uses 

student achievement or a measure of effectiveness that uses demonstration of instructional 

practice? Are there any initiatives underway to develop guidelines for districts to develop such 

measures?

26. If initiatives are underway, ask a-b and probe for separate responses, as applicable, regarding 

(1) measures that use student achievement, and (2) measures that use instructional practice.

a. Please describe the initiatives.

b. Why is the state undertaking initiatives in this area?

• Because of dissatisfaction with existing measure 

• Existing measures do not distinguish adequately among teachers

• Because of grant requirements/to obtain a grant 

• Because of federal requirements/policies

• Other reasons
47

27. If initiatives are not underway, ask a and probe for separate responses, as applicable, regarding 

(1) measures that use student achievement and (2) measures that use instructional practice.

a. Why is the state not undertaking actions in this area?

• Not considering because satisfied with existing indicators of teacher quality 

• Not considering because of state law

• Not considering because of cost

• Not considering because of insufficient staff expertise

• Not considering because of insufficient staff time

• Not considering because of likely resistance

• Not considering because of likely changes to federal policy

• Other challenges to developing such measures

Using Teacher Quality Data to Determine Differences Across Schools

28. We know that most states use their highly qualified teacher (HQT) measure(s) to look at the 

distribution of teachers across schools, and we know what measures of teacher quality you collect 

(Interviewer should refer back to measures identified as collected and tabulated in response to 

Question 6). Do you use any of these teacher quality measures to look for differences in the teachers 

at different types of schools, such as high-poverty schools or schools with high minority 

populations? Ask a-b.

a. Do you use any teacher qualification measures to look for differences in the teachers at 

different types of schools?

b. Do you use any teacher effectiveness measures to look for differences in the teachers at 

different types of schools?

29. We talked about looking at teachers from different types of schools across your state. Do you use 

measures of teacher qualifications or teacher effectiveness to look for differences in teachers 

between different types of districts in your state? 

30. On the basis of the measures you collect: Ask a-d. For breakdowns that are available in extant 

documents, instead confirm that those breakdowns are the most up-to-date reports available.

a. How would you quantify the differences in teacher quality between high and low poverty 

schools? Probe to discover differences in each measure identified in question 24.

b. How would you quantify the differences in teacher quality between high and low minority 

schools? Probe to discover differences in each measure identified in question 24.

c. How would you describe differences in teacher quality between urban, suburban, and rural 

schools?

d. For states that use teacher effectiveness measures to look across schools: Compared to using 

teacher qualifications, such as highly qualified teacher status, does using teacher effectiveness 

measures change your understanding of whether disadvantaged students have high-quality 

teachers? Whether such teachers are distributed equitably across schools?

31. What factors, if any, have hindered using the measures you mentioned (i.e., teacher qualification or 

effectiveness measures in addition to HQT) to examine the distribution of teachers across different 

types of schools or districts? 
48

a. What have been the challenges? Multiple challenges may apply. Probe until interviewee cannot 

recall other challenges. 

• Challenge collecting the data

• Challenge establishing the validity/quality of the measure

• Challenge incorporating the measures into a data system that allows disaggregation by 

school type (e.g., low-poverty and high-poverty schools)

• Challenge determining criteria for what is “equitable”

• Challenge reporting the data

• Resistance to using the data

• Challenges specific to rural districts

• Other challenges

Strategies to Ensure High-Quality Teachers for Disadvantaged Students

Now I’d like to talk about any strategies or actions that your state is taking during the 2011–12 school 

year to ensure high-quality teachers for schools with high proportions of disadvantaged students (i.e., 

high-minority and/or high-poverty schools). For this question, we are specifically interested in state-level 

actions only. For example, a specialized teacher education program initiated by a university in your state 

would not be a state-level action. Does that make sense?

Also, we are specifically interested in those actions or strategies that are targeted at high-poverty and/or 

high-minority schools. For example, if you have a state program that provides additional salary to 

teachers in high-poverty schools, I’d like to talk about that kind of program now, because it is targeted at 

these schools. 

32. Is your state undertaking any such targeted actions? 

Use the sub-questions in the following box, Questions About Actions, for each strategy mentioned. 

If strategies in the following categories are not mentioned, interviewer will use the list below to probe 

for strategies in these areas of interest. Also probe on policies identified in extant sources as current 

or intended.

• Recruitment and retention

• Monetary incentives to attract or retain teachers to/in schools with high proportions of 

disadvantaged students

• Non-monetary incentives to attract or retain teachers to/in schools with high proportions of 

disadvantaged students

• Other recruitment efforts to attract teachers to schools with high proportions of disadvantaged

students

• Preparation and professional development

• State policies to promote specialized teacher preparation programs to prepare teachers for 

schools with high proportions of disadvantaged students (e.g., residency program, specialized 

student teaching arrangements, specialized alternative certification programs)

• State policies to promote in-service professional development that focuses on schools with high 

proportions of disadvantaged students

• State policies to promote induction and mentoring in schools with high proportions of 

disadvantaged students
49

Questions About Actions

For each targeted action identified in 32, ask the lettered questions below. 

Please describe this action. Interviewer will probe to determine role of districts in this strategy (e.g., is this a 

policy that districts are required to carry out?)

a. Why would this affect teacher quality for disadvantaged students? Did this action target certain 

schools or districts? If so, why did you target the action this way?

b. Do you use measures of teacher qualifications or effectiveness as part of this strategy?

c. What have been the challenges with implementing this action? 

• Lack of existing policies and practices

• Lack of managerial capacity

• Lack of fiscal capacity and public support

• Lack of stakeholder support

• Lack of external support (i.e. federal or foundation support)

• Other

d. What factors have facilitated implementation of this action?

• Existing policies and practices

• Managerial capacity

• Fiscal capacity and public support

• Stakeholder support

• External support (i.e. federal or foundation support)

• Other

33. Have urban, suburban, and rural districts faced different challenges in implementing these 

strategies? Have there been any challenges in implementing these strategies that are unique to your 

rural districts?

Role of Federal Programs and Policies

34. I’d like to understand the role of federal policies and programs in your activities with respect to 

ensuring that schools with high proportions of disadvantaged students have high-quality teachers. 

How would you characterize the role of federal programs and policies in your decisions to pursue 

the activities we’ve talked about today, including your efforts to develop measures of teacher 

effectiveness, determine the distribution of teachers, and ensure that schools with large numbers of 

disadvantaged students have high-quality teachers? 

Refer to the following programs (Interviewer will use online sources to discover whether the state 

has applied for Race to the Top or received funding for any of the programs in c-f):

a. Requirements for State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF)

b. If applied, Race to the Top

c. If received, Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF)

d. If received, Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems grant program (SLDS) 

e. If received, Teacher Quality Enhancement grant program (TQE)

f. If received, Title I School Improvement Grant (SIG)

Record an answer for each program that applies to the state, 

a. Spurred new actions

b. Provided financial support for action that SEA would have undertaken without support.
50

35. Are there other funding sources that are playing a role in your efforts to develop measures of 

teacher effectiveness, determine the distribution of teachers, or ensure that schools with large 

numbers of low income and/or minority students have high-quality teachers?

a. Grants from national foundations

b. Grants from state or local foundations

Now I’d like to focus on Title I equity plans for a few minutes. 

36. Did the federal requirements about the development and content of a state equity plan influence 

any of the state activities we have discussed today? If so, how? If not, why not? 

37. How often have you updated your equity plan, and what is the reason for the updates? Probe to 

determine how many times the state has updated its plan, approximate dates, and reasons.

38. How does the state make sure that its plan is implemented? 

39. How much of a difference must there be for the state or districts to consider there to be a problem 

in the distribution of high-quality teachers across schools?

40. Do you require your LEAs to write similar plans — that is, “local equity plans”? If so, ask subitems 

a-f. 

a. Do all LEAs have to write equity plans, or just some districts? If some, how do you determine 

which districts must write a plan?

b. What does the state tell LEAs about the required content of local plans?

c. What does the state tell them about how often to update the plans? 

d. Are there differences in how you approach the planning process for your rural LEAs, compared 

to urban LEAs?

e. How do you track LEAs’ progress in enacting their plans? 

f. How are the LEAs accountable for enacting their plans?

Wrap Up

That’s all the questions I have. Thank you very much for participating in the study.

41. Is there anything else you’d like to tell me?

We may need to contact you for clarification on some of the things we talked about. Would it be OK to 

email you?

Also, as I mentioned, the study also includes a component in which we conduct similar interviews with a 

total of 75 school districts from around the country. We plan to send you an email asking you to 

nominate a few districts based on some criteria we will send you. Would that be all right?

Thank you so much for your time!