TRAINING TOMORROW’S TEACHERS:

ENSURING A QUALITY POSTSECONDARY 

EDUCATION

HEARING

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 21ST CENTURY COMPETITIVENESS 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND 

THE WORKFORCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, OCTOBER 9, 2002 

Serial No. 107-85 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education 

and the Workforce

82-897 pdf 

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

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

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

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

JOHN A. BOEHNER, Ohio, Chairman 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin GEORGE MILLER, California 

MARGE ROUKEMA, New Jersey DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan 

CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina MAJOR R. OWENS, New York 

PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

HOWARD P. “BUCK” McKEON, California ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey 

MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware TIM ROEMER, Indiana 

SAM JOHNSON, Texas ROBERT C. “BOBBY” SCOTT, Virginia 

JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina LYNN N. RIVERS, Michigan 

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana RUBEN HINOJOSA, Texas 

CHARLIE W. NORWOOD, JR., Georgia CAROLYN McCARTHY, New York 

BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts 

FRED UPTON, Michigan RON KIND, Wisconsin 

VAN HILLEARY, Tennessee LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan HAROLD E. FORD, JR., Tennessee 

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado DENNIS KUCINICH, Ohio 

JIM DeMINT, South Carolina DAVID WU, Oregon 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia RUSH D. HOLT, New Jersey 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia HILDA L. SOLIS, California 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois SUSAN DAVIS, California 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota 

PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio VACANCY 

 RIC KELLER, Florida 

 TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska 

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

Paula Nowakowski, Chief of Staff 

 John Lawrence, Minority Staff Director

 SUBCOMMITTEE ON 21st CENTURY COMPETITIVENESS 

 HOWARD P. “BUCK” McKEON, California, Chairman

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia, Vice Chairman VACANCY 

JOHN BOEHNER, Ohio JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts 

MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware RON KIND, Wisconsin 

SAM JOHNSON, Texas RUSH D. HOLT, New Jersey 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina DAVID WU, Oregon 

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana LYNN N. RIVERS, Michigan 

FRED UPTON, Michigan BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia RUBEN HINOJOSA, Texas 

TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska 
iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................................................. i 

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

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 21ST CENTURY COMPETITIVENESS, COMMITTEE ON 

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

WASHINGTON, D.C..................................................................................................................... 1 

OPENING STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE JOHN F. TIERNEY, SUBCOMMITTE ON 

21ST CENTURY COMPETITIVENESS, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE 

WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE, WASHINGTON, D.C......................... 5 

STATEMENT OF CORNELIA M. ASHBY, DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, WORKFORCE, 

AND INCOME SECURITY ISSUES, GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON, 

D.C.................................................................................................................................................. 6 

STATEMENT OF KURT M. LANDGRAF, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE 

OFFICER, EDUCATIONAL TESTING SERVICE, PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY ................... 8 

STATEMENT OF WENDELL CAVE, DIRECTOR OF TESTING, RESEARCH AND 

INTERNSHIP, EDUCATION PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS BOARD, FRANKFORT, 

KENTUCKY .................................................................................................................................. 9 

STATEMENT OF DR. ALLEN MORI, DEAN OF THE CHARTER COLLEGE OF 

EDUCATION, CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA ....... 11 

STATEMENT OF STEVEN BRANDICK, DIRECTOR, CAREER LADDER, HUMAN 

RESOURCES DIVISION, LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, LOS ANGELES, 

CALIFORNIA .............................................................................................................................. 13 

APPENDIX A -- OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN HOWARD P. “BUCK” 

MCKEON, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 21ST CENTURY COMPETITIVENESS, COMMITTEE ON 

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

WASHINGTON, D.C................................................................................................................... 29 

APPENDIX B -- WRITTEN OPENING STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE JOHN F. 

TIERNEY, SUBCOMMITTE ON 21ST CENTURY COMPETITIVENESS, COMMITTEE ON 

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

WASHINGTON, D.C................................................................................................................... 35 

APPENDIX C -- STATEMENT OF CORNELIA M. ASHBY, DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, 

WORKFORCE, AND INCOME SECURITY ISSUES, GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE, 

WASHINGTON, D.C................................................................................................................... 39 
iv

APPENDIX D -- WRITTEN STATEMENT OF KURT M. LANDGRAF, PRESIDENT AND 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, EDUCATIONAL TESTING SERVICE, PRINCETON, NEW 

JERSEY ........................................................................................................................................ 55 

APPENDIX E -- WRITTEN STATEMENT OF WENDELL CAVE, DIRECTOR OF TESTING, 

RESEARCH AND INTERNSHIP, EDUCATION PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS BOARD, 

FRANKFORT, KENTUCKY....................................................................................................... 79 

APPENDIX F -- WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DR. ALLEN MORI, DEAN OF THE 

CHARTER COLLEGE OF EDUCATION, CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, LOS 

ANGELES, CALIFORNIA.......................................................................................................... 85

APPENDIX G -- WRITTEN STATEMENT OF STEVEN BRANDICK, DIRECTOR, CAREER 

LADDER, HUMAN RESOURCES DIVISION, LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL 

DISTRICT, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA ............................................................................. 95 

APPENDIX H – LETTER FROM THE AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION TO 

CHAIRMAN HOWARD P. “BUCK” MCKEON, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 21ST CENTURY 

COMPETITIVENESS, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C...................................................... 103 

TABLE OF INDEXES ............................................................................................................... 107
1

HEARING ON TRAINING TOMORROW'S TEACHERS: 

ENSURING A QUALITY POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION 

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 9, 2002 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTE ON 21ST CENTURY COMPETITIVENESS, 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

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

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

 Present: Representatives McKeon, Isakson, Castle, Ehlers, Osborne, Tierney, Holt, Miller, 

ex officio. 

 Staff Present: Julian Baer, Legislative Assistant; Alexa Callin, Communications Staff 

Assistant; Patrick Lyden, Professional Staff Member; Brady Newby, Communications Specialist; 

Deborah L. Samantar, Committee Clerk/Intern Coordinator; Jo-Marie St. Martin, General Counsel; 

and Holli Traud, Legislative Assistant; Charles Barone, Deputy Staff Director; James Kvaal, 

Legislative Associate/Education; Joe Novotny, Staff Assistant/Education; and Suzanne Palmer, 

Legislative Association/ Education. 

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

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 21ST CENTURY COMPETITIVENESS, COMMITTEE 

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

REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

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

Competitiveness will come to order. 

 We are meeting today to hear testimony on ways we can improve teacher training through 

quality postsecondary education. Under committee rule 12(b), opening statements are limited to 

the chairman and ranking minority member of the subcommittee. Therefore, if other members 

have statements, they will be included in the hearing record. 

 With that, I ask unanimous consent for the hearing record to remain open 14 days to allow 

member statements and other extraneous material referenced during the hearing to be submitted in 
2

the official hearing record. Without objection, so ordered. 

Chairman McKeon. Good afternoon. I want to express my appreciation to our witnesses for 

joining us here today to talk about a very important subject, ensuring that we have quality teachers 

for our nation's children. 

 We all know that the effect of a good teacher on a child's life is tremendous and farreaching. To this end, over the last few years, Congress has worked diligently to ensure that the 

best and brightest teachers are teaching our children. For example, the president's No Child Left 

Behind Act, signed into law last year, requires each state educational agency to develop a plan to 

ensure that all teachers teaching in core academic subjects within the state are highly qualified no 

later than the end of the 2005-2006 school year. Over the next decade, school districts will need to 

hire over 2 million additional teachers to keep up with increased student enrollment and it is our 

job to make sure they are qualified teachers. 

 With that said, many forget that the Higher Education Act includes several provisions to 

improve the quality of the current and future teacher force by improving the preparation of 

prospective teachers and enhancing professional development activities. Through teacher quality 

enhancement grants for states and partnerships enacted in 1998, Congress aimed to recruit highly 

qualified individuals, including individuals from other occupations, into the teaching force and to 

hold institutions of higher education accountable for preparing teachers. 

 With the passage of these provisions, our commitment to improving teacher quality is clear. 

We have enhanced our efforts to improve the education the children receive, particularly the 

education that disadvantaged students and students with disabilities receive. We have also 

provided additional resources for teacher training and assured quality through accountability 

measures. 

 As we move into the next reauthorization of the Higher Education Act next year, we will 

need to learn as much as we can from each of you and others as to the effect Title II provisions 

have on improving teacher quality, and what else we may be able to do to ensure that every student 

in this country has a qualified and committed teacher. 

 I know we are asking a great deal of our teachers. They have a very difficult, yet extremely 

important, job. Therefore, we want to do our part to help teachers, school districts and 

postsecondary institutions work together so that no child is left behind. 

 I believe we all have the same goal here and that is to ensure that highly qualified teachers 

teach our children. In order to do that, we want to encourage students to enter the teaching field, 

provide them the tools necessary to ensure that they are highly qualified and make sure 

postsecondary institutions providing teacher training are providing the best education possible. 

 Again, I thank you all for joining us today and look forward to your testimony. 

Mr. Tierney is on his way here and we will come back to him for his opening statement 

when he arrives. I apologize for many members not being here today. We are debating the Iraqi 
3

resolution on the floor, and that is keeping a lot of members away; and you can understand the 

importance of that also. 

 At this time, I would like to introduce our witnesses. First, I would like to introduce Ms. 

Cornelia Ashby. Ms. Ashby joined the U.S. General Accounting Office in 1973 and has held 

various positions within the GAO. She was appointed to her current position as Director of 

Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues in October 2000. Ms. Ashby directs studies 

involving higher education, child welfare, child support enforcement and adult and vocational 

education issues. 

 She holds a bachelor's degree in Business Administration with a concentration in 

accounting from George Mason University, an MBA from George Washington University, and is 

completing work for a doctoral degree. Congratulations. 

 I would like to recognize the gentleman from Delaware, Mr. Castle, to introduce our next 

witness.

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

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 21ST CENTURY COMPETITIVENESS, COMMITTEE ON 

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. – SEE APPENDIX A 

Mr. Castle. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the subject matter before this 

subcommittee today on training tomorrow's teachers. I think it is about as important as anything 

that we can possibly do. 

 And I am delighted that one of those addressing our panel today is my good friend and 

colleague, Kurt Landgraf. I think most of you know why he is here, because he is the president and 

CEO of the Educational Testing Service, or ETS. 

 But what you may not know is his background with the DuPont Company, where with the 

Department of Pharmaceuticals he served as president and CEO, as well as executive vice 

president, chief operating officer, chief financial officer and the chairman of DuPont Europe. 

 And even through all this, Kurt has always been deeply involved with his community at 

home, including sharing the business of the Public Education Council, United Way of Delaware, 

University of Delaware Research Foundation and many, many other business and philanthropic 

organizations.

 He also, and I didn't know this, has earned his bachelor's degree in economics and business 

from Wagner College. He has also earned three master's degrees. I don't know what you do with 

three master's degrees, but he has one in economics from Penn State, administration from Rutgers 

and sociology from Western Michigan. And if that is not enough, he also is a graduate of the 

Harvard Business School of Advanced Management Programs. 
4

 As I mentioned, importantly for this hearing today, Kurt heads ETS, which is obviously one 

of the largest private educational research testing measurement organizations serving individuals, 

institutions, and governments in 181 different countries today. He is also the president of the 

National Consortium for Graduate Degrees for Minorities in Engineering and Science, Inc. 

And perhaps most importantly, and I know this from many conversations I had with him, he 

is a strong believer in the need to improve our education system for all students. 

 So he is a strong and able witness, Mr. Chairman, to have here today, and we look forward 

to hearing him. 

 And let me just say apologetically, because I am not sure how long I can be here, we have 

an Intelligence Committee meeting with this whole business with Iraq and other things that is tying 

everybody up at this point, so I may have to bow out shortly. 

 But I am pleased to introduce Kurt, and I yield back. 

Chairman McKeon. Our next witness will be Mr. Wendell Cave. 

Mr. Cave, we checked on the whistle, the Perkins whistle, and the reason you probably 

won't hear it today is the winds are not blowing. I thought we had maybe repaired it, because I 

haven't heard it recently, but it is just because we are not in the windy season yet. 

Mr. Cave has served three years with the Kentucky Education Professional Standards Board 

and the Division of Testing Research and Internship. He has 35 years of education experience at 

the state level that includes positions at the Kentucky Department of Education and the Kentucky 

Council on Postsecondary Education. In addition, Mr. Cave has taught high school physics. 

 He holds a bachelor's degree from Western Kentucky University and a master's degree in 

teaching. 

 The next witness would be Dr. Allen Mori. Dr. Mori is the Dean of the Charter College of 

Education at California State University, as well as a professor of English. Prior to his position at 

CSU, Dr. Mori served as a professor in the Division of Teacher Education at Marshall University. 

Dr. Mori has held several positions within postsecondary education and teacher preparation.

He is also a member of the Association of Teacher Educators and has written extensively on 

teacher preparation and education. 

 And our final witness will be Mr. Steven Brandick. Mr. Brandick is the Director of the 

Career Ladder Office for the Los Angeles Unified School District. He began his career as an 

educator in 1981, when he took a position teaching English at the Mexican-North American 

Cultural Institute in Mexico City. 

 In 1993, Mr. Brandick became the K-12 bilingual specialist for the Los Angeles Unified 

School District. In this role, he coordinated the development of the district's para-education career 
5

ladder as a labor-management collaborative project. He is working on a variety of projects relating 

to teacher recruitment and development. 

 Welcome, all of you, here, and we will hear the opening statement now from the ranking 

member. Are you the ranking member? 

Mr. Tierney. I am temporarily in the seat. 

Chairman McKeon. Mr. Tierney. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE JOHN F. TIERNEY, 

SUBCOMMITTE ON 21ST CENTURY COMPETITIVENESS, COMMITTEE 

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

REPRESENTATIVE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. Tierney. I am going to be extraordinarily brief. I will submit my statement for the record, if I 

might, Mr. Chairman, and just welcome the witnesses here and look forward to their testimony. 

 I think that teacher qualification is obviously one of the principal concerns of many people 

in the education field and parents generally. So I want to hear what you have to say about that. I 

think it is going to be a major part of what we do in the reauthorization, and I look forward to your 

testimony. 

 Thank you. 

WRITTEN OPENING STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE JOHN F. TIERNEY, 

SUBCOMMITTE ON 21ST CENTURY COMPETITIVENESS, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION 

AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE, WASHINGTON, D.C. – SEE 

APPENDIX B 

Chairman McKeon. Before the witnesses begin, I will explain, first thing is, you turn on your 

mike. And then there will be, as you speak, you will see the green, yellow, and red light in front of 

you. Green means you have five minutes. Yellow means you have a minute left and red means 

your time is up; and we would appreciate if you would follow that. And your full written 

testimony will be included in the record. 

Ms. Ashby.
6

STATEMENT OF CORNELIA M. ASHBY, DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, 

WORKFORCE, AND INCOME SECURITY ISSUES, GENERAL 

ACCOUNTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Ms. Ashby. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to 

testify on teacher quality enhancement, grant activities and accountability under Title II of the 

Higher Education Act. 

 As you know, the ranking minority member of the full committee and the chairman of the 

Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions asked us to examine the 

implementation of some of the Title II provisions. My comments today are based on the 

preliminary work that we have done in response to that request. 

 We served 91 grantees, the total at the time of our survey, conducted 33 site visits in 11 

states and interviewed Department of Education officials and teaching experts. Our survey and site 

visits revealed that the grantees focused on a combination of activities. Eighty-five percent of our 

survey respondents were using their grant funds to reform the requirements for teacher 

certification, 85 percent for professional development and support for current teachers, and 72 

percent for recruiting new teachers. 

 Within these general areas, grantees' efforts varied. For example, in Illinois, where 

currently there is no middle school certification, state officials intend to use the grant to create a 

new certification for middle school teachers. Professional development and teacher support 

activities included providing courses toward an advanced degree and assigning mentor teachers to 

new teachers. In fact, during our site visits, we found mentoring was the most common 

professional development activity. 

 Grantees at 23 of the 33 grant sites we visited, that is, 70 percent, were conducting 

mentoring activities. As an example, Rhode Island used its grant funds to allow two experienced 

teachers to tour the state to provide training to future mentor teachers and help schools set up 

mentoring programs. 

 With respect to recruiting new teachers, most grantees at the grant sites we visited were 

using their grant funds to fill shortages in urban schools and recruit new teachers from 

nontraditional sources, such as middle career professionals. For example, a grant program housed 

at Johns Hopkins University recruits teacher candidates with undergraduate degrees to teach in a 

local school district while earning master's degrees in education. The program offers tuition 

assistance, and in some cases, the district pays the full teacher's salary. Teachers are required to 

teach in the local district for three years after completing the program. 

 Another recruiting endeavor, a Texas partnership, offered scholarships to mid-career 

professionals that paid for a one-year, full-time program that results in a teaching certificate and 18 

hours of graduate level credits. 
7

 It is too early to determine the grants effect on the quality of teaching in the classroom. 

However, grantees have reported some positive results. For example, grantees have told us that 

they have been able to recruit more teachers into their programs since the inception of the grant 

program. In addition, many of the grantees we visited reported the mentoring programs are 

beneficial to the mentor teacher as well as to the new teacher. 

 Also, with respect to the Texas partnership that offered scholarships for a college program 

that leads to a teaching certificate and graduate credits, grantee officials told us that because the 

grant covers the Austin, Texas, area, an area of many technology organizations, they have been 

able to recruit highly skilled individuals who can offer a variety of real-life experiences for the 

classes they teach. 

 With regard to accountability, the information collected under Title II accountability 

provisions has limitations. Title II required education to develop key definitions and uniform 

reporting methods. Education officials told us that they tried to define terms, but the terms 

incorporated the uniqueness of teacher training programs, state reporting procedures and data 

availability; in doing so, education defines some terms broadly. 

 Education officials also told us that this gave states and institutions discretion to interpret 

some terms as they wished. As a result, using definitions allowed by education, states and 

institutions could report information that made their programs seem more successful than they 

might have been. 

 For example, institutions could inflate their pass rate on state certification examinations, 

reporting only on those teacher candidates who completed all course work and passed the teacher 

certification examination, without including any information on teacher candidates who completed 

all course work, but failed the examination, thus ensuring 100 percent pass rate. We found that a 

few states and many institutions are inflating their pass rates to 100 percent. Every institution 

reported 100 percent pass rates. 

 Requiring teacher candidates to pass the state certification examination, as part of a teachertraining program is not a problem. However, reporting on only those candidates who pass the 

examination does not provide a basis for assessing program quality. In other words, this practice 

reduces accountability. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer any questions. 

STATEMENT OF CORNELIA M. ASHBY, DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, WORKFORCE, 

AND INCOME SECURITY ISSUES, GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON, 

D.C. – SEE APPENDIX C 

Chairman McKeon. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Landgraf. 
8

STATEMENT OF KURT M. LANDGRAF, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF 

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, EDUCATIONAL TESTING SERVICE, PRINCETON, 

NEW JERSEY 

Mr. Landgraf. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. 

 As Congressman Castle introduced me, you know that I am the head of the Educational 

Testing Service. We administer 12 million tests per year, worldwide, including the NAEP 

examination and the Praxis assessment exam, which is primarily what I am going to talk with you 

about today. 

 I believe accountability is essential to improving education in general, and enhancing the 

quality of teaching is perhaps the single most important way to improve incremental education in 

this society. I would strongly urge this committee, this subcommittee, to review very carefully this 

testimony and not back away from the message delivered in 1998 that teacher certification would 

meet the highest possible standards. 

 I have some recommendations to share with you for enhancing Title II reporting and for 

enhancing teacher professionals in general. 

In brief, Title II created a three-tier annual reporting requirement. ETS participates in that 

reporting structure. ETS is focused on one key aspect of the law's requirements, that is, pass rates 

for teacher licensure examinations. I would like to discuss further teacher licensure assessments in 

general and the Praxis series in particular. 

 As Ms. Ashby just reported, states vary significantly on how they use Praxis data and how 

they react to providing teachers with teacher scores. I think this is key for your consideration. We 

are not here to provide assessments that are gamed. The purpose of these assessments is to 

improve teacher certification and teacher education. 

 The Praxis series includes three types of assessments: academic skills, subject assessments 

and classroom performance assessments. The ETS Title II reporting service is a complex, highly 

sophisticated system that provides institutions and states with Praxis pass rate data they need to 

meet Title II requirements. 

 I have three recommendations for improving Title II reporting systems: 

 Title II should be redirected to focus on improved teacher education, not pass rates, 

 Strengthen, as Ms. Ashby just pointed out, the definition of program completer. We must 

follow those teachers that complete their course of study and look at those that are admitted and 
9

drop out, so we do not get the gaming of the pass rate system; and 

 We would like to ask you to consider establishing a uniform reporting system to facilitate 

enhanced utility and comparability of Title II data. 

 I also have four recommendations for enhancing the teaching profession and certification. 

 First, please use multiple measures in judging teacher quality and preparation programs, 

 Second, encourage all states to follow California's example in establishing induction and 

mentoring programs for new teachers; 

 Third, emphasize that knowing the subject matter and knowing how to teach are both 

important and necessary in effective teaching; and 

 Finally, but very importantly, given the demographics of our teacher shortage, undertake a 

study to examine teacher shortages, teacher mobility and potential solutions to such supply and 

demand issues. 

 The challenge before you is critical. Success at raising student achievement and closing the 

achievement gap rests in large part on the quality of our teaching force. We need to muster the 

political and public courage to match the much-needed improvements in our teaching force to 

attract higher quality teachers, retain these teachers and improve incremental educational 

opportunities for all students in this country. 

 Thank, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF KURT M. LANDGRAF, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE 

OFFICER, EDUCATIONAL TESTING SERVICE, PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY – SEE 

APPENDIX D 

Chairman McKeon. Thank you. 

 Mr. Cave. 

STATEMENT OF WENDELL CAVE, DIRECTOR OF TESTING, 

RESEARCH AND INTERNSHIP, EDUCATION PROFESSIONAL 

STANDARDS BOARD, FRANKFORT, KENTUCKY 
10

Mr. Cave. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, Kentucky's Education Professional 

Standards Board is delighted to have the opportunity to provide input to you today on the reporting 

requirements of Title II. 

 While those reporting requirements require a significant investment of time and money, the 

legislation came with no earmarked funding, and this lack of earmarked funding has been 

particularly burdensome for states like Kentucky that have independent standards boards, relatively 

small budgets and minimal, if any, federal funding. With that said, I would like to focus the rest of 

my time on positive outcomes that Kentucky has seen as a result of Title II reporting requirements. 

 Those outcomes far outweigh the investment Kentucky has had to make in the reporting 

process, and I think one of the most important outcomes has been the expanded interest that our 

print and electronic media have taken toward teacher quality. The major newspapers and television 

networks in Kentucky have featured pass rate data, by institution, each year of the Title II report. 

 This expanded media coverage has provided an impetus for our teacher education 

institutions to implement initiatives designed to improve pass rates. Our colleges of education tell 

us that cooperation and coordination with their colleges of arts and sciences is now being seen as 

something that must be done. Prior to the scores being reported by the media, many colleges of 

arts and sciences did not see themselves as integral players in the teacher education preparation 

program. 

 An invitational workshop that the Standards Board conducted this summer to discuss 

curriculum alignment for courses that are taken by students in teacher preparation programs drew 

representatives from both arts and sciences and education faculties from most of our teacher 

education institutions. Recent statewide newspaper coverage showing a teacher education 

institution with a pass rate on a Praxis II examination near the bottom for all institutions in the state 

certainly got the attention of the arts and science college at that institution, as well as its academic 

dean.

 Arts and science faculty are realizing that not only are they integral players in the teacher 

preparation program, but they also have prestige to gain or lose from test scores that are reported in 

the media. This media coverage of pass rates may have even contributed to a change in leadership 

at an institution whose pass rates were low each of the two years. 

 Low pass rates in specific programs or in teaching specialties has led our Standards Board 

to implement an emergency program review procedure for programs in which the quality of teacher 

preparation is jeopardized as evidenced by failing scores on the certification assessments. Phase 

One of this process requires institutions with programs having pass rates below the 70 percent level 

to file a written plan for addressing 15 specific questions related to program improvement. Phase 

Two of that process requires an on-site team to evaluate and verify those written responses. 

 The 2000-2001 Title II report triggered Phase One emergency reviews in three of our 

education institutions and Phase Two reviews at two institutions. Our Standards Board has 

directed both of those Phase Two institutions to raise their pass rates to at least 50 percent by the 

time the third report comes out and to above 70 percent before the fourth report comes out. Failing 
11

to do so will result in their approval to offer those programs being terminated. 

 The Title II report influenced in no small way our efforts to do our own report. We will be 

starting in 2002-2003 with a quality performance index, which will again place institutions whose 

performance index goes below a certain level in danger of losing their accreditation to be a teacher 

institution; and the Praxis test scores will be one of the major components. 

 I wish I had time to give you more information, but thank you for the opportunity to testify, 

and I will be glad to answer any questions. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF WENDELL CAVE, DIRECTOR OF TESTING, RESEARCH AND 

INTERNSHIP, EDUCATION PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS BOARD, FRANKFORT, 

KENTUCKY – SEE APPENDIX E 

Chairman McKeon. Thank you very much and your full statement will be in the record. 

 Dr. Mori. 

STATEMENT OF DR. ALLEN MORI, DEAN OF THE CHARTER COLLEGE 

OF EDUCATION, CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, LOS ANGELES, 

CALIFORNIA

Mr. Mori. Mr. Chairman and honorable members, it is both a pleasure and an honor to testify 

today in front of the subcommittee. 

 I have spent the last 27 years as a teacher educator. The college I have the privilege of 

serving as dean has a historic role in preparing quality teachers, particularly teachers of color. The 

National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education, NCATE, has accredited it since 1959; 

in the past year alone, over 2,000 people received teaching and other credentials authorizing service 

to California's and, indeed, the nation's schools. 

 The Charter College of Education is committed to leading educators to transform public 

schools. Our mission statement, through the unique opportunities provided by its charter status, the 

College of Education at California State University, Los Angeles, enables educators to meet high 

standards and ensure the maximum learning and achievement potential of culturally and 

linguistically urban learners. 

 The college's primary service area is greater Los Angeles, a dynamic urban and 

multicultural metropolitan center. This context provides for unique, collaborative opportunities to 

enhance continually the college's academic programs. Because the campus is located in the heart 

of metropolitan Los Angeles, the college's programs reflect concern with the challenges and 

problems of urban education with particular emphasis on linguistic and cultural diversity. 
12

 Currently, the Charter College is predominantly a graduate professional college, comprising 

15 percent of the university's enrollment and 57 percent of its graduate enrollment. The majority of 

the candidates for teaching credentials are adult students, many of whom are pursuing a second 

career. However, the Charter College has established a pilot bachelor of arts degree program in 

urban learning. This program allows students to complete both the BA degree and preliminary 

teacher credential in four years. 

 The term "blended program" is applied to urban learning because teaching methods courses 

and specific subject matter courses are taken together; that is, students take history concurrently 

with the teaching methods class in social studies. Professors from both areas discuss ways in 

which the students can apply the content to the real world of classrooms through guided 

participation and observation in neighborhood schools. 

 The college's enrollment is 68 percent female and 32 percent male, reflecting a pattern of 

cultural and linguistic diversity similar to the university's overall enrollment, with 40 percent of our 

students being Latino, 30 percent Caucasian, 15 percent Asian Pacific Islander, and 10 percent 

African American students. 

 In response to changes in California's law governing the issuance of teaching credentials for 

elementary and secondary schools, members of the faculty determined that systemic change was 

necessary to meet the intent and the spirit of the new standards. The new program sequence clearly 

courses in field experiences to support the developing knowledge and experiences of beginning 

teachers.

 Changes were made not only to respond to the state requirements, but faculty were 

cognizant of the need to produce better qualified graduates to assist the college in meeting the 

reporting requirements of Title II. I mentioned earlier collaboration, and one example of a 

significant and effective collaborative partnership is the strand of the Urban Learning Program I 

described earlier. 

 The apprentice teacher program is a true partnership between the Paraprofessional Career 

Ladder Program and the Los Angeles Unified School District and the Charter College. The strand 

allows Para educators to enter the Urban Learning Program with junior status and complete the 

requirements for a BA and a preliminary credential in just two years. The college's rigorous 

admissions requirements must be met. 

 A unique element involves the employment of the participants at three Professional 

Development Schools in Local District H of LA unified. Administrators and teachers of these 

schools are committed to supporting the apprentices as they pursue their degree and teaching 

credential goals. 

 The apprentices work as para educators at the three schools in classrooms of master 

teachers selected and trained carefully by a team of Charter College professors and district 

professionals. The apprentices are enrolled in teaching methods classes at the college and also 

engage in professional development activities with district personnel, who extend the methodology 
13

instruction to include specific information about district curriculum and teaching approaches. 

 There are now nearly 200 graduates from the Urban Learning Program. Most of the 

graduates are female Hispanics between the ages of 21 and 27. Most are employed over 20 hours a 

week, take a heavy course load and still achieve an average of a 3.5 grade point upon completion of 

the program. The program has demonstrated successful use of families of students who attend 

classes together and provide each other with both academic and social support. 

 The Charter College is clearly on the cutting edge of high quality teacher preparation in the 

21st century. Spurred by the Title II requirements to improve teacher education, faculty was 

determined to build world-class teacher preparation programs to meet the needs of the ethnically 

and linguistically diverse urban community of the Los Angeles Basin. 

 Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DR. ALLEN MORI, DEAN OF THE CHARTER COLLEGE OF 

EDUCATION, CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA – SEE 

APPENDIX F 

Chairman McKeon. Thank you. 

 Mr. Brandick. 

STATEMENT OF STEVEN BRANDICK, DIRECTOR, CAREER LADDER, 

HUMAN RESOURCES DIVISION, LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL 

DISTRICT, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 

Mr. Brandick. Mr. Chairman and honorable subcommittee members, thank you for giving me the 

opportunity to speak today. It is an honor to be here. 

 As you know, there is a great need for highly qualified teachers. Here are some facts 

related to the Los Angeles Unified School District: 

 We will need to higher 4,000 new teachers per year for the next five years. All of the 

universities in southern California, public and private, have been producing about 5,000 

credentialed teachers; LA Unified hires about 1,500 to 2,000 of those. If this trend continues, we 

will have 10,000 under qualified teachers by 2007-2008. 

 Currently, one of four teachers and more than half of all new teachers are not regularly 

certified. Additionally, schools with the highest concentrations of challenged learners have the 

most under qualified teachers. In some schools, half the teachers are not regularly certified. For 

the sake of the children, we need a large number of highly qualified teachers, and we need them 
14

quickly.

 In 1999, my office entered into a partnership with Cal State LA to implement the apprentice 

teacher program, a fast-track teacher-credentialing program designed for paraeducators and a 

wonderful example of what a school district and a university can accomplish when they work 

together.

 For a partnership to be successful, each partner must complement the other. Universities 

are great places to dream about the possible; large, urban school districts are places where practical 

solutions are needed for almost impossible problems. Professors are encouraged to strive for the 

ideal; teachers and school administrators know about dealing with reality. If we do not consider 

the ideal, we will be forever stuck with the mediocre; if we do not consider the reality, we will 

never move forward. 

 So Cal State LA and LA Unified came together to make things happen. LA Unified needed 

teacher training aligned with state standards in the district curriculum. We needed teachers who 

were trained to help students succeed in an urban setting, and we needed these teachers quickly. 

 Cal State LA needed to implement a new type of teacher credentialing curriculum, the 

blended program. It needed a program that stayed within compliance with state and national 

standards for teacher training and it needed a program, which would use staff in as efficient a 

manner as possible, especially in terms of supervising student teachers. 

 Both of us needed and wanted an outstanding credential pathway that could be implemented 

within the context of our large organizations, and we worked it out. 

 The apprentice teacher program starts with Cal State LA's Urban Learning Program, a fast 

track, blended curriculum that combines undergraduate and teacher credential requirements and 

then takes students from student, junior status, to a bachelor's degree and teaching credentials in 

just two years. 

 Apprentices are selected from among LA Unified paraeducators and placed at one of three 

Professional Development Schools, which were established especially for this project, where they 

work as teacher assistants. 

 The most highly qualified teachers at these schools are selected to be demonstration 

teachers. When the apprentices take a methodology class at the university, such as reading 

methodology, they have the opportunity to observe demonstration teachers in action and practice 

the techniques they are learning. At the same time, the apprentices attend weekly seminars where 

they are trained in the district's policies and curriculum related to that subject area. In this way, 

they learn the ideal methodology and also how to implement it in an actual classroom. 

 When they are ready for student teaching, apprentices move to a different Professional 

Development School, and when they successfully complete this process, they are hired by the 

district and placed as fully credentialed teachers. Because of the extensive training they have 

received and the years they have spent in schools as both paraeducators and apprentice teachers, 
15

they perform more like experienced teachers than new ones. 

 Twenty-eight apprentices have become teachers in the past year, and they are doing well. 

There are 20 apprentices in the pipeline with plans to extend the program to other California State 

universities.

 As you consider the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, please take this type of 

program into consideration. I believe it can be replicated in many other parts of the country. 

 My office also successfully implemented a Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant, which was 

designed to expand the pool of potential teachers by raising interest among high school students. I 

would be happy to explain more about this program during the questioning period. 

 Thank you. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF STEVEN BRANDICK, DIRECTOR, CAREER LADDER, 

HUMAN RESOURCES DIVISION, LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, LOS 

ANGELES, CALIFORNIA – SEE APPENDIX G

Chairman McKeon. This is such a big subject to try to cover in this kind of a session. I know we 

will hold more hearings, but it seems to me that it is a many-faceted, trying to get qualified 

teachers.

 One is, I think you have teachers now that are currently teaching, that are not qualified.

How do we move them to becoming more qualified? 

 How do we take teachers that are preparing to be teachers, going through school with an 

idea of becoming a teacher, and then maybe after a day or a year or two years in the classroom, 

finding they don't like it and moving out? And then how do we move people from other fields into 

teaching and then get them up to a qualified status? 

 It just seems like it is going to be a very difficult problem. 

 I served on a high school board for nine years; and I would see teachers at work, and I saw 

some fantastic teachers. We started something called "What Is Good in Education." Each month at 

our school board meeting, we would go to a different school and we would see an example. And I 

remember one French teacher that came in to give us a demonstration. 

 He was fully dressed as a Roman Catholic priest, and he just started speaking to us in 

French. I don't speak French; I assume he was speaking French. But can you imagine the impact 

that has on a classroom of high school students when he walked into the room and had that kind of 

an impact. 

 And yet I knew of other teachers whose credentials were highly qualified, but they couldn't 

communicate with students. And how do you take the education that a person has and then teach 
16

them to be able to take that education and educate others? It is very, very difficult. 

 One of the concerns I had, Ms. Ashby, in your study is the 100 percent pass rate.

Everybody passes. We have the term "program completer” and the term "graduate." Is it accurate 

to say that everybody passes? Everybody graduates? You know, everybody, 100 percent? That is 

kind of like Harvard, you know, 91 percent are honor students. 

 Is that realistic? What do we do about that? 

Ms. Ashby. Well, obviously, if you compute the pass rate only on the people who passed the 

exam, you are going to have 100 percent, and it is not going to tell you about the quality of the 

underlying program. And that is the difficulty. This has been allowed to happen because of 

loopholes in the definition. 

 Either a clear definition of "graduate" or of "completer" or of just who goes into the 

denominator in computing pass rates would take care of this particular problem. 

 But, no, you are quite correct. It says nothing about the quality of the underlying program. 

I know it is not realistic that 100 percent of people who take the exam or participate in the program 

would pass. 

Chairman McKeon. That is something we definitely need to address as we go through the 

reauthorization.

 Also, once a teacher is in the system and has tenure, what do we do if they are not really 

doing the job, if they are not qualified, if they are not educating the students that they have the 

responsibility to educate? 

Ms. Ashby. Were you addressing that to me? Since I have the mike, I will start. Of course, I have 

no definitive answers, just some speculations or ideas. 

 It seems to me that the teaching profession is like any other profession. If you have people 

who are not performing up to the standards that you would like for them to perform, either they are 

not willing to do it, or they can't do it, or a combination of the two, if they aren't willing to do it, it 

seems to me you help them find employment elsewhere. 

 If they can't, then perhaps training and modeling the type of behavior that you want would 

help; and that is where mentoring would come in, various supports for teachers that are currently in 

the classroom. 

 Certainly, if the problem is not having adequate knowledge of the subject you are teaching, 

training can take care of that. And another instance, having a mentor that can tell you the things 

that have worked for him or her can help; and just having a support, someone to talk to sometimes 

and discuss the problems you are having in the classroom, particularly if you are having problems 

managing the classroom. 
17

Chairman McKeon. Administrators have to play a big role in this. They are the ones that are 

supervising, that should know what is going on in the classroom. And many times they get 

involved in a lot of other responsibilities, but that seems to me would be their number one 

responsibility.

 My time is up. Mr. Holt. 

Mr. Holt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, panel. You are correct, Mr. Chairman, it is 

a big subject, but let us talk about a few things. 

 I mean, the numbers are unsettling: needing 2 million teachers before the end of the 

decade. If we want smaller class sizes, it will be considerably more than that. 

 There aren't that many students in the pipeline. 

 We have problems attracting enough science teachers or enough teachers that have a 

comfort level with science that is sufficient. In fact, most of these teachers we need to get over the 

next eight to ten years will be called on to teach science because every elementary school teacher 

will be. 

 It seems to me, just because of those numbers, we will have to do a much better job 

attracting and training midcareer teachers. 

 With regard to standards for schools and for teachers, should they be different for teachers 

entering at midcareer, rather than entering immediately after their undergraduate program? 

 Let me start with Mr. Cave, but perhaps others would have a thought on that. 

Mr. Cave. I think most of the states have either implemented alternative routes to certification or 

are considering alternative routes to certification; and yes, the standards should be different for 

those people. 

Mr. Holt. Let me be a little more specific. Some schools devote more of their effort to midcareer 

teachers than others. Should the standards for those schools be different? 

Mr. Cave. Probably should. And I can't tell you specifically what the differences in those 

standards ought to be right now, but they probably should be different. 

Mr. Holt. Dr. Mori or others? 

Mr. Mori. I would take a slightly different approach. I would say the standards shouldn't be 

different.

 I mean, we should have very high standards and everyone should meet those standards if 

they are going to be teaching someone's children, your children or grandchildren or my children or 
18

grandchildren.

 On the other hand, the approaches to preparing those people for the teaching profession 

would differ greatly, I would think, in the way you work with people who have been successful in 

other careers and who are clearly adult learners versus what you have with typical undergraduates. 

 So the approaches would be different, but the standards should not be diminished at all. 

They should be the same for both the undergraduate pathway and any of the alternative routes.

And I would add that most universities, and Cal State LA, I think, and this is particularly true in the 

California State University in general; we have alternative pathways to the teaching credential 

within our college of education. There are many pathways. 

 We have interns, we have preinterns, we have folks working on emergency permits, and 

then we have the traditional programs and we have the undergraduate programs. We work 

collaboratively with the school districts on intern programs. So I believe we have clearly embraced 

the notion that alternative programs are the only way we are ever going to, along with traditional 

ones, meet this tremendous demand in the next 10 years. 

 But each of those programs I mentioned has the same high standards for admission, 

completion, and exit at graduation, but the approaches vary widely. 

Mr. Holt. In the short time remaining, let me change the subject here. 

 It is a great pleasure to see Kurt Landgraf, my constituent and the leader of a fine 

institution. You suggest that colleges and universities report data on all of their students, rather 

than just graduates of the education schools. Is this partly an effort to deal with what you call the 

"gaming of the system" where education schools might inflate their rates? What is your reasoning 

behind that recommendation? 

Mr. Landgraf. It is not all graduates. I think we have to be very, very concerned with the fact that 

we have to ensure that we do not water down or lower our standards; rather, we ensure that each 

state administers these tests fairly and uniformly, and as Ms. Ashby talked about, ensuring that 

there is a very clear set of guidelines, ensuring that we look at all students who are admitted into 

these programs, not just those students who complete the colleges of education or the college 

curriculum and then take the test. 

 I might just comment if I could take two more minutes on this, that this is a complex 

problem. 

Mr. Holt. Maybe one more minute. 

Mr. Landgraf. A complex problem as discussed, but it is like any managerial problem, that you 

don't achieve incremental improvements by watering down standards. Rather, you must take into 

account the kinds and types of resources that you apply against the problem. We have to pay our 

teachers better, provide them with better training and development tools, and ensure that they are 
19

compensated and rewarded for outstanding performance. 

 Watering down the standard is exactly contrary to everything we know and trust in this 

society.

Mr. Holt. Thank you. 

 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman McKeon. Mr. Isakson. 

Mr. Isakson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Mori, first of all, California is doing very creative things. I can't remember the name of 

the system. It is in the Sacramento area. They have what is known as The Academy, which is 

proving very successful in bringing teachers.

 I know LA is doing the same, and in your testimony, you talked about one of the goals of 

your college of education being to measure the effect of teaching practices in real-world 

classrooms. I would like for you to react to a proposal I have, which I believe would dramatically 

reduce immediately the teacher shortage. It would not cost the public schools or colleges any 

money, and it would improve greatly the understanding of the real-world classroom, and it is as 

follows. 

 What if we required every professor and every teacher in every college of education in the 

United States of America to teach at least one out of every four years in the public schools? They 

remain at their pay grade paid by the college. One out of every four years they went and taught in 

their field, which obviously they would meet the certification standard, or you wouldn't hire them. 

What would you think of that idea? 

Dr. Mori. Well, Congressman, I am not certain that that necessarily would reduce the teacher 

shortage. One of the problems we face right now is that there is clearly a shortage of individuals 

who are willing to become professors of education. And part of our problem in ramping up and 

producing more and better-qualified teachers is that we don't have enough faculty to do that job. 

And that is even using highly qualified adjunct faculty that we hire from local school districts to 

work on our faculty, to assist us to produce more and better teachers. 

 Our faculty works in public schools a lot. They do professional development there. We 

actually offer some of our preparation courses there. So I think that there is an effort, a substantial 

effort to ensure that our people are on the cutting edge of what is happening in classrooms. 

 We do not have an ivory tower syndrome, at least not at Cal State LA. Our people are 

working at the Professional Development Schools, side by side with the teachers, master teachers 

and mentor teachers from LA Unified. 
20

 So I am not critical of your proposal. I think it has great merit. What I worry about is the 

fact that we are facing at the university level a shortage of individuals who wish to become 

professors, as well as there is a shortage of people willing to become teachers. 

Mr. Isakson. Well, I appreciate the response and certainly don't take anything to be critical. I will 

tell you, from just reading your testimony, I don't think this would include your college of 

education, but my experience is that there are many colleges of education where there is a dramatic 

disconnect between the real-world classroom of 2002 and those faculties. And that is why we lose 

so many teachers in years one through three, because they are not prepared for what they are about 

to see. 

 And although I was not aware there was a shortage of professors in colleges of education, 

and I probably should have been, nonetheless, I think it would be a great practice. 

 And thank you very much, Dr. Mori. 

 My other comment is to compliment Rush's constituent, Mr. Landgraf. Your four 

recommendations that you made for recommending enhancement of the teaching profession are 

exactly, absolutely 100 percent correct. 

 And I hope everybody on the committee will take time to read those four points because, in 

my paraphrasing, in particular he recommends that we measure not just their knowledge of the 

content, but their ability to teach, which is so important; and second, that there be multiple ways; 

this is a guy that sells testing, and he is telling you he wants multiple ways of evaluating teacher 

quality, which tells me this is very unselfish testimony and very accurate testimony. 

 So, all of you were great. And as the lady from GAO told us, it is going to be 10 years 

before we know whether or not we are doing any good with this, because they don't have enough 

longitudinal data to determine. But I think Mr. Landgraf is right on target on those four points, 

starting on page 13, and I commend you for that. 

 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman McKeon. Thank you. 

Mr. Miller. 

Mr. Miller. Thank you very much and I want to thank all the members of the panel. I think your 

testimony today is very, very helpful to us. 

 If I might start with Mr. Cave, when we wrote Title II, we knew what we wanted to do. We 

didn't know how it was going to turn out. And I have to tell you that when I looked through your 

testimony, and I looked at the steps that Kentucky has taken in sort of the self-criticism and 

examination of what you were doing and what you now think you had to do to respond to that, I 

can't think of a better process, if I had thought federal legislation was going to drive a better 
21

process than what you have gone through and how the state has responded. 

 Others decided they could run a 100 percent pass rate by us. That is not going to work, and 

we will get back to Title II, and we will work with the Department of Education over this next 

process in the Higher Education Act. 

 I had a chance to meet with Mr. Landgraf earlier, and I said this is sort of breaking down 

both in Title II here and Leave No Child Behind. There are two schools: those who want to run up 

the white flag right now in the first year, and they did that in Title II, too, and then there is a set of 

schools and states that are interested in seeing whether or not they can use this as an opportunity.

And it is amazing, the difference of approach in both of those. 

 And the one that truly saddens me, as a public policy-maker is when I hear people say, it is 

too much, we can't do this. And yet we have demonstrated every day in the popular press in 

districts and states that are sort of grabbing the bull by the horns and saying, Okay, this is what the 

law is; this is what we are going to have to do, now let us get on with it. 

 And I would just commend, and I am going to send your testimony around to all the 

members of the committee, because all of us have people within our own states suggesting that 

somehow this can't be done, or we can't meet the goal, or whatever. 

 And I also accept your admonishment that some funding would help there, too. But I had to 

get it started here. So thank you very much for that. 

Mr. Mori, or both of you from Cal State, one of the concerns we had with emergency 

credentialed teachers was that emergency credentialed teachers were allowed to stay in the system 

for many years. Even if you could hide out, if you were challenged, you could move on to another 

school within the district or another district. And then they lost track of you and you could spend 

another three or four years with kids when you were under certified, and I think, in many cases, just 

under qualified. 

 And I notice in the Kentucky discussion they talk about, if I understand it right, that they 

will be able to follow specific teaching and administrative candidates from program admission to 

program exit throughout their education careers, if they continue to be employed in Kentucky. 

 One of my concerns with the state board draft on highly qualified teachers was, there was a 

point of entry, but I didn't see the point of where it ended. And I am worried that we are now 

starting to accept preinterns and interns as euphemisms for emergency credentialed teachers, and 

enrollment in the program is enough, if the state board had their way. And I don't think they are 

going to have their way now, but if they had their way, that enrollment, in and of itself, sort of, you 

became highly qualified; you never had to finish. 

 Now, I read what you are talking about here in the Career Ladder Programs, that these all 

have conclusions to them; and that is a real concern I have. Because whether or not, when you 

think about developing highly qualified teachers, and I agree with what you said this morning, I 

want that high standard, I accept multiple pathways. But at the end of the day, the state is going to 
22

have to certify to the parents that this teacher is, in fact, a highly qualified standard as devised 

under federal law. 

 Can we get there with these programs, either one of you at Cal State? You work on a 

different aspect of it? 

Mr. Brandick. I should clarify; I am from the Los Angeles Unified School District. 

 I think no matter what you lay out as requirements for permits, there are always going to be 

certain ways people can drag this situation out longer. 

 The way that we have attacked it in my particular kind of program is the way that you select 

and recruit candidates to become teachers, because the people we have been selecting from the 

community, the paraeducators, the teacher assistants, they have been in the classroom, and they 

know about the job; and then, when they decide to become teachers, they are committed to that 

profession.

 We have had people that have been on emergency permit, but in two years they finish. And 

I think a big issue is that the problem is so large and we need so many people that we sometimes 

bring people in that aren't committed to becoming teachers, and they are always going to find a way 

to drag the situation out. Anyone who is committed to becoming a teacher is going to try and find 

the quickest path that they can to that certification. 

Mr. Miller. I am interested in whether or not LA Unified will be able to keep track of these people 

to see if, in fact, they have finished up? I understand there is a transition here, and I understand 

that we are saddled with a caseload that we inherited when we passed the law, but I can't accept 

that we are going to keep doing it the way we were doing it and keep lamenting the problem that 

was created. 

 The problem of 40,000 teachers in California was created because nobody was paying 

attention to what these people were doing. Some of these people were in the system a considerable 

period of time. Nobody bothered to ask them to move on and finish their work. 

Mr. Brandick. Congressman, in terms of keeping track of people, one of the things we are putting 

in place right now is all the data systems necessary to keep track of all the credentialing and the 

experiences of all the teachers that we have, all 40,000 current teachers in Los Angeles Unified.

Yes, we are keeping track of the teachers, and we are also doing everything we can to increase our 

district intern programs, our university intern programs, improve our preintern programs, and find 

other ways to get the people credentialed as quickly as we can. 

 So we are attacking it from a number of different angles. 

Mr. Miller. That is helpful. 

 I think when the committee had this under consideration, certainly when the president 

talked about this, the development of this data wasn't just to make work, it was so that this data 
23

could be used for cross-purposes. So, you know, as we look at the disaggregation of data of 

children, as we follow those children, we also want to know what teachers those children 

experienced during their career and whether they received the "value added" or not, or whether we 

now have to go back and maybe we have a weak link among these teachers. 

 It is about getting real-time data so you can attack the problem in real time, whether it is the 

data on how the student is performing or what their weaknesses or their strengths are, or whether it 

is about how this teacher is performing. 

 This isn't about trying to punish people. I mean, a lot of high stakes have been attached to 

all this. I am more interested in seeing if we can get to that person in real time, or help them with 

their skills whether they are a teacher or student. 

 And some people want to pretend that this is an attack on alternative credentialing. It is not.

It is about, how do you do it and maintain the high standards, so we don't repeat under another 

guise what we just went through in the last 15, 20 years with accepting levels of people who just 

aren't qualified to do the very best that we want for our children. 

 So I am encouraged by what you say. You tell the state board it is all-possible. I have 

already given them enough. 

Mr. Mori. I was particularly heartened by your comments to the state board, which I read in the 

Los Angeles Times, and the state board was trying to define its way out of a problem and using a 

definition to try to address a situation, which they know is critical. 

 And I would agree with Steve that we are working hard to address those issues; and the 

kinds of situations you described earlier of people bouncing around from district to district, that is 

about over now. And it is much more difficult to do that. 

 We are doing a better job tracking our students internally, the districts are doing a much 

better job; and my belief is that many of those problems are going to disappear. But the state board 

is going to have to face up to the problem, and it is going to have to say what a highly qualified 

teacher is. And we are going to have to work together to actually address the terrible shortfall of 

individuals like that in California, and, believe me, it is a real shortfall. 

Mr. Miller. Thank you. 

 Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having this hearing. 

Chairman McKeon. Thank you. And thank you for your little comments to the state board. I am 

also a Californian, and while we are from different sides of the aisle, we have worked very closely 

on this issue and are of a like mind that the students come first. Some way we have to get the job 

taken care of, and we have to look at a lot of new, creative things and ways to get that done. 

Mr. Ehlers. 
24

Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If you would like me to talk to the Board of Education in 

California, I would be happy to do it, too. 

 In response to Mr. Miller's comments, I agree with him that the emphasis should be on 

quality, because in my experience in working with teachers, both student and otherwise, I have 

seen some teachers without certificates who are highly qualified and also seen some unqualified 

teachers who have certificates. And I much prefer the use of the term "qualified," or perhaps even 

going beyond that, teachers who are "talented." I have also found huge differences in teachers 

from one classroom to another; and if you talk to the principals, they generally know who the good 

ones are and who the not-so-good ones are, but there is not a great deal they can do about it. 

 What I wanted is to address the comments of a fellow physicist, Mr. Holt. You have the 

good fortune of having a congressional panel that is 40 percent research physicists and 100 percent 

of the physicists in the Congress. 

Mr. Holt. If you want to call that good fortune. 

Mr. Ehlers. Oh, come on stick up for us. Everyone else is against us, Rush. 

 I want to follow up because in my work, I found that the greatest problem in schools of 

education were in those schools that had no contact whatsoever between the Department of 

Education and the academic departments, and I am very heartened to see that trend changing. For 

example, the University of Arizona is doing some outstanding work in this. We have two state 

universities in Michigan doing good work and there are some in Kansas. So the trend is changing. 

I think math and science education is the unwanted stepchild in many elementary school 

classrooms, and yet that is where the jobs of the future are. I tried to break that cycle as a professor 

of physics, and I became involved in elementary education in the college I was teaching at. Right 

now you have teachers who don't know math and science and are trying to teach math and science 

and generally not doing it that well, even though they really want to. 

 I found, in my experience, they want to, but they are afraid of the subject and they don't 

know how to teach it well. And you trace it back to their college career. They didn't have courses 

that were related to this. There was no correlation with the education department. I believe that is 

absolutely essential if we are going to break this cycle. 

 What I am particularly worried about is the culture of female students, and I have seen this 

over and over, who get the idea that they can't get science, they can't get math. And generally it is 

because they have a female teacher that says, well, I could never get it. We just have to address 

that problem. 

 I am wondering in the whole process of testing, evaluation, certification and so forth, how 

much attention is being paid today as to whether or not the universities and schools of education 

are addressing that problem and, in fact, are working with the academic departments. And I am not 

criticizing the schools of educational alone, because I have castigated the academic departments, 

the math and science departments equally for not wanting to participate. In most cases, they look 
25

with great disdain upon the education departments, the education department looks with disdain 

upon them, and nothing happens. 

 Is there some way to help break that cycle through the certification process, through the 

schools of education accreditation process? 

 And I appreciate any comments you would like to make on that. Mr. Cave. 

Mr. Cave. Kentucky has just recently received word that it has been funded under the Teacher 

Quality Enhancement Grant Program, and a major focus of our funding for that will be an effort to 

get colleges or teacher education institutions to come on board; and I think all of them will. And 

they will come on board to do a curriculum alignment of all courses that prospective teachers will 

be taking at those colleges and universities, be they in their specialty area or in education. 

 That curriculum alignment will be aligned in three ways. It will be aligned with our new 

teacher standards in Kentucky, and our new teacher standards in Kentucky are aligned with the 

standards of the learned societies for teacher educators like the National Science Teachers 

Association, the American Chemical Society, and the curriculum will be aligned with the content 

that is covered in the content that is covered in our ETS test for that specialty area. 

Mr. Cave. And, finally, those curriculums will be aligned with some of the testing that is done in 

those courses, to be similar in style and format to the way the practice test is given. And I think 

those three things that we are going to do in Kentucky, using the enhancement grant, will do a lot 

to help us really cement that cooperation between colleges and education and the arts and science 

colleges, and do a great, great service to the State of Kentucky in improving the quality of teacher 

education.

Mr. Ehlers. Well, that is good news. 

 Before we have other comments, let me correct the record. I think I said the University of 

Arizona. I should have said Arizona State University, and I ask that the record be corrected to 

show that before I get 10,000 letters from Arizona State University. 

 Any other comments anyone wants to make on this? 

Mr. Mori. Congressman, I would like to say that for colleges of education that were accredited 

initially by organizations like NCADE that kind of cooperation you spoke about has existed for a 

long time. And colleges of education and faculty and the disciplines work together to strengthen 

subject matter, understanding and knowledge. Recent changes in California now require that as 

well. So all institutions, at least in California, whether they are nationally accredited or not, had to 

redesign the subject matter portion of the preparation for people seeking elementary teaching 

credentials. And what it did do was, of course, now it is all standards-based, outcomes-based, but it 

did strengthen in substantial ways math content and science content, both. 

 Now, we have been doing that for a long time. I am pleased to say we had increased the 

amount, the number of math courses and science courses that elementary teachers had to take 
26

before they ever got to taking the courses in teaching methods. And, of course, we do those side by 

side; as I mentioned earlier, they are taken concurrently so faculty members in science and math 

work with professors in education who are teaching math as experts, so that the way in which 

people are taught science has that real-world application piece to it. 

Mr. Ehlers. And is this true of elementary education, as well as secondary? Because my 

experience is that most schools do have a good program cooperating on the secondary education 

training, but not on the elementary. 

Mr. Mori. And I was speaking to elementary. And so that is, of course, I would agree with you, at 

the secondary level, it probably happened a long time ago and elementary is more recent. But 

clearly it is happening there. 

Mr. Ehlers. Okay. Anyone else wish to comment? 

Mr. Brandick. Dr. Mori did refer to the elementary, and standards there help with that; but the 

secondary, there is the issue of finding the recruits that would be going into science and math 

education. There is the Transition to Teaching Federal grants, we have one called Project Master, 

and they are promising. But it appears that people that come from other professions may or may 

not become very good teachers. And from my perspective, it would be wonderful if we could have 

at the secondary level teachers being assisted by paraeducators in math and science classrooms, and 

those people would become the candidates to become math and science teachers, and you would 

have people who would be already deciding. 

 Because a big issue with math and sciences, we are always looking for people to change 

careers. They did not quite make it into med school, but maybe they could be a science teacher. 

They did not become an engineer; maybe they could be a math teacher. And what I would like to 

see is people deciding in high school or earlier in their college career that they want to teach math 

and they want to teach science in high school and secondary. 

 And we could use the same idea with the paraeducator career ladder to identify and prepare 

math and science teachers early on. 

Mr. Ehlers. The biggest problem, I think, there is the salaries after they get out. And I have been 

arguing for some time that we live in a market economy and every sector of the economy, other 

than the schools, you meet the competition. You cannot expect to get good math and science 

teachers in the schools for half the amount they can earn elsewhere. They are willing to work for 

less money, but not 50 percent of what they can get elsewhere. And so I think it is essential to 

increase the compensation for them all, assuming that they are good teachers. 

 I have taken too much of my time already. 

 Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your leeway. 

Chairman McKeon. I was wondering when you would see that red light there. 
27

Mr. Ehlers. That is what happens when you have been a teacher as long as I have. You do not 

quit unless the bell rings. 

Chairman McKeon. I want to thank all of our witnesses for being here today, for your valuable 

time; and as we go through the process of reauthorizing the Higher Education Act in the next 

Congress, I would encourage you to be involved with us. 

 We have set up a Web site and we have asked for input. If you would log onto that and 

send something to us, then you will be in the chain as we have items that we are dealing with, and 

we will keep you informed. And I would encourage you to do that. 

 There is no further business now. The subcommittee stands adjourned. 

 [Whereupon, at 3:20 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107

TABLE OF INDEXES 

Chairman McKeon, 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 23, 26, 27 

Mr. Brandick, 13, 22, 26 

Mr. Castle, 3 

Mr. Cave, 4, 10, 17, 25 

Mr. Ehlers, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 

Mr. Holt, 17, 18, 19, 24 

Mr. Isakson, 19, 20 

Mr. Landgraf, 8, 18 

Mr. Miller, 20, 22, 23 

Mr. Mori, 11, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25, 26 

Mr. Tierney, 2, 5 

Ms. Ashby, 5, 6, 16