U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

86–746 PDF 2016

EXPLORING EFFORTS TO STRENGTHEN THE 

TEACHING PROFESSION 

JOINT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EARLY CHILDHOOD, 

ELEMENTARY, AND SECONDARY EDUCATION 

AND THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION AND 

WORKFORCE TRAINING 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION 

AND THE WORKFORCE 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, FEBRUARY 27, 2014 

Serial No. 113–47 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: 

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/committee.action?chamber=house&committee=education 

or 

Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota, Chairman 

Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin 

Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon, California 

Joe Wilson, South Carolina 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

Tom Price, Georgia 

Kenny Marchant, Texas 

Duncan Hunter, California 

David P. Roe, Tennessee 

Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania 

Tim Walberg, Michigan 

Matt Salmon, Arizona 

Brett Guthrie, Kentucky 

Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee 

Todd Rokita, Indiana 

Larry Bucshon, Indiana 

Trey Gowdy, South Carolina 

Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania 

Joseph J. Heck, Nevada 

Susan W. Brooks, Indiana 

Richard Hudson, North Carolina 

Luke Messer, Indiana 

George Miller, California, 

Senior Democratic Member 

Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, Virginia 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Carolyn McCarthy, New York 

John F. Tierney, Massachusetts 

Rush Holt, New Jersey 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Timothy H. Bishop, New York 

David Loebsack, Iowa 

Joe Courtney, Connecticut 

Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio 

Jared Polis, Colorado 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, 

Northern Mariana Islands 

Frederica S. Wilson, Florida 

Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon 

Mark Pocan, Wisconsin 

Juliane Sullivan, Staff Director 

Jody Calemine, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EARLY CHILDHOOD,ELEMENTARY, AND SECONDARY 

EDUCATION 

TODD ROKITA, Indiana, Chairman 

John Kline, Minnesota 

Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

Kenny Marchant, Texas 

Duncan Hunter, California 

David P. Roe, Tennessee 

Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania 

Susan W. Brooks, Indiana 

Carolyn McCarthy, New York, 

Ranking Minority Member 

Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, Virginia 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio 

Jared Polis, Colorado 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, 

Northern Mariana Islands 

Mark Pocan, Wisconsin 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE TRAINING 

VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina, Chairwoman 

Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin 

Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon, California 

Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania 

Tim Walberg, Michigan 

Matt Salmon, Arizona 

Brett Guthrie, Kentucky 

Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania 

Joseph J. Heck, Nevada 

Susan W. Brooks, Indiana 

Richard Hudson, North Carolina 

Luke Messer, Indiana 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Ranking Minority Member 

John F. Tierney, Massachusetts 

Timothy H. Bishop, New York 

Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon 

Carolyn McCarthy, New York 

Rush Holt, New Jersey 

Susan A. Davis, California 

David Loebsack, Iowa 

Frederica S. Wilson, Florida 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on February 27, 2014 ....................................................................... 1 

Statement of Members: 

Foxx, Hon. Virginia, Chairwoman, Subcommittee On Higher Education 

and Workforce Training ............................................................................... 5 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 6 

Hinojosa, Hon. Rube ́n, Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on 

Higher Education and Workforce Training ................................................ 9 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 10 

Polis, Hon. Jared, a Representative in Congress from the State of Colorado ................................................................................................................ 7 

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

Rokita, Hon. Todd, Chairman, Subcommittee On Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education ............................................................. 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 4 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Gist, Deborah,A., Dr., Commissioner, Rhode Island Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, Providence, RI ................................... 11 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 14 

Hall, Christina, Co-Founder and Co-Director, Urban Teacher Center, Baltimore, MD .................................................................................................... 41 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 43 

Peske, Heather, G., Dr., Associate Commissioner for Educator Quality, 

Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, 

Malden, MA, .................................................................................................. 31 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 34 

Singer-Gabella, Marcy, Dr., Professor of The Practice of Education, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN ................................................................ 20 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 23 

Additional Submissions: 

Mr. Davis: 

American Psychological Association, prepared statement of ................. 73 

Mr. Hinojosa: 

Association of Texas Professional Educators ATPE, prepared statement of .................................................................................................... 78 

Chairman Rokita questions submitted for the record to: 

Dr. Gist ....................................................................................................... 84 

Ms. Hall ...................................................................................................... 86 

Peske .......................................................................................................... 88 

Dr. Singer-Gabella ..................................................................................... 90 

Response to questions submitted: 

Dr. Gist ....................................................................................................... 92 

Ms. Hall ...................................................................................................... 97 

Dr. Peske .................................................................................................... 102 

Dr. Singer-Gabella ..................................................................................... 105 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

(1) 

EXPLORING EFFORTS TO STRENGTHEN THE 

TEACHING PROFESSION 

Thursday, February 27, 2014 

U.S. House of Representatives, 

Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, 

and Secondary Education, 

joint with 

Subcommittee on Higher Education and 

Workforce Training 

Committee on Education and the Workforce, 

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in Room 

2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Todd Rokita [chairman 

of the Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education subcommittee] presiding. 

Present from Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education subcommittee: Representatives Rokita, Kline, Foxx, Roe, 

Brooks, Scott, Davis, Polis, and Pocan. 

Present from Higher Education and Workforce Training subcommittee: Representatives Foxx, Walberg, Salmon, Guthrie, 

Brooks, Hudson, Messer, Bonamici, Davis, and Wilson. 

Staff present: Janelle Belland, Coalitions and Members Services 

Coordinator; James Bergeron, Director of Education and Human 

Services Policy; Lindsay Fryer, Professional Staff Member; Amy 

Raaf Jones, Deputy Director of Education and Human Services Policy; Nancy Locke, Chief Clerk; Daniel Murner, Press Assistant; 

Krisann Pearce, General Counsel; Jenny Prescott, Legislative Assistant; Dan Shorts, Legislative Assistant; Alex Sollberger, Communications Director; Alissa Strawcutter, Deputy Clerk; Brad 

Thomas, Senior Education Policy Advisor; Tylease Alli, Minority 

Clerk/Intern and Fellow Coordinator; Jeremy Ayers, Minority Education Policy Advisor; Kelly Broughan, Minority Education Policy 

Associate; Jody Calemine, Minority Staff Director; Jamie Fasteau, 

Minority Director of Education Policy; Scott Groginsky, Minority 

Education Policy Advisor; Julia Krahe, Minority Communications 

Director; Brian Levin, Minority Deputy Press Secretary/New Media 

Coordinator; Megan O’Reilly, Minority General Counsel; and Michael Zola, Minority Deputy Staff Director. 

Chairman ROKITA. Finding a quorum present, the subcommittee 

will come to order. Good morning, and welcome to today’s joint subcommittee hearing. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

2 

I would like to thank our witnesses for being here to help us examine ways we can work together to encourage better teachers in 

our nation’s schools. 

I would like to thank my colleague from North Carolina, Dr. 

Foxx, the chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Higher Education 

and Workforce Training, for agreeing to hold this joint hearing on 

‘‘Exploring Efforts to Strengthen the Teaching Profession.’’ 

Today we will have opening statements from the chairmen and 

the ranking members of each subcommittee. 

And with that, I recognize myself for my opening statement. 

Ladies and gentlemen, research has confirmed that teachers 

have an enormous influence on student learning and performance. 

Outside of their parents, teachers are often the single greatest influence on students’ ability to build the best possible life for themselves. 

Whether as a parent or in our own school days, many of us have 

had the fortune to witness firsthand the impact of a truly exceptional educator and what effect the educator can have on a child’s 

life. Effective teachers can motivate students to explore the unknown, think critically, and challenge expectations. Because we 

fight not only for our children, but for all people so that they can 

build better lives for themselves and their families, we must also 

find ways to see that teachers achieve greater success. 

Most educators earn a degree from an education program at a 

traditional 4-year college or university. After obtaining the degree 

the prospective teachers must then pass the state licensure or certification exams to become eligible to teach in that state. As the 

chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training will explain in her remarks, far too many teacher 

preparation programs, also known as ‘‘teacher colleges,’’ are underperforming and failing to ensure new educators are ready for success in the classroom. 

States play a major role in improving teacher quality and preparation, as they have authority over the licensure and certification 

requirements. Recognizing teacher preparation programs aren’t 

making the grade, some states have proactively raised teacher 

preparation program standards and taken steps to tie teacher effectiveness to license renewal. 

In Rhode Island, for example, the state board of education recently strengthened admission criteria and implemented policies to 

hold novice teachers accountable for improving student achievement. Additionally, the state has forged valuable partnerships with 

local school districts to better align pre-service training with the 

needs of today’s students. We will learn more about the efforts underway at the state level from our witness, Dr. Deborah Gist—is 

that right? Okay, thank you—commissioner of the Rhode Island 

Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. 

We also have with us today Ms. Christina Hall from the Urban 

Teacher Center, an alternative certification program based in Baltimore. These programs allow individuals who already have a postsecondary degree and work experience to earn certification to teach 

without completing a traditional teacher education program. 

Alternative certification programs have become increasingly popular in recent years, particularly with the release of studies conCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

3 

firming alternatively certified educators are just as effective as traditionally certified teachers. Additionally, the alternative routes 

help districts address educator shortages quickly and more efficiently, helping to ensure more students have access to good teachers, and isn’t that the point? 

The House Education and Workforce Committee has also been 

working to encourage more effective educators. Last year we successfully advanced the Student Success Act, legislation to revamp 

federal K–12 education law that includes a number of key provisions affecting teachers. 

First, the Student Success Act eliminates the antiquated, quote— 

‘‘highly qualified teacher,’’ unquote, or HQT, provision that values 

an educator’s degrees or credentials over his or her ability to motivate students in the classroom. States, school districts, and teachers have criticized this policy for years and it is past time we got 

rid of it. 

Second, the legislation includes language to support state or 

school district efforts to develop unique teacher evaluation systems, 

helping ensure educators can be fairly judged on their ability to 

raise student achievement. 

Finally, the Student Success Act also consolidates most of the 

teacher quality programs in current K–12 education law into a 

Teacher and School Leader Flexible Grant. The new grant program 

also absorbs some of the ideas behind the Teacher Quality Partnership Grant program under the Higher Education Act. 

The Teacher and School Leader Flexible Grant supports creative 

approaches to recruit and retain effective teachers and grants districts the authority to partner with higher education institutions 

and other organizations to improve teacher and school leader prep 

programs. Additionally, states, alone or in partnership with state 

agencies of higher education, can use these funds under the grant 

program to reform teacher certification, recertification, and licensing; improve state teacher preparation programs; or improve alternate certification programs. 

But we must not rely exclusively on our teachers, for many are 

asked to do far too much. That is why the Student Success Act empowers local communities and states with the authority to find 

their own solutions. 

For example, in Indiana’s 4th District Gary Henriott, of the 

Henriott Group, and Steve Horne, a volunteer with the United Way 

in Lafayette, who are both in attendance today as part of the 

Greater Lafayette Chamber of Commerce’s annual fly-in, have led 

an enormously successful school reading program, called Read to 

Succeed, that brings business and community leaders into schools 

where they not only read and teach students but provide valuable 

mentorship for our young people. 

One-size-fits-all programs will inevitably limit these sort of dynamic educational efforts that at their core are supporting children, 

teachers, and our communities at large. 

Together the policies in the Student Success Act will encourage 

states to implement strategies that will help get better teachers, 

strengthen families, and enrich communities. Unfortunately, this 

critical legislation to revamp the nation’s K–12 system has been 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

4 

awaiting Senate consideration for several months now. It sits on 

Senator Reid’s desk. 

Once again, I urge the Senate to bring education reform legislation up for a vote as soon as possible. Our children deserve a better 

education law and they deserve the greatest opportunity to build 

better lives for themselves. 

With that, I will now yield to my distinguished colleague, Higher 

Education and Workforce Training Subcommittee Chairman Virginia Foxx, for her opening remarks. 

[The statement of Chairman Rokita follows:] 

Research has confirmed teachers have an enormous influence on student learning 

and performance. Outside of their parents, teachers are often the single greatest influence on students’ ability to build the best possible life for themselves. Whether 

as a parent or in our own school days, many of us have had the fortune to witness 

firsthand the impact a truly exceptional educator can have on a child’s life. Effective 

teachers can motivate students to explore the unknown, think critically, and challenge expectations. Because we fight, not only for our children, but for all people, 

so they can build better lives for themselves and their families, we must also find 

ways to see teachers achieve greater success. 

Most educators earn a degree from an education program at a traditional fouryear college or university. After obtaining the degree, the prospective teachers must 

then pass the state licensure or certification exams to become eligible to teach in 

that state. As the Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training will explain in her remarks, far too many teacher preparation programs – also known as ‘teacher colleges’- are underperforming, failing to ensure new 

educators are ready for success in the classroom. 

States play a major role in improving teacher quality and preparation, as they 

have authority over the licensure and certification requirements. Recognizing teacher preparation programs aren’t making the grade, some states have proactively 

raised teacher preparation program standards, and taken steps to tie teacher effectiveness to license renewal. 

In Rhode Island, for example, the state board of education recently strengthened 

admission criteria and implemented policies to hold novice teachers accountable for 

improving student achievement. Additionally the state has forged valuable partnerships with local school districts to better align pre-service training with the needs 

of today’s students. We will learn more about the efforts underway at the state level 

from our witness, Dr. Deborah Gist, Commissioner of the Rhode Island Department 

of Elementary and Secondary Education. 

We also have with us today Ms. Christina Hall from the Urban Teacher Center, 

an alternative certification program based in Baltimore. These programs allow individuals who already have a postsecondary degree and work experience to earn certification to teach without completing a traditional teacher education program. 

Alternative certification programs have become increasingly popular in recent 

years, particularly with the release of studies confirming alternatively certified educators are just as effective as traditionally certified teachers. Additionally, the alternative routes help districts address educator shortages quickly and more efficiently, 

helping to ensure more students have access to good teachers. 

The House Education and the Workforce Committee has also been working to encourage more effective educators. Last year, we successfully advanced the Student 

Success Act, legislation to revamp federal K–12 education law that includes a number of key provisions affecting teachers. 

First, the Student Success Act eliminates the antiquated ‘‘Highly Qualified Teacher,’’ or HQT, provision that values an educator’s degrees or credentials over his or 

her ability to motivate students in the classroom. States, school districts, and teachers have criticized the policy for years, and it is past time we got rid of it. 

Second, the legislation includes language to support state or school district efforts 

to develop unique teacher evaluation systems, helping ensure educators can be fairly judged on their ability to raise student achievement. 

Finally, the Student Success Act also consolidates most of the teacher quality programs in current K–12 education law into a Teacher and School Leader Flexible 

Grant. The new grant program also absorbed some of the ideas behind the Teacher 

Quality Partnership grant program under the Higher Education Act. 

The Teacher and School Leader Flexible Grant supports creative approaches to recruit and retain effective teachers, and grants districts the authority to partner with 

higher education institutions and other organizations to improve teacher and school 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

5 

leader preparation programs. Additionally, states – alone or in partnership with 

state agencies of higher education – can use funds under the grant program to reform teacher certification, recertification and licensing; improve state teacher preparation programs; or improve alternative certification programs. 

But we must not rely exclusively on our teachers, for many are asked to do far 

too much. That is why the Student Success Act empowers local communities and 

states with the authority to find their own solutions. For example in Indiana’s 4th 

District, Gary Henriott, of the Henriott Group, and Steve Horne, a volunteer with 

the United Way in Lafayette, Indiana, who are both in attendance today as part 

of the Greater Lafayette Chamber of Commerce’s annual fly-in, have led an enormously successful school reading program, called Read to Succeed, that brings business and community leaders in to schools where they not only read and teach students but provide valuable mentorship for our young people. 

One size fits all programs will inevitably limit these sort of dynamic educational 

efforts that, at their core, are supporting children, teachers, and our communities 

at large. 

Together the policies in the Student Success Act will encourage states to implement strategies that will help get better teachers, strengthen families, and enrich 

communities. Unfortunately, this critical legislation to revamp the nation’s K–12 

system has been awaiting Senate consideration for several months now. Once again, 

I urge the Senate to bring education reform legislation up for a vote as soon as possible. Our children deserve a better education law, and they deserve the greatest 

opportunity possible to build better lives for themselves. 

Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Chairman Rokita. 

Good morning and welcome. 

I thank our panel of witnesses for joining us for today’s joint subcommittee hearing on strengthening the teaching profession. We 

look forward to your testimony. 

So often teachers are unfairly blamed for the problems in our nation’s schools. I had many excellent teachers throughout my education and have known many exceptional teachers since then. In 

fact, my own experience highlights the difference a good teacher 

and educational opportunity can make in the life of a student. 

While we will take an honest look at teacher preparation programs today, I want to commend the hardworking individuals on 

the front lines of education every day. I believe I speak for most 

if not all of my colleagues here today when I say there is an urgent 

need to address the sad state of teacher preparation programs in 

this country. 

According to the National Council of Teacher Quality’s 2013 

Teacher Prep Review, teacher preparation programs at American 

colleges and universities, quote—‘‘have become an industry of mediocrity, churning out first-year teachers with classroom management skills and content knowledge inadequate to thrive in classrooms with ever-increasing ethnic and socioeconomic student diversity.’’ The scathing report details myriad problems within teacher 

preparation systems, including overly lenient admissions policies, 

outdated coursework, and a severe lack of hands-on classroom experience. 

In a piece for the Wall Street Journal, education consultant Harold Kwalwasser and Napa County Superintendent, Dr. Barbara 

Nemko echoed the National Council of Teacher Quality’s findings, 

stating, quote—‘‘Too often these future educators learn to ’teach’ 

math but they don’t necessarily learn how to do the math itself,’’ 

end quote. 

Without strong teacher preparation programs we cannot make 

real progress in our efforts to improve K–12 schools, raise graduaCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

6 

tion rates, and help more children get on the path to a successful 

future. It is time to shine a bright light on the problems with 

teacher preparation as we examine ways school districts, postsecondary institutions, organizations, and states are working together 

to challenge the status quo. 

Chairman Rokita has already discussed ways states and school 

districts are working to bring more effective teachers into the classroom and reviewed our efforts in the Student Success Act to support state and local efforts to recruit, hire, and retain better teachers. 

On the postsecondary level, four institutions have earned national recognition for their efforts to strengthen the teaching profession. Rigorous coursework, high academic standards, and extensive hands-on experience at The Ohio State University, Lipscomb 

University, Furman University, and Vanderbilt University have 

earned these institutions’ teacher preparation programs high 

marks from the National Council on Teacher Quality. 

We are fortunate to have Dr. Marcy Singer-Gabella from 

Vanderbilt’s Peabody College with us today to describe the institution’s efforts to ensure students graduate ready to move to the 

front of the classroom. 

As the committee continues to prepare for the reauthorization of 

the Higher Education Act, reducing regulatory burdens on higher 

education institutions remains a top priority. Like most postsecondary programs, teacher colleges are overwhelmed with reporting 

requirements, few of which have any real bearing on the quality of 

teachers produced by the programs. 

While we agree on the need to strengthen data collection under 

the law, we must make sure the right kind of data is collected to 

provide helpful information. I look forward to continuing conversations with my colleagues on ways to help states and schools report 

useful, timely information for policymakers, states, districts, institutions, prospective teachers, and the public. We also must ensure 

federally mandated reporting requirements do not create additional 

burdens or hinder the good work already underway. 

We must also continue monitoring actions by the Obama administration that would increase federal overreach and limit innovation in postsecondary education, especially with regard to the 

teaching profession. I remain concerned about the direction of the 

administration’s spring 2012 negotiated rulemaking session, which 

did not result in consensus among participants. 

Though the regulations have yet to be released, I am wary of any 

new federal dictates on teacher preparation programs, program 

quality, and teacher effectiveness. These responsibilities are best 

left to states and institutions, not federal bureaucrats. 

Once again, I would like to thank our witnesses for joining us 

today. We look forward to learning your views on strengthening the 

teaching profession. 

And with that, I yield back. 

[The statement of Chairwoman Foxx follows:] 

So often teachers are unfairly blamed for the problems in our nation’s school. I 

had excellent teachers throughout my education and know many exceptional teachers. In fact, my own experience highlights the difference a good teacher and educational opportunity can make in the life of a student. While we will take an honest 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

7 

look at teacher preparation programs today, I want to commend the hardworking 

individuals on the frontlines of education every day. 

I believe I speak for most, if not all, of my colleagues here today when I say there 

is an urgent need to address the sad state of teacher preparation programs in this 

country. According to the National Council of Teacher Quality’s 2013 Teacher Prep 

Review, teacher preparation programs at American colleges and universities ‘‘have 

become an industry of mediocrity, churning out first-year teachers with classroom 

management skills and content knowledge inadequate to thrive in classrooms with 

ever-increasing ethnic and socioeconomic student diversity.’’ 

The scathing report details myriad problems within teacher preparation systems, 

including overly-lenient admissions policies, outdated coursework, and a severe lack 

of hands-on classroom experience. In a piece for the Wall Street Journal, education 

consultant Harold Kwalwasser and Napa County Superintendent Dr. Barbara 

Nemko echoed the National Council of Teacher Quality’s findings, stating, ‘‘Too 

often, these future educators learn to ‘teach’ math, but they don’t necessarily learn 

how to do the math itself.’’ 

Without strong teacher preparation programs, we cannot make real progress in 

our efforts to improve K–12 schools, raise graduation rates, and help more children 

get on the path to a successful future. It is time to shine a bright light on the problems with teacher preparation as we examine ways school districts, postsecondary 

institutions, organizations, and states are working together to challenge the status 

quo. 

Chairman Rokita has already discussed ways states and school districts are working to bring more effective teachers into the classroom, and reviewed our efforts in 

the Student Success Act to support state and local efforts to recruit, hire, and retain 

better educators. 

On the postsecondary level, four institutions have earned national recognition for 

their efforts to strengthen the teaching profession. Rigorous coursework, high academic standards, and extensive hands-on experience at The Ohio State University, 

Lipscomb University, Furman University, and Vanderbilt University have earned 

these institutions’ teacher preparation programs high marks from the National 

Council on Teacher Quality. We are fortunate to have Dr. Marcy Singler-Garbella 

from Vanderbilt’s Peabody College with us today to describe the institution’s efforts 

to ensure students graduate ready to move to the front of the classroom. 

As the committee continues to prepare for the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, reducing regulatory burdens on higher education institutions remains a 

top priority. Like most postsecondary programs, teacher colleges are overwhelmed 

with reporting requirements, few of which have any real bearing on the quality of 

teachers produced by the programs. 

While we agree on the need to strengthen data collection under the law, we must 

make sure the right kind of data is collected to provide helpful information. I look 

forward to continuing conversations with my colleagues on ways to help states and 

schools report useful, timely information for policymakers, states, districts, institutions, prospective teachers, and the public. We also must ensure federally mandated 

reporting requirements do not create additional burdens or hinder the good work 

already underway. 

We must also continue monitoring actions by the Obama administration that 

would increase federal overreach and limit innovation in postsecondary education, 

especially with regard to the teaching profession. I remain concerned about the direction of the administration’s spring 2012 negotiated rulemaking session, which did 

not result in consensus among participants. Though the regulations have yet to be 

released, I am wary of any new federal dictates on teacher preparation programs, 

program quality, and teacher effectiveness. These responsibilities are best left to 

states and institutions, not federal bureaucrats. 

Chairman ROKITA. Thank you, Dr. Foxx. 

I now yield to my distinguished colleague from Colorado, Mr. 

Jared Polis, for his opening remarks. 

Mr. POLIS. I thank the chair. I am thrilled that the committee 

has called this important hearing. 

Not only does our own personal experience highlight the importance of our own teachers that we had and that I had growing up, 

and common sense indicates that the most important factor is a 

teacher in the classroom, but the data bears out that there is no 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

8 

more important school-level factor that influences a child’s education than the quality of the teacher that they have. 

On day one our teachers need to enter the classroom with the 

skills, the knowledge they need to succeed. We need to make sure 

we prepare teachers for success, that they are evaluated fairly, that 

they are compensated well, and that they have working conditions 

that allow them to thrive in helping their students achieve. 

Unfortunately, our system for preparing teachers today is hit or 

miss and systemically is falling short of ensuring that we have 

enough quality teachers to enter particularly the classrooms that 

serve our most at-risk kids. According to a recent study of schools 

of education, almost two-thirds of recent school of education alumni 

reported that schools of education at 4-year colleges did not adequately prepare them to enter the classroom on day one. 

Students in high-poverty schools are twice as likely to be assigned new teachers. This means our most vulnerable students 

often bear the brunt of a system that fails to consistently prepare 

high-quality teachers to enter the classroom. 

But there is good news, as well. We can and we are doing better. 

Across the country innovative teacher preparation programs like 

the Urban Teaching Center, the Relay Graduate School of Education, and the Match Teacher Residency program are breaking the 

traditional classroom model, partnering with school districts, 

prioritizing practice and coaching instead of theory, and demonstrating that the first-year teacher does not need to learn 

through failure. 

That is why I have introduced the bipartisan GREAT Act, along 

with Congressman Petri, which would encourage the growth of 

teachers and principal academies, which are held accountable for 

high standards in exchange for being free from burdensome inputbased regulations that are unrelated to student achievement. It is 

our hope that these academies open up the profession of teaching 

to people who otherwise might not choose to enter it, as well as ensure that graduates of the academies are ready to be excellent 

teachers on day one. 

These programs use video to emulate best practices, allow novice 

teachers to learn from mentors and professors who themselves are 

experts, and recommend students for licensure based not on seat 

time but on proven results. These innovations are already leading 

to improved student outcomes as well as increased teacher retention and morale. Unfortunately, many of these programs are unable to offer federal financial aid because they are not able to make 

it through the current burdensome, costly accreditation process 

that focuses more on inputs than outcomes and hasn’t changed in 

recent history. 

On the state level, the Council of Chief State School Officers has 

partnered with seven states to adopt bold reform measures in 

teacher preparation and licensure. These and other states are taking a comprehensive approach to improve their human capital pipelines for teachers by raising the bar on teacher preparation and 

performance across all programs. 

It is important for states and for the federal government to support innovation and reform in the field of teacher preparation. We 

need to ensure that transparency exists and remove the Higher 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

9 

Education Act’s onerous input-based reporting requirements, but 

focus on outcomes to ensure that success is rewarded. 

We have a crucial role to play in ensuring that meaningful data 

exists, is collected, is analyzed, that teacher preparation programs 

are held accountable, and to promote best practices in the field. 

Doing so in preparation programs requires restructuring of data 

systems to ensure that teacher performance can be tracked back to 

programs—17 states already have the ability to do that. We also 

need to ensure that high-quality induction and mentoring experiences are available when teachers enter the classroom. 

I look forward to hearing from our esteemed witnesses about 

their experiences and perspectives on improving the teaching profession and investing in our future—America’s children. 

[The statement of Mr. Polis follows:] 

I am very glad that the Committee has called this important hearing. There is 

no more important school-level factor influencing our children’s education than the 

quality of our teaching force. 

On day one, our teachers need to enter the classroom with the skills and knowledge they need to succeed. Unfortunately, our system for preparing teachers is falling short. 

According to a leading study of schools of education, almost two-thirds of education school alumni reported that schools of education at four-year colleges did not 

adequately prepare them for the classroom. 

Moreover, students in high-poverty and high-minority schools are twice as likely 

to be assigned to new teachers. This means our most vulnerable students are bearing the brunt of a system that fails to consistently prepare high-quality educators. 

We can do better. Across the country, innovative teacher preparation programs, 

like the Urban Teacher Center, the Relay Graduate School of Education, and 

MATCH Teacher Residency, are breaking the traditional classroom model, 

partnering with K–12 school districts, prioritizing practice and coaching instead of 

theory, and demonstrating that the first year teacher does not need to learn through 

failure. 

These programs use video to emulate best practices, allow novice teachers to learn 

from professors who are themselves expert educators, and recommend students for 

licensure based on mastery, not ‘‘seat time.’’ These innovations have lead to improved student outcomes and increased teacher retention. 

Unfortunately, many of these programs are unable to offer federal financial aid 

because they are not able to make it through a burdensome, costly accreditation 

process that focuses more on inputs than outcomes like teacher performance, job 

placement, and retention. 

On the state level, the Council of Chief State School Officers has partnered with 

seven states to adopt bold reform measures in teacher preparation and licensure. 

These and other states are taking a comprehensive approach to improve their 

human capital pipelines by raising the bar on teacher preparation program performance. 

It is important for states and for the federal government to support innovation 

and reform in the field of teacher preparation. We need to remove the Higher Education Act’s onerous input-based reporting requirements, and focus on outcomes. 

We have a crucial role to play in collecting meaningful data on program results, 

holding teacher preparation programs accountable, and promoting best practices in 

the field. 

Doing so requires increasing the selectivity of who enrolls in preparation programs, restructuring data systems to ensure that teacher performance can track 

back to programs, which 17 states currently have the ability to do, and ensuring 

that teachers have high-quality induction and mentoring experiences when they 

enter the classroom. 

I look forward to hearing from our esteemed witnesses about their experiences 

and perspectives on improving the teaching profession and investing in America’s 

future – our children. 

Mr. POLIS. I would also like to ask unanimous consent to submit 

Chairman Hinojosa’s statement to the record? 

[The statement of Mr. Hinojosa follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

10 

Thank you, Representative Polis. 

Today’s hearing will focus on efforts to strengthen the teaching profession. As 

Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training, I believe that all students should have access to outstanding teachers. Research 

clearly shows that the most important factor in the education of a child is teacher 

quality, followed by school leadership. 

Along the same lines, it is also critical to recruit and train exemplary teachers 

who reflect the rich cultural and linguistic diversity of the student population and 

local community that they serve. 

Improving the quality of the teaching profession is key to student success, but we 

know that it begins with teacher preparation programs, before teachers actually 

enter the classroom. 

In my view, the federal government, states, and institutions can do more to improve the quality of teacher preparation programs and ensure that they are adequately funded. 

To begin, federal policy on teacher preparation is limited and not well-funded. 

Title II of the Higher Education Act (HEA) provides a mere $40 million per year 

and requires states to report on basic aspects of their teacher preparation programs, 

but places few requirements on them. Federal policy can help states reform and improve their teacher preparation programs. HEA requirements can shift the focus on 

outcomes and help teacher preparation program improve. 

For example, H.R. 2172, the ‘‘Educator Preparation Reform Act,’’ a bill sponsored 

by my colleague, Representative Mike Honda, would help to improve the quality of 

teaching in high need schools by reforming and strengthening accountability of educator preparation programs as well as support partnerships to meet the needs of 

educators and educational leaders. 

As a proud cosponsor of the bill, I would like to see improvements to the Teacher 

Quality 

Partnership Grants Program in Title II of the Higher Education Act. 

Finally, I want to underscore what is quite obvious in to us in my home state of 

Texas: American public schools have and will continue to become increasingly diverse. Students of color in Texas already comprise the majority of the state’s public 

school enrollments. As a result, teacher diversity must be a central part of this discussion. 

In 2013, the Equity and Excellence Commission’s report, entitled ‘‘For Each and 

Every Child’’ provided a number of recommendations to Secretary of Education Arne 

Duncan to address the teacher quality pipeline. 

With regard to teacher diversity, I am pleased that the commission highlighted 

the importance of this issue. 

In particular, the Commission called on teacher training and professional development programs to be tailored to meet the needs of today’s contemporary classrooms, 

where students of color, low-income students and students learning English as a 

second language are increasingly the majority. 

The commission also recommended that states recruit and retain excellent multilingual teachers and teachers of color. 

In closing, I look forward to hearing from our distinguished panelists on how our 

nation can strengthen the teaching profession and improve student success for all. 

Thank you! 

Chairman ROKITA. Without objection. And thank you, Mr. Polis. 

I now would like to say for the record, pursuant to committee 

rule 7(c) all subcommittee members will be permitted to submit 

written statements to be included in the permanent hearing record. 

And without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 14 

days to allow statements, questions for the record, and other extraneous material referenced during the hearing to be submitted into 

the official record. 

It is now my pleasure to introduce our distinguished panel of witnesses. 

Again, we have joining us this morning Dr. Deborah Gist. She is 

the commissioner of the Rhode Island Department of Elementary 

and Secondary Education. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

11 

Before coming to Rhode Island she served as the first state superintendent of education for the District of Columbia. She also 

serves as a founding member of Chiefs for Change. 

We also have with us this morning Dr. Marcy Singer-Gabella. 

She is a professor and associate chair for teacher education in the 

Department of Teaching and Learning at Vanderbilt University. 

Before coming to Vanderbilt she taught high school social studies 

in New York and worked with the Stanford School’s Collaborative 

Professional Development Center in the California Bay Area. 

Welcome. 

Dr. Heather Peske is the associate commissioner for educator 

quality at the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. Prior to that role she was vice president of programs at Teach Plus. She has also served as the director of teacher 

quality at the Education Trust and as an elementary school teacher 

and Teach for America Corps member in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 

Welcome. 

Ms. Christina Hall is the cofounder and co-director of the Urban 

Teacher Center in Baltimore, Maryland. Prior to co-launching 

Urban Teacher Center, Ms. Hall was chief of staff for the chief academic officer in Baltimore City Public Schools. She has also served 

as an attorney advocating for disadvantaged youth at the Department of Social Services for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts 

and as a public high school teacher. 

Welcome to you, Ms. Hall. 

Before I recognize each of you to provide your testimony let me 

briefly explain our lighting system. 

You will each have 5 minutes to present your testimony. When 

you begin the light in front of you will turn green; when 1 minute 

is left the light will turn yellow; when your time has expired the 

light will turn red. At that point I ask you to wrap up your remarks as best as you are able. 

After everyone has testified, members will each have 5 minutes 

to ask questions of the panel—fairly self-explanatory. It is mostly 

a reminder for us up here about the lighting system. 

I would now like to recognize Dr. Gist for 5 minutes. 

Dr. Gist? 

STATEMENT OF DR. DEBORAH A. GIST, COMMISSIONER, 

RHODE ISLAND DEPARTMENT OF ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, PROVIDENCE, RI 

Ms. GIST. Good morning, Chairman Rokita, and good morning, 

Chairwoman Foxx and Representative Polis and all of the members 

of the committee. It is really an honor to be here this morning to 

talk with you about a topic that is truly important to all of us as 

Americans, the issue of educator quality and teacher preparation. 

My name is Deborah Gist. I am the Commissioner of Education 

in Rhode Island. 

I also serve on the board of directors of the Council for the Accreditation of Teacher—Educator Preparation, which is known as 

CAEP. I am also a member of the technical panel for the Teacher 

Prep Review for the National Council of Teacher Quality, and as 

a member of the board of directors of the Council of Chief State 

School Officers, which has provided tremendous support to those of 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

12 

us in our states as we do all of our work, but including our work 

with teacher preparation. 

Because of my work in all of these different roles I have an appreciation for how necessary it is that we make dramatic improvements to our current system of teacher preparation. To teach successfully our graduates need—they need to know their subject, they 

need to know how to reach a diverse population of students, and 

they need to know how to apply their learning and their skill in 

the classroom. 

So recognizing this need, in Rhode Island we worked closely over 

the past year, with our partners in higher education in our state, 

to significantly revise our approval standards for our educator 

preparation programs, and our board adopted these standards in 

November. I have attached them and you should have a copy of 

those standards. 

These new standards that we put in place in our state were modeled after the standards developed by CAEP, the Council for the 

Accreditation of Educator Preparation. And there was a large commission that worked on that; I am sure you are familiar with that 

work. So we modeled our standards after CAEP. 

So I want to tell you a little bit about those standards. I will just 

talk about four different—or five different parts of those standards. 

The first is that we are focused on the importance of classroom 

practice, with more emphasis on partnerships between our preparation programs and the schools—the K–12 schools within our state. 

We want to make sure that our aspiring teachers have experiences 

in our classrooms with students. We want our teacher preparation 

programs to coordinate with our schools and make sure that those 

field placements are high quality and make sure that aspiring 

teachers are performing and getting strong feedback when they are 

in those programs. 

Second, we want our teaching force to reflect the diversity of students in Rhode Island. Therefore, we expect our teacher preparation programs to recruit, to make sure that they have diverse candidates that they are bringing into their programs and supporting 

all candidates as they strive to become teachers. 

Third, we expect our teacher preparation programs to have criteria and assessments to determine whether or not their candidates 

are truly ready to be candidates for certification. That all starts 

with how they attract and recruit and the selection criteria they 

use when aspiring teachers are coming into their programs. And 

then they also need to evaluate their performance once they are actually in their practicums. 

And fourth, we expect our programs to continue to gather information about the performance of their graduates through at least 

the first year of their teaching by gathering feedback from the 

graduates and from their employers. 

And finally, we are going to be sharing data about and report information widely, and we are going to do it publicly through a series of report cards on each preparation program. 

I strongly encourage the committee to take note of the work that 

state leaders have done, that educators in the field have done, and 

national organizations such as CAEP have done. There is a lot of 

movement happening in this area, and we are really engaged in 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

13 

making changes—dramatic changes in the system, including 

through educator preparation program accreditation, which is what 

CAEP is responsible for. 

So I am sure you are aware that all of our states currently provide a report to the U.S. Department of Education on our educator 

preparation programs, and going forward it would be helpful if this 

data collection were limited to data points that provide evidence of 

quality, and that our states and our educator preparation programs 

find the data that they are gathering and reporting to be actually 

valuable, such as data that is more focused on outcomes. 

It would also be valuable if we could gather and analyze and report this data not just aggregated across the preparation institutions, but designated by the programs that they have, so early 

childhood, elementary, secondary, for example. 

I think it is important that states retain the authority to set 

their own benchmarks for measuring the efficacy of their preparation programs, but the data and reports on the programs will be 

most useful if we are all publicly reporting those data and that we 

are sharing with those we are responsible to what the benchmarks 

are that we are setting. 

We may never know how important the work that we are doing 

is because it is just really launching the careers of our aspiring 

educators, but we know that we have to do things differently, and 

I assure you that things are happening very differently in our programs across the country. So I am happy to answer any questions 

and share in a dialogue with the committee and with my colleagues 

on the panel. 

[The statement of Dr. Gist follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

14 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 1 here 86746.001
15 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 2 here 86746.002
16 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 3 here 86746.003
17 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 4 here 86746.004
18 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 5 here 86746.005
19 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 6 here 86746.006
20 

Chairman ROKITA. Thank you very much. 

I would now like to recognize Dr. Singer-Gabella for 5 minutes. 

Doctor? 

STATEMENT OF DR. MARCY SINGER–GABELLA, PROFESSOR OF 

THE PRACTICE OF EDUCATION, VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY, 

NASHVILLE, TN 

Ms. SINGER-GABELLA. Chairman Rokita, Chairwoman Foxx, Congressman Polis, Congressman Hinojosa, members of the subcommittees, thank you for inviting me to talk with you today about 

Vanderbilt’s teacher education programs. I serve as associate chair 

for teacher education and work closely with faculty across two departments responsible for preparing early childhood, elementary, 

secondary, and special education teachers. 

In my comments I want to first set the context for our work and 

then offer some examples of how we are preparing teachers to succeed and persist in the profession. 

My colleagues and I view teacher preparation as a larger system 

of schooling intended to prepare youth to flourish in work and civic 

life. In the U.S. this larger system currently faces profound challenges. Let me point to three that shape and motivate our work as 

teacher educators. 

First, a bimodal distribution of school performance, with schools 

at one end that are doing quite well, and a significant number of 

schools, typically at the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum, 

that are not doing well at all. 

Second, a teacher workforce for which the modal number of years 

of experience has shifted from 15 to 1 in just over two decades. 

That means that teachers have taught for—that more teachers 

have taught for only 1 year than have taught 5, 10, or 15. Key 

causes of this shift include the absence of a real career path, low 

levels of respect and compensation, and the sapping of motivation 

caused by an imbalance of interest in test scores. 

And third, system churn, caused by the very real difficulty of 

teaching in struggling schools, and increasing reliance on temporary teachers—young, bright, very talented individuals who are 

entering teaching for the short term as a stepping stone to another 

career. 

At Vanderbilt our goal is to prepare teachers who have the 

knowledge, skills, and stamina to succeed and to stay in the profession. We believe that our chances of success are intertwined with 

the fortunes of the schools we serve. 

To address the challenges I have noted, schools must become 

sites of ongoing learning, growth, and opportunity not only for students but also for the adults who teach in them. Central to our 

strategy, therefore, is the design of partnerships with schools that 

attend to the interests and challenges of school and university simultaneously. 

So, for example, with our partner schools we are redesigning 

roles that enable teacher candidates to learn the craft of teaching 

by working on teams with experienced and novice teachers over the 

course of a year. Candidates act as mentors and tutors for pre-K– 

12 students and as increasingly able assistants for master teachers. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

21 

In turn, master teachers develop and refine new skills as they support the development of novices and peers. 

By matching up our candidates’ needs for real-world experience 

and models of practice with schools’ needs for more skilled and caring adults to work with learners we improve and expand the resources available to schools in which resources are scarce. Again, 

we are positioning teacher education in relation to a bigger project 

of building schools’ capacity to serve all learners well. 

We are finding that really making a difference for students requires moving beyond egg-crate models of schooling that isolate 

teachers from one another, and recruiting and retaining a more talented and diverse workforce. In my written testimony I have suggested what this can look like in terms of reconfigured schedules 

and teaching assignments, differentiated staffing patterns, and new 

compensation arrangements. 

In re-centering the learning of teaching and practice we are not 

abandoning theory and research. Rather, throughout our programs 

we help candidates draw connections between their experiences in 

the field and cutting-edge research on learning and teaching. These 

connections help candidates develop principled understanding illustrated by real-world examples that can guide their future practice. 

Through these activities candidates also learn to participate in the 

kinds of data-informed collegial conversations that can drive learning throughout their careers. 

So how do we know we are preparing candidates who will make 

a positive difference? Here are four measures we are using. 

Before they graduate, candidates in my department must pass 

the edTPA, a nationally, externally scored, performance-based 

measure of candidates’ abilities to plan, enact, and assess teaching 

and learning of rigorous content. We want to be sure that our candidates are proficient before they become teachers of record. 

Once candidates take positions teaching, we collect survey data 

on employer and graduate satisfaction 1, 3, and 5 years out from 

graduation. These data indicate that our graduates feel well prepared, and their employers agree. 

We are now experimenting with surveys of student perceptions 

of the classrooms in which our graduates teach. Recent studies 

show interesting correlations between the degree to which learners 

feel challenged and supported and their achievement. 

And finally, we are working with graduates to gather administrators’ ratings of their teaching on state-approved observation protocols. 

This collection of measures, combined with benchmark assessments throughout our programs, provide faculty with invaluable 

data to check impact and support program improvement. 

Let me close by calling out two areas in which federal policymakers can help support advancement in the field. First, we need 

policy leaders to incentivize partnerships between schools and 

preparation programs and to continue to invest in design-based research to help build and study new arrangements. 

Second, policymakers can streamline and refocus reporting requirements so they are targeted and productive, efficient and fair. 

Data collected should be usable and useful, and reporting guideCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

22 

lines should apply in equal measure to all organizations that prepare teachers. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before you today. 

I look forward to answering your questions. 

[The statement of Dr. Singer-Gabella follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

23 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 7 here 86746.007
24 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 8 here 86746.008
25 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 9 here 86746.009
26 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 10 here 86746.010
27 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 11 here 86746.011
28 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 12 here 86746.012
29 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 13 here 86746.013
30 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 14 here 86746.014
31 

Chairman ROKITA. Thank you, Doctor. 

Dr. Peske, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF DR. HEATHER G. PESKE, ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER FOR EDUCATOR QUALITY, MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, 

MALDEN, MA, DEMOCRAT WITNESS 

Ms. PESKE. Thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning. I care deeply about the issue of educator effectiveness not only 

because it is my job but because right now my first-grade daughter 

is sitting in a public school classroom in Massachusetts. 

Just last night I was meeting with faculty and administrators 

from educator preparation programs. One professor made the confession, ‘‘Within our program the quality of the teaching placements varies tremendously across our placement sites.’’ 

Three months from now hundreds of graduates from Massachusetts’ colleges and universities will graduate with a license to 

teach. They will look for jobs—some in Massachusetts, some in 

your districts. Some of them will be well prepared and some of 

them will be ill-equipped for the challenges of the classroom. This 

must change. 

In Massachusetts we are building a comprehensive system of educator preparation strategy to ensure that these program graduates make impact with their students. The comprehensive strategy includes four components, which I will outline and describe 

briefly today. 

The first component is standards and accountability. We have 

new regulations for educator preparation program approval in 

order to strengthen program accountability. We have a revised program review and approval process in order to build a robust evidentiary base from which to decide whether a program can continue or whether it should be closed down. 

The second component is investing in local districts. It is essential that local school districts and schools are invested in educator 

preparation. We require programs to report on these partnerships 

and how the partnerships specifically impact the candidates and, 

more importantly, how they impact the students. 

This year we will conduct and publicly report on surveys of district personnel in order to gather data on their level of satisfaction 

with the program graduates who have been hired as teachers and 

administrators in their schools. We hope these data will catalyze 

conversation and further innovation. 

The third component is transparency of data and reporting. For 

every preparation program in our commonwealth, including our alternative providers, Massachusetts publishes a publicly available 

Educator Preparation Program Profile. This is a way to both invest 

in local districts and also to provide data for the educator prep programs and the alternative programs themselves. 

For the first time we are linking educator workforce data and educator effectiveness data to educator preparation programs. We will 

report this annually and publicly on things like program graduates’ 

educator evaluation ratings, program graduates’ impact in producing growth in student learning, employment data, as well as the 

survey data I mentioned a moment ago. By analyzing the data 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

32 

from the programs, along with other data, we will be able to identify low-and high-performing programs, programs we should replicate and programs we should not continue. 

The fourth component of our strategy is support. We are committed to providing programs with easy-to-access analytic reports 

on a variety of data to answer a number of different types of questions, such as the following: Where are my program graduates 

being employed? Do they stay? How long? 

I want to shift now to talk about the federal role. We believe in 

Massachusetts there is a critical role for the federal government in 

promoting effective teacher education programs, so I appreciate 

your consideration of the following three ideas. 

First, we need help from you in order to support and disseminate 

research on effective programs. The current research is really limited in being able to answer questions like, which components of 

educator preparation are most impactful when it comes to producing growth with students? Much in the same way as the federal 

government now supports the What Works Clearinghouse for local 

school and district policy and practice, we need a similar analogue 

in educator preparation. 

Second—and this has been mentioned already by my colleagues—we need help in Title II reporting. We need you to reduce 

the hundreds of data elements we are now required to report on. 

We need you to develop common metrics and we need you to focus 

on the highest-priority data. 

Right now my staff spends far too much time collecting meaningless data to report on Title II. There is little or no comparability 

across the states when we report on these elements, and the 

metrics and definitions are not common. 

We also need a stronger focus in Title II reporting on outcomes 

data rather than the hundreds of input measures we provide for 

you now. 

Number three: We need to provide federal subsidies to establish 

new clinical models. Our clinical sites are suffering. We need funding to sustain these areas. 

Right now the federal government provides subsidies to teaching 

hospitals in order to train the next generation of doctors. We need 

something similar in terms of training the next generation of teachers. 

Without this federal subsidy some hospitals might not take on 

the task of training doctors. The same is true for our local school 

districts, and I can talk a little bit more in the questions about the 

details of that. 

I want to conclude with a short story. On July 3, 1839 three 

young women braved a thunderstorm to enroll in Massachusetts’ 

first state-supported school dedicated to training teachers—the first 

Normal School in America. This year, 2014, marks the 175th anniversary of the Normal School in Massachusetts. 

As we as a nation reflect on our history of educating teachers we 

have to ask ourselves now, what can and should we do to ensure 

that the experiences of teacher and principal candidates prepare 

them to promote and to excel in developing college-and careerready students? 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

33 

I look forward to the discussion and happily answer your questions. Thank you again for the opportunity. 

[The statement of Dr. Peske follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

34 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 15 here 86746.015
35 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 16 here 86746.016
36 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 17 here 86746.017
37 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 18 here 86746.018
38 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 19 here 86746.019
39 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 20 here 86746.020
40 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 21 here 86746.021
41 

Chairman ROKITA. Thank you, Doctor. 

Ms. Hall, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MS. CHRISTINA HALL, CO–FOUNDER AND CO– 

DIRECTOR, URBAN TEACHER CENTER, BALTIMORE, MD 

Ms. HALL. Thank you. 

Chairman Rokita and Chairwoman Foxx, Representative Polis, 

and members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me here 

today to speak with you about this important topic—teacher quality. 

My name is Christina Hall and I am cofounder of Urban Teacher 

Center. We are a nonprofit that partners with urban schools and 

districts to prepare new teachers. 

We have 231 teachers in almost 75 schools in Baltimore and D.C. 

Program satisfaction is high—100 percent of our teachers report 

that our training gives them the knowledge and skills they need, 

and 90 percent of our school partners returned this year. This is 

testament to our value because principals pay to bring us to their 

buildings. 

Best of all, we can already see that our teachers are getting results. Last year 79 percent—that is 79—79 percent of our first-year 

teachers had student achievement gains equal to or better than the 

typical second-year teacher. 

When we set out to build our program we knew that holding a 

degree in teaching is not a proxy for effectiveness, but because of 

prevailing compensation systems we wanted to offer an M.Ed. We 

considered applying to become our own institute of higher ed, but 

an often onerous and sometimes irrelevant process kept us from seriously considering it. 

Instead, we looked for a partner that would embrace broader criteria for hiring clinical faculty, embark on creating a whole new 

preparation program, and accept responsibility for master’s conferral while releasing approval for certification to UTC. We spoke 

with almost a dozen colleges and universities and eventually found 

Lesley University in Massachusetts. Lesley agreed to take the leap 

with us. 

Here are a few features of our model: Residents get more than 

1,400 hours of real-time experience in four different classroom settings before they get the keys to their own classroom. Every successful candidate earns dual certification and a dual master’s in 

their subject area and special education. And every participant receives sustained, on-the-job coaching for 4 years. 

UTC holds the highest bar for teacher certification in the country, and not every teacher who begins our program gets certified. 

Even with intensive support not every promising candidate develops the qualities of a great teacher. We believe it is better that we 

incur the cost of that discovery than our children. 

We begin by recruiting diverse, high-achieving, results-oriented 

individuals. Only 25 percent of applicants are accepted into our 

program and only 77 percent of our residents go on to become 

teachers of record in year 2. Forty percent of departures in the first 

year are voluntary; the other 60 percent don’t meet our rigorous expectations. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

42 

UTC’s attrition is strategic, intentional, and minimizes disruption to student learning. We are very proud to say that we have 

had almost zero attrition during the school year in 3 years in 

Washington, D.C., and only two instances in 3 years in Baltimore. 

That is an extraordinary rate for new teachers in these challenging 

districts. 

Participants who meet our bar for practice and coursework earn 

a master’s degree after 2 years, but full, permanent certification 

takes longer. We only approve teachers for full certification after 

they have proven their effectiveness through student achievement 

gains and observable classroom practice. It is an intensive process 

involving multiple measures but our logic is simple: We believe the 

best way to guarantee that new teachers will be effective is to show 

that they have been effective. 

In our experience, at least three challenges should be addressed 

in order to ensure a great teacher every time for every student. We 

would encourage policy leaders at all levels to focus on broadening 

access to existing federal dollars. 

Open up the routing of funds intended for K–12 systems by allowing districts to partner with institutions of higher ed and innovative organizations. Opening up access with quality control safeguards focused on outputs will result in stronger partnerships for 

K–12 school systems to improve teacher preparation. 

Next, encouraging environments at the state level that are more 

hospitable to alternative cert providers. In order to foster more innovation in all markets, encourage states to permit alt cert providers to enter the teacher prep market. The best legislation will 

support and not encumber existing innovation while simultaneously encouraging new innovation. 

Last, spotlighting what works, as I heard from a colleague up 

here on the panel. Because we haven’t any time to waste, innovation and practice across the sector should be accompanied by an assessment of what works and what doesn’t. The federal government 

can be a valuable resource here in evaluating and providing information on effective practice, partnership models and design to inform the entire sector and eliminate duplication of efforts. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify about our model, and I 

look forward to fielding questions, if any, on this important topic. 

[The statement of Ms. Hall follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

43 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 22 here 86746.022
44 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 23 here 86746.023
45 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 24 here 86746.024
46 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 25 here 86746.025
47 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 57 here 86746.057
48 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 58 here 86746.058
49 

Chairman ROKITA. Well, thank you, Ms. Hall. 

Thank you all. 

We will now proceed to member questions, and Dr. Foxx and I 

are offering to hold off our questioning for a while in order to accommodate possibly the schedule of other colleagues. 

So with that, Mr. Walberg—Chairman Walberg, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WALBERG. Thank you so much. Appreciate your willingness 

to forego the questions to let further down the table go first, so 

thanks, though. 

I really, really enjoyed hearing from each of the panelists. Having a daughter-in-law who went through that experience of firstyear teaching out of college—excited to do it, was put into a fulltime substitute position because the teacher before her had just 

walked out of the room of a special needs classroom in the south 

side of Chicago and never came back. My daughter-in-law loved 

that first year of teaching. 

Second year, when she was given the class as a full-time teacher 

by her principal, she found out the challenges of teaching that consist of paperwork for both the Chicago Public School System, Illinois, and No Child Left Behind reporting requirements. She came 

to me with tears in her eyes one time and said, ‘‘Dad, I am not sure 

I am cut out for teaching.’’ 

I knew that was wrong. Her principal, fortunately, knew that 

was wrong and talked her through that year. 

So what you are talking about is so important, and appreciate 

what you are doing. 

Dr. Peske, let me ask you, what part can a building principal 

play in teacher success? Are we using principals and training principals and putting them in a position that is vital for success of 

that first-, second-, third-year teacher to make sure the process 

goes well? 

Ms. PESKE. Thank you for your question, Mr. Walberg. It is terrific. 

You may have noticed throughout my testimony I was talking 

about educator preparation, so in Massachusetts that includes 

teachers and principals. Principals are critically important to the 

efficacy of teachers. They are also critically important to helping 

the effective teachers stay in those classrooms. 

We have a whole turnaround effort in Massachusetts around 

some of our lowest-performing schools, and what we see is the Pied 

Piper Effect, which is when really effective principals leave a school 

to head to one of our turnaround schools their cohort of effective 

teachers follows them. So all of the things that I described this 

morning apply to our educator preparation programs, i.e. our principal preparation programs as well as our teacher preparation programs. 

Mr. WALBERG. Is the principal model—could I describe it more 

as a mentor, coach model as opposed to administrator? 

Ms. PESKE. Yes, sir. In fact, we also are really focused on principals as instructional leaders, and so our professional standards 

for administrators, which are the standards the preparation programs use when designing their programs, are the same exact 

standards that we use in the evaluation of our administrators. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

50 

So the prep programs are preparing the administrators to go in 

under the same standards by which they will be evaluated once 

they are actually in districts, and those are much less focused on 

kind of the business aspects of schooling, which is what we had 

done in the past, and much more focused on mentoring, sustaining, 

being an instructional leader within the school. 

Mr. WALBERG. Well, I applaud you for that because— 

Ms. PESKE. Thank you. 

Mr. WALBERG.—because until we get principals out of their office 

filling paper and into the classroom knowing what their front line 

is doing and assisting them in that, I don’t think we achieve. So 

thank you. 

Dr. Gist, in your testimony you discussed some of the reforms 

Rhode Island has implemented—creative reforms in improving 

teacher quality. One appears to be mentoring. 

You call it an induction coach—assisting teachers in their transition in the field. I would assume that that is because you don’t 

want to waste one full year of students’ lives with an ineffective 

teacher. 

Could you discuss how this process works and its effectiveness in 

generating successful teachers? 

Ms. GIST. Yes, sir. Thank you, actually, for asking about beginning teacher induction because it is an incredibly important part 

of our education system. 

When we think about an educator’s career we really look at the 

entire pipeline, and one part that occasionally gets overlooked is 

that part from the time they leave a preparation program when 

they enter that classroom for the very first time. Obviously excellent principals can assist with that, but an induction program is 

really a very intense program that assigns an experienced teacher 

coach who is released from his or her classroom on a full-time basis 

to be able to spend time in a variety of different beginning teachers—they have sort of a cohort of beginning teachers that they are 

working with. 

And they spend time in their classroom; they are a trusted advisor. They are not there to evaluate; they are there to provide support and assistance as the beginning teacher goes through his or 

her first 2 years. 

And so induction, you know, I would agree with my colleagues 

about the need for research, but we do have some areas where we 

have some research and one of them is in the importance of supporting our beginning teachers through programs like induction. 

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, could I ask one concluding question? 

Chairman ROKITA. Your time is expired, Chairman. 

Mr. WALBERG. Okay. Thank you. 

Chairman ROKITA. Mr. Polis, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. POLIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Want to address a question to—the first question to Dr. Peske. 

Title II of the Higher Education Act requires states to identify 

low-performing schools of education. Surely they are not all highperforming or the state of the profession today would clearly be in 

a better place. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

51 

But in your written testimony you mention that to date Massachusetts has never identified a low-performing preparation program. Why do you think states might be hesitant to identify what 

clearly must exist, which are low-quality preparation programs, 

and what can the federal government do to ensure that states are 

holding preparation programs accountable and working on improving the quality? 

Ms. PESKE. Thank you for your question, Mr. Polis. I did write 

that in my written testimony—that we have never identified a program as low-performing in Massachusetts, I think mostly because 

our program review and approval process was so weak in the past 

that we didn’t have a strong evidence base from which we could declare a program low-performing. 

Much in the case when you build a case, and particularly when 

you are building a case with bad news for your program, you want 

to be able to refer to some evidence to say, ‘‘This is why we are 

closing your program down,’’ or, ‘‘This is why we are not approving 

it.’’ In the past we didn’t have that evidentiary base, and we particularly didn’t have it around outcomes—that is, educator outcomes and their impact on students. 

Mr. POLIS. And then moving to Title II reporting and establishing common metrics, what more can the federal government do 

to ensure that states have the right metrics to, in fact, improve the 

quality of their teacher preparation programs? 

Ms. PESKE. Sure. So I will mention a couple. 

We are not required to report now on hiring and retention data. 

We don’t report on evaluation and impact ratings, which we in 

Massachusetts have and would be delighted to turn over to the feds 

and we think other states should do so as well. 

We would like to see requirements for us to report on the percentage of graduates employed in high-need, low-performing districts and high-need subject areas. We also would like to be required to report on how our programs do in terms of their performance assessments. 

Those are a few examples. 

Mr. POLIS. Thank you. 

My next question is for Ms. Hall. 

You know, Urban Teacher Center is already doing a great job improving the quality of teacher preparation, harnessing the power of 

innovation to create a new and effective way to prepare great 

teachers and principals. That is consistent with why I introduced 

with Congressman Petri the GREAT Act, which encourages the 

growth and development precisely of these types of teacher or principal academies. 

And I would like to ask how your model encourages innovation, 

ensures program quality, and what federal barriers to your success 

should we focus on removing? 

Ms. HALL. Great. Thank you for asking. And there are lots of aspects of the GREAT Act that we do support—highly selective recruiting, clinically based programming, and most of all, focus on results. 

I would say that the way that we are able to be innovative and 

to be innovative within the regulations and the rules as they currently exist can be embodied by other organizations. We have been 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

52 

able to crack open a program of study and a course sequence for 

higher ed master’s preparation to prepare teachers in a way that 

is clinically based and focused that is entirely possible for other 

folks that have the same appetite and same inclination. 

I would say that in terms of what is next for us in terms of 

where are there opportunities for expansion either of UTC or of 

models like UTC, I will say that initially we were denied from offering federal student aid to people in our program. 

That was an incredible lift for my organization. We had to go out 

and we raised $20,000 for every person in our program so we could 

turn around and loan it to them. And we are not a bank and I am 

not a lender. That is a different committee. And we had to get out 

of that business really fast, and it took us 3–1/2 years to get federal 

approval to offer loans through our higher ed partner. 

Mr. POLIS. Streamlined approval would be one of your suggestions? 

Ms. HALL. Absolutely. Streamlining approval, and then also, 

wherever the federal government can provide opportunity for the 

organizations to stand in the same way that higher ed does and 

partner with K–12 school systems, we see them as our ultimate 

customer and we would like to have the same opportunity for existing federal funds for those partnerships and, frankly, to be able to 

do business in more districts and more states. Right now UTC is 

blocked from some states from doing business. 

Mr. POLIS. By the states? 

Ms. HALL. By the alt cert requirements in the states. 

Mr. POLIS. Okay. Is that because they are not uniform across the 

states? 

Ms. HALL. That is right. 

Mr. POLIS. Okay. Do you see any federal role in that? 

Ms. HALL. I think wherever the federal government can encourage states to be much more innovative in how they decide who is 

allowed to prepare teachers, so I do see a role for the federal government there. I wouldn’t presume to state exactly what it is. 

Mr. POLIS. You know, and this is what we see in education, often 

it takes the federal government to play a disruptive role to allow 

for choice and innovation to occur at the state or district level, particularly when you have legacy monopoly providers and it is difficult to introduce change into the system. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman ROKITA. Thank the gentleman. Gentleman’s time is 

expired. 

Mrs. Brooks, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. BROOKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And welcome, everyone. 

My question—I am going to start out with Dr. Singer-Gabella— 

is with respect to the partnerships between higher ed institutions 

and school districts and how important those are to ensure that we 

have the most effective teaching programs possible. Can you expand a bit on what your partnerships are at Vanderbilt and other 

higher ed institutions and really what is the role that the school 

district should be playing in ensuring that those partnerships are 

so strong? 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

53 

Ms. SINGER-GABELLA. In my testimony I talked about the need 

for all of us to be able to innovate and be flexible around these 

partnerships, and we have spent the past couple of years—given 

that the landscape is changing for schools as well as for education 

preparation providers, we are trying to identify what are the needs 

and match them up. 

At the core, really, is saying, what can you do when you have a 

group of talented young folks who need to learn about students, 

need to learn to develop relationships with students, who are really 

attending carefully to the assessment of student thinking and 

thinking about how do you link kids with content? How can we create experiences with the districts? 

I pointed to a particular partnership right now that we are building with—in metro Nashville with a school that happens to be one 

that is on the line. It was at risk for state takeover, and so the 

principal and the teachers feel compelled but also really anxious to 

think differently and out of the box about what they are doing. 

So we have been able to put—in the school we have 10 what we 

call—they have called ‘‘learning assistants.’’ These are folks who 

are essentially reliable members of the school staff who are working closely with students, who are working closely with teachers, 

and they have—those extra bodies have kind of bought flexibility 

in staffing arrangements so that there are teams that are collectively responsible for groups of students, we can flexibly reassign 

students in groups to go work with you because you happen to be 

really good at paying attention to student thinking and thinking 

about what that next step is for an English-learner in being able 

to make sense of certain content. But they may go to Dr. Gist and 

me because I am learning from Dr. Gist how it is that I am going 

to organize a particular subject—you know, particular content. 

But the point is that we are trying to, by—think creatively and 

out of the box. What does it look like when you link talented educators with groups of students, and what can we do to kind of 

break—again, I pointed to the egg-crate model. Can we think differently about how we put adults in the building to serve learners? 

But really specifically for districts, what we are talking about is 

matching up expertise around supports for English-learners, content tutors, mentors. We are talking about bringing in faculty who 

are working at the cutting edge of research and thinking about 

learning, and can we make those resources available to schools? 

And obviously for the schools of education we are providing opportunities for learners to—for our folks to be out in the real world 

working with real students. 

Mrs. BROOKS. Dr. Gist, I have a question with respect to how 

Rhode Island might be partnering with higher ed institutions, particularly to help do a better job in our schools identifying students 

with special needs, with learning disabilities, with reading issues, 

and so forth. Can you comment at all on what Rhode Island might 

be doing with respect to higher ed training for teachers to do a better job with all those challenges in our schools? 

Ms. GIST. Well, I think that in our work with our institutions of 

higher education and our alternative programs one of the things 

that we want to make sure is that our educators are prepared to 

work with every student in our classroom, and I think that in 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

54 

many ways we have experts in our institutions of higher education 

who are partnering with experts in our school districts to learn 

from one another about how to best serve all students, including 

students with special needs. 

We have many, many teachers in Rhode Island who are dual certified, so—Christina talked about that in terms of UTC—and I 

think that is really important that educators—all educators come 

into contact and serve students with special needs, and so I think 

having that preparation is very important. 

Mrs. BROOKS. I certainly appreciate the dual certification and 

certainly hope that we can expand that across the country. Thank 

you. 

I yield back. 

Chairman ROKITA. I thank the gentlelady. 

And Ms. Bonamici is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you to all the panelists. I really appreciate your years 

of expertise, and especially thank you for the years that you have 

spent teaching. It is critical to have teachers and former teachers 

working to strengthen the profession, so thank you. 

Dr. Singer-Gabella, you mentioned three factors that make it difficult to retain intelligent and committed individuals into the 

teaching profession: the absence of a real career path that allows 

growth while still teaching, low levels of respect and compensation, 

and an imbalance of interests in test scores that saps motivation. 

So how can these be overcome? And I know we could talk about 

that for a few hours, but if you could briefly address that because 

I do have another question as well. 

Ms. SINGER-GABELLA. I think that we are really just trying to figure that out. We do feel strongly that—and I think all of the panelists here would agree that it is critical that we make sure that people who step into the classroom are ready to take on the challenges 

of being in classrooms and that we have measures to make sure before, you know, before they get out into that first year and they are 

teachers of record that they are able to do so. 

But again, I think that we need to be paying—part of this is an 

infusion of resources, part of it is making sure that we are not relying on temporary measures, and that system churn is really highly 

problematic. We need to work together to try to stabilize what is 

going on in schools. 

Ms. BONAMICI. And I also encourage all of you to join me in what 

I do, and especially when I am in my district, and that is to highlight the positive things— 

Ms. SINGER-GABELLA. Absolutely. 

Ms. BONAMICI.—that are happening in our public schools. Because I have to tell you, there is a lot of public school-bashing out 

there that doesn’t help motivate people to enter the teaching profession. 

Ms. SINGER-GABELLA. Right. 

Ms. BONAMICI. So let’s talk about how we can improve, but also 

spend a lot of time highlighting all the positive things that are happening. 

Dr. Peske, I have heard a concern about accountability systems 

that are used that evaluate teacher preparation programs, that 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

55 

they may not consider all the goals of teacher preparation. They 

are broader than simply increasing students’ academic achievement. Focusing on the whole child—for example, strengthening students’ abilities to collaborate, communicate, nurturing creativity 

and curiosity are also important goals, and today’s teachers need 

to be culturally competent as well, a skill that can be difficult to 

measure on a certification test. 

So how can we make sure that we are recruiting a diverse teaching workforce and developing educators who can challenge students 

from diverse cultural, ethnic, and linguistic backgrounds? 

Ms. PESKE. That is a good question. We start with the goal for 

our programs of recruiting a diverse workforce. That is part of our 

expectation for them. That is built into our standards. And then we 

measure that with data, so we make accessible to them years’ 

worth of data on the participants in their programs as well as how 

those participants do once they get to the schools. 

Additionally, our professional standards for teachers, which are 

the standards with which the preparation programs use to build 

their program, those are the same standards that we use for the 

evaluation of our teachers once they get to the classroom, and built 

into those standards are expectations about meeting the needs of 

diverse learners. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Terrific. 

I have another question. Dr. Singer-Gabella pointed out, rightly 

so, that there is quite a bimodal distribution of school performance, 

with schools at one end that are doing well with respect to achievement, and a significant number of schools, typically at the lower 

end of the socioeconomic spectrum, that aren’t doing well. 

So I wanted to ask you, Ms. Hall, in your testimony you say that 

you treat public schools where your teachers serve as customers 

and you partner with district and charter schools that want to 

grow their talent and they pay a sizeable fee for each resident or 

fellow. So can you address how, then, can your residents and fellows go into schools that don’t have the resources to pay a sizeable 

fee and whether you can measure UTC’s success if you are not in 

a broad range of schools across the socioeconomic spectrum? 

Ms. HALL. Yes. In fact, the large percentage of schools that we 

are in have very high farms rates, and what we do is we spend a 

lot of time with principals and leaders of those schools who have 

a very strong interest in identifying a human capital solution for 

that school and thinking differently about their budget. Our program is Title I and Title II approved, and oftentimes what we find 

folks do is they—essentially they are prioritizing choices and decisions, because folks—these schools do not get more money but they 

are making decisions about whether or not to hire an aide for a 

classroom, for example, or to hire a UTC resident, sometimes for 

less than what a cost of an aide would be. 

We would like to bring down the cost that our schools pay, but 

we also think it is important for our schools to have some skin in 

the game along with us. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Terrific. 

And I see my time is expired. I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROKITA. I thank the gentlelady. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

56 

Mr. Guthrie is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you for being here. 

And, Dr. Singer-Gabella, I am from Bowling Green, Kentucky, so 

just up the road a little bit, so follow metro—a lot of, some of our 

media is there, and appreciate what Peabody does. And you mentioned the work, in your testimony, of reforming educator preparation is underway in states and professional associations, and you 

also mentioned your work in Tennessee, which you have already 

mentioned. 

And so as we are taking a—as we are looking at Title II reauthorization for Higher Education Act, would you give some recommendations that we should be thinking of that would encourage 

you to do this and not hinder you from doing this? What changes 

would you like to see, or additions? 

Ms. SINGER-GABELLA. I think there are a couple of things, and 

in terms of reporting, we want to be able to have questions that 

are going to help us—or we want to be able to use data to help us 

ask questions and answer questions that are going to move the 

field forward. So compelling questions for us are, you know, who 

is entering, on what paths, and how and where are they being prepared to be successful? 

So can we begin to look at basic demographic data? There are 

pieces that are already there that I think are incredibly useful. My 

colleagues have pointed to other data that would also be helpful 

around retention a certain number of years out, employer—you 

know, employer outcome data. How are people doing in terms of 

their performance? I am not sure—is this where you are— 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Your suggestions on what we need to—your expertise what we should be doing to help you is it, so that is exactly 

right. 

But I know, Dr. Gist, I think you mentioned—I think it was 

you—that the Title II burdensome reporting requirements—I think 

you mentioned you have— 

Ms. GIST. I think several of us mentioned that— 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Okay. Well, I know it came from at least one of 

you if not all of you. So what are some examples of what you think 

is burdensome, and what would we do different? How would you 

want to do it different? It kind of ties into the same question I just 

asked. 

Or if anybody else wanted to answer that, too, I would be— 

Ms. GIST. Yes, sir. Actually, so right now in the current reporting 

structure there are over 400 data elements that are—actually, our 

preparation programs do most of the gathering and at the state 

level we compile that information and send it on to the federal government. And I think— 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Do you see the federal government—I am sorry to 

interrupt—when that goes forward do you hear information back 

that helps you, or is it just goes forward and you don’t know what 

happens to it? 

Ms. GIST. No, it is not a very robust process. This is— 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Okay. 

Ms. GIST.—you know, and I think that is part of the concern is 

that there is a collection of data but it isn’t the data that we need 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

57 

to be using. And so I would agree with the recommendations that 

you have heard but I would—I think the federal role in policy-setting is looking at the what and not exactly the how. 

So I think there are some data elements that are probably common across programs that might be useful—things like the GPA or 

the entrance—some sort of entrance measures for candidates who 

are coming into programs. I also think there are some student outcome measures, because we haven’t talked a lot about that, but you 

know, one of the most important things we need to be looking at 

is whether or not those who are in our preparation programs are 

able to move student achievement and help our students learn. 

But I think what we have to use caution about is over-prescribing exactly how to ask for that information. So what I would 

encourage you to consider is asking us in the states to tell you 

what it is we are doing to expect that our programs are setting 

strong selection criteria, are preparing educators well, how are they 

measuring that, and have us tell you the processes that we are 

using. And I think through that we are going to learn more and 

more about this as we continue to increase this area of our field. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. I think that is helpful because I worked in manufacturing. If I needed an operator of a machine to give me information—record their processes—I got a lot better information if they 

knew what I was doing with it because they knew how it would 

benefit them when I came back to them to fix the process. 

So I know, Dr. Peske, do you have any—I know you mentioned 

that, as well. Do you concur with kind of the same thought here, 

or— 

Ms. SINGER-GABELLA. Yes. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Or Dr. Peske. Both of—any of you can— 

Ms. SINGER-GABELLA. Oh, I am sorry. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Any of you can answer, yes. 

Ms. SINGER-GABELLA. No, go ahead. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Any of you. 

Chairman ROKITA. In 50 seconds. 

Ms. PESKE. I concur. I do think there is a federal role, but I concur with the idea that we need fewer measures and more meaningful ones. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Okay. 

And then I guess I am down to 30 seconds, and I was going to 

ask Ms. Hall how she found her students. 

How do you recruit and how do you come out with your students? 

But you are going to have a very brief answer on that, I hope. 

Ms. HALL. It will be brief. 

So we recruit nationally—40 percent come from this region; 60 

percent come from outside the region. Forty-four percent of our incoming class of residents last year were people of color, so that is 

a very high focus for our program. We do that by not only heading 

to college campuses but we also find that programs like City Year, 

Jumpstart, Breakthrough Collaborative are training folks that already have an appetite for this and have already worked in settings that are sometimes as challenging as our schools. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Well, thank you. Just perfect. 

I will yield back. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

58 

Chairman ROKITA. I thank the gentleman. Gentleman’s time is 

expired. 

Mrs. Davis is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you all for being here. I missed a little bit of your testimony here but I think I have a sense of what you all were saying, 

and just picking up on some of the comments that have been made 

earlier, I had an opportunity to just hear from the president of the 

World Bank today talking about—OECD schools that—schools including—from Finland, South Korea, that have all ranked so much 

higher than the U.S. in their PISA scores, which really reflects students’ ability to reason, to problem solve. 

And one of the factors, of course, is that in the schools that they 

have been looking at the barrier to getting into teaching is far 

higher, they are paid much better, they are highly esteemed, and 

that is a situation that I think we all talk about, we all want more 

here, and yet it seems somewhat difficult to have the level of discussion focus as much on some of those areas as what we are talking about, which is equally important. 

I just wondered about your thoughts on that. As you look to models here in the United States, when you are obviously representing 

a number of them that are strong, where does that fit? Because the 

esteem for teachers and what we see sometimes as low morale really does factor in here. How important do you think that is? 

Ms. GIST. I would be happy to start. Thank you. 

It is incredibly important, and I think, you know, when we look 

at what happened in Finland, there was actually a very dramatic 

change in their expectations for who was entering into the profession and the way in which they were preparing them. So we, I 

think, are all, in our states, launching into this—in a little bit more 

of a gradual way—I mean, for us it feels pretty significant and I 

know for our programs in Rhode Island, given how much we are 

doing, it feels pretty significant, but when you look at what has 

happened in countries like Finland it really was much more dramatic there the way they tackled that. 

But I think when we look at what we can learn from what they 

did, it certainly is raising the expectations of the quality of candidates who come into the programs in the first place. But it is also 

the depth of the experience that they get when they are in their 

preparation program. It is quite academic, a heavy focus on content. 

You know, they really are professionals; they are practitioner researchers. They are learning not just to instruct but they are actually becoming professional educators, and then I think what I see 

as some of the biggest differences—and it definitely does change 

the perception of the field, which then begins to spiral upward. 

Ms. SINGER-GABELLA. I would agree with all of that. And then 

there is also—something that will attract a more diverse and talented pool is the idea of having a career path ahead of me so that 

I know that I have opportunities to learn and to grow. And so we 

need to be able to build those into our school systems, which typically in districts really are very flat organizations and the way that 

one progresses is to move out of the classroom. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

59 

So we want to be able to find ways to differentiate roles for 

teachers to provide them with opportunities to learn and grow, and 

also to be compensated throughout. So in Finland when one attends a preparation program one does not forego years of income. 

One is supported in that process. 

Ms. PESKE. I will just add quickly, we are using the accountability policies and our turnaround work as a laboratory for restructuring the career for teachers in an effort to learn from what 

we are doing in our turnaround schools, which are now under state 

receivership, in an effort to learn and better develop the profession. 

I would also add, though, it is the responsibility of the educator 

preparation program, as far as I am concerned, to infuse a sense 

that this profession is the most impactful one you can enter. So oftentimes I hear preparation programs saying things like, ‘‘Yes, well 

we can’t really do much. You know, we do some things and then 

they get into these schools.’’ And to me, like, what is the point of 

your program if not to say that, like, you are helping to prepare 

these people to make impact? 

And finally, I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that Massachusetts is also one of the highest-performing states on the PISA 

results in contrast to other nations. 

Mrs. DAVIS. And, Ms. Hall, if you could include as well, because 

the turnover—yes, I think you were addressing some issues—keeping students for at least 4 years. 

Ms. HALL. Right. 

Mrs. DAVIS. We still see a lot of turnover for entering teachers. 

Ms. HALL. Right. We are definitely after building better teachers 

and also building teachers that are meant to last. It is why our 

model is designed with a delivery model that is longer because it 

requires a much deeper set of preparation. 

I would echo everything that my colleagues up here said, particularly the need for a career ladder and leadership roles that keep 

folks in the classroom in some capacity. But I will also add to that 

that the role of principal—we talked about earlier—is just as important here. As a professional teacher you want to respect your 

boss and your peers, and not all teachers do. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Yes. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROKITA. Thank the gentlelady. Gentlelady’s time is expired. 

Mr. Messer is now recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MESSER. Thank you. Sorry for not being able to be here the 

whole time. I was over in a Foreign Affairs Committee hearing as 

well. 

I just want to thank you for the important work that you do. I 

mean, I think we all know that the number one indicator of student success will be parental involvement, but there is no question 

that the number two indicator of student success is a high-quality 

teacher. 

Kids that have access to a high-quality teacher have a chance to 

learn; those who don’t don’t. And so thank you for your important 

work. 

Obviously the stakes for society have changed a lot over the last 

several decades. I think one of the challenges we face in education 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

60 

is that we have to do more. You know, it used to be just a few decades ago if you left school with the ability to do basic math and 

some reading and writing you could get a high—you know, you 

could get a decent job, you could build a life. 

In today’s world, unless you can learn to learn and be able to 

learn throughout your lifetimes, you are going to struggle. And so 

we have a higher bar that we all have to reach to get there. 

I think the testimony that I have heard has been fascinating on 

this important issue. I want to start with Ms. Hall. 

Two of the key ideas behind your program is to not equate having a master’s degree with effectiveness, and having teachers prove 

effectiveness before they get certified. Do you think the federal requirements like ‘‘highly qualified teacher’’ requirements that focus 

on credentials are helpful, and how can more programs embrace 

the ideas of ensuring effectiveness before granting teacher certification? 

Ms. HALL. Yes. So it is a highly complex question, obviously, that 

you have posed. 

In our model we are designed so that all the folks in our program 

must demonstrate effectiveness as demonstrated in part by student 

achievement gains before they are fully certified. However, folks do 

come in and under the first 2 years of teaching they are on a provisional license. 

We do support a high minimum standard, if you will, for handing 

out provisional licenses, and then I think it becomes the job of 

how—where is the concentration? Is there a disproportionate impact of where these provisional licenses sit and in which schools? 

Where can we attach either professional development requirements or coaching and push in support not just for those teachers 

so they can move, even coming in with a high minimum requirement. We don’t want to make the bar too high for teachers to get 

in, but once they are in we need to support the heck out of them 

to make sure they stay because that provides not only support for 

them but then also a safety net for the kids they are teaching. 

And then yes, our model—what our belief is is that before earning full certification that is the point where effectiveness must be 

demonstrated. 

Mr. MESSER. Yes. 

And next question would be to Dr. Singer-Gabella and then 

maybe to Ms. Hall. 

I actually am a Vanderbilt Law School graduate, so I know a little bit about the Peabody School, and obviously it is a fantastic 

place. 

I have to admit to you, I was disheartened to hear these statistics that we had gone and 25 years ago the average teacher had 

a 15-year career to today, 1-year. My sister-in-law is actually a 

teacher who is 20 years into her career and seems to be going 

strong, so she will be moving that number up. I think it is sort of 

self-evident that if someone has been there a year, it creates some 

real challenges. 

My instincts are that federal policy may not be the answer here, 

but I would just ask to start with you and—Ms. Hall, and then any 

others: What can we do as a society to try to change the attrition 

rate? 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

61 

Ms. SINGER-GABELLA. Again, I think part of it is to create—is to 

ensure that teaching is a career that people want to stay in, that 

they can continue to learn and grow, that they see a future in. I 

think all of us need to convey the importance of teaching and the 

critical impact that teaching makes. 

We have got to break away from thinking about teaching as 

something that happens with one teacher and 25 children in a 

classroom and to begin to think about it as something that spans 

the community, that involves relationships with one’s colleagues, 

with one’s children, with one’s families, with the community organizations, and begin to think creatively about how do we work together to promote a better future for our youth. 

Ms. HALL. And I will just add that I think we need to be strategic about the teachers that we are keeping. Absolutely we want 

folks to not go home for Thanksgiving if they are a first-year teacher and not come back, because that happens a lot and it happens 

in a lot of our urban schools. 

But we need to create a climate—an environment that they want 

to be in, both with their principles and with their peers. And again, 

it has to—more so than money, it has a lot to do with the quality 

of preparation that they feel going into the classroom. 

If they are not well prepared they are going to be sort of taxed 

and put at their worst every day because they don’t know what 

they are doing. I think I was one of those folks in my first year 

as a teacher. 

So a lot of it starts at the front end with better preparation, and 

then better opportunity and ways to stay and keep a foot in the 

classroom as a teacher. 

Ms. PESKE. I would just add quickly to that comment that this 

underscores the importance of the clinical training so that folks 

have lots of experiences in schools, lots of time in schools, lots of 

time in different schools, and lots of time in schools that parallels 

what they end up doing when they are hired so they are not surprised by some of the challenges they will encounter. 

Chairman ROKITA. Gentleman’s time is expired. Thank the gentleman. 

Ms. Wilson is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

And thanks to the panel. I have been a lifelong educator and 

served as a school teacher and a school principal, and it—I have 

a question for all of you, if I can get your perspective on how you 

feel about testing—high stakes testing. 

It seems that the further along we get in rolling out teacher evaluation systems the more questions we have regarding value-added 

formulas, the impact of individual teachers on student learning, 

and the overuse of test scores. Yet the conventional wisdom seems 

to be that we need to hold teacher preparation programs accountable by looking at the test scores of the K–12 students of program 

graduates. 

Given some of the problems with using children’s test scores to 

evaluate K–12 teachers, do you have any concerns with extrapolating such data to teacher preparation programs? 

Ms. SINGER-GABELLA. There are a couple of issues. One is that 

we don’t—the technology just isn’t there yet. If you are looking at— 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

62 

we have a simultaneous problem of the fact that the impact of a 

preparation institution typically washes out within 3 to 5 years, 

and that is just about the time that the value-added estimates that 

are derived from students’ test scores become stable enough. 

So for example, we know that in Tennessee the state is relying 

on 1-year value-added estimates, meaning that there is 1 year of 

data for a new teacher that can be used. We know that you are 

very likely—that those estimates are extremely unstable, so that 

from 1 year you may be rated at the top—in the top quintile, and 

then the next year you may be rated in the bottom. 

The second problem is that typically programs don’t graduate 

enough people in a particular cell—so, for example, middle school 

English teachers—we don’t graduate enough of those folks in order 

to have a sample size that would tell you that is a reliable estimate 

of what the program is doing. So I realize this is moving to become 

very technical, but the—given that there is great instability in the 

measure, that we can’t really rely on that measure to be telling us 

that—for sure that that teacher is doing—that that is a reliable estimate for that teacher. 

We can’t aggregate back to programs. It becomes very difficult to 

be able to use those scores to tie those back to teachers—to particular programs. 

Ms. GIST. I would just add, and first of all I wanted just to address the beginning part of what you said. I think we do see in 

some of our schools and classrooms that there is too much testing 

going on. I also think it would be a huge, unfortunate reaction if 

we began to believe that tests were bad or did not give us useful 

information. They certainly do. 

And so the question is, how do we have a comprehensive system 

within our schools where our teachers are on a regular basis collecting information for their own use in the classroom and in 

schools, and then how do we do that at a policy level in a way that 

is integrated into our school days and not disruptive to learning 

but actually supporting learning? 

I agree that there are some technical challenges with how to do 

this well for programs, which is why I think it is important for us 

to do this closer to the state and local level. We do believe in Rhode 

Island that it is very important to look at outcomes and at including state assessments, and so we are using it but we are proceeding with caution and working very closely with our school districts and our institutions of higher education to make sure that we 

are carrying it out in a thoughtful and careful way. 

Ms. PESKE. We are doing something similar in Massachusetts. I 

do believe we need to include these student growth measures as 

part of a multiple measure system, which is the architecture of our 

educator evaluation system. It is built on multiple measures. 

And so we will be including information—we don’t call it valueadded but we call it student growth percentiles. That will be included in program data that we give back to the programs. 

Ms. HALL. And I would be remiss if I didn’t address this, as well. 

We are a teacher preparation program that does use student 

achievement as part of a composite score. 

We have gotten smarter about what is fair and what isn’t in 

terms of using student achievement gains. The way we have deCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

63 

signed our program is that teachers have 3 years to build their 

practice as a solo teacher of record, and it is across those 3 years 

that we look at student achievement gain. 

We look at multiple measures. We are also looking at classroom 

observation done by coaching. We evaluate their professionalism. 

So it is no one data point, including a student achievement data 

point. And it is using a composite across all 3 years that creates 

something that is flexible enough and that can still recognize—you 

know, in time data tells a story. There can be a very weak signal 

if you don’t have a lot of data and you don’t have enough time, but 

with the safeguard of a 3-year program and of a composite measure 

that also heavily weighs clinical practice and observation and professionalism, in time that sends a stronger signal around the capability of teaching. That is our belief. 

Chairman ROKITA. I thank the gentlelady. Gentlelady’s time is 

expired. 

Chairman Roe is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ROE. Thanks, Chairman. I am sorry for being a little bit late. 

I had another engagement this morning. 

And it is difficult for me, with two degrees from the University 

of Tennessee, to welcome a Vanderbilt, but welcome. 

And I want to thank all of you all. I think you have the most 

important job in America, which is to educate our youth. And I 

started out this Monday morning—Monday at Blountville Middle 

School in the eighth grade speaking to their class, and I saw a 

great teacher. And they learned the preamble to the Constitution, 

and the challenge was three students stood up and said it in less 

than 7 seconds. It can be done. 

And I could see where education in that classroom was fun. Students were having fun. It shouldn’t be drudgery. You can’t go 

through years and years of training and have it as drudgery. 

And I want to debunk some myths now. I know how terrible you 

are, how awful a job you are doing in America, because I watch the 

evening news like everybody else. The problem is that is not the 

truth, and I wish Mrs. Davis was still here because I do want to 

talk about Finland and I want to talk about how Finland has 5.4 

million people and a 4 percent poverty rate. 

I read a book recently and I challenge everybody in this room to 

read this book—M. Night Shyamalan, ‘‘I Got Schooled.’’ You need 

to read the book because it says this—and he went out and looked 

at data, like you all are doing—what are we actually accomplishing? 

And he found out to close the achievement gap if you took 

schools in this country that had 10 percent or less poverty—and 

poverty is defined as 75 percent and above free and reduced 

lunch—and remember, 20 to 22 percent of our schools in this country meet that definition—we have the highest PISA scores in the 

world. No one is even close. 

So when you look at this country you have to look at it in terms 

of where poverty is and where the real—and it is really—we are 

not going to ever close the achievement gap unless we help improve 

poverty. So it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. That was eye-opening to 

me, that I didn’t realize how well we were doing. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

64 

And he went through four of five things that you all have talked 

all about, and I just want to bring them up, and I obviously can’t 

go over the whole book now. 

But, Ms. Hall, you brought it out is how you get a good teacher, 

because if you don’t have a good—it doesn’t have to be Superman 

or Superwoman in the classroom, just a good teacher. If you do 

that, how do you make sure that a teacher who is not effective is 

not hired? And I think what you are doing is making sure they are 

prepared when they get back. 

And one of the chapters in his book is: Mr. Brodinsky, Report to 

the Office and Bring Your Suitcase. In other words, there are just 

some people that don’t need to be teaching. So that was one thing. 

Second thing was a highly effective principal, where a principal 

spent 80 percent of their time in the classroom helping the teacher, 

not making sure that they are doing wrong, but improving what 

they are doing, being there. And I know when I was in school the 

only thing I saw Mr. Thompson do as a World War II Marine was 

to get us out of the hallways. He was very effective at that. 

And one of the most impressive things in this book to me was 

what he wrote about how much you lose—how much a low-income 

student loses in the summer in their reading. They lose as much 

as 2.8 months, where my children and your children are going to 

get read to, they are going to the library, we go to vacation Bible 

school, whatever you do in the summer. 

During the school year when you guys have them they do just 

as well as any other student, so I think we need to be focusing— 

and one of my concerns, I think one of the reasons that the teachers are having such a tough time staying where they are is they 

feel like they are being bent into a pretzel with 400 things you 

have to send back here to Washington or whatever and check every 

box or I am somehow a bad teacher, and they are not bad teachers. 

I want our teachers out there to know in America that most of 

them are doing a great job; they are not doing a poor job. 

How does the Common Core affect teachers in retention, job satisfaction, and so forth? 

And I guess we are doing it in Tennessee so I will drop that one 

in your lap. 

Ms. SINGER-GABELLA. Are you? First, I also have to tell you that 

you have a tremendous teacher preparation institution in U.T., so 

we—we are very good colleagues. 

We are working hard to prepare our teachers, and in fact, the 

Common Core is very consistent in terms of the kinds of outcomes 

for students is very consistent with the kind of teaching and learning that we are preparing—trying to prepare our teachers to do. So 

obviously there are challenges. The Common Core is not written for 

English-learners and so there is tremendous scaffolding that is— 

that needs to be done, but I think it has provided a focus point for 

many preparation institutions around setting a high bar for learners and then thinking about, okay, how are we going to help prepare teachers to get students to those standards? 

Mr. ROE. Have our teachers bought into it in Tennessee where 

we are using Common Core— 

Ms. SINGER-GABELLA. My impression is yes, primarily they have. 

There are issues in implementation, and we will really know what 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

65 

is going on when the assessments hit and the rubber meets the 

road. 

Mr. ROE. Well, I see my time has expired. I really appreciate 

what you all are doing in education across this country. I think you 

have one of the most important jobs in the United States, and 

thank you for being here. 

Chairman ROKITA. Gentleman’s time has expired. I thank the 

gentleman. 

Mr. Scott is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I am always intrigued with the idea that that people—that school boards 

need instruction from Washington to tell them that teachers ought 

to be certified in the subject matter that they are teaching, as if 

the school board is looking at a list—a group of qualified teachers 

and they look over them and pick somebody that is not qualified, 

when the reality is that you don’t have anybody qualified applying 

for the salary that was offered. 

I guess my question is, has there been an analysis as to what 

salary we ought to be offering teachers in order to attract the skill 

set that we are looking for? 

Ms. PESKE. There have been various analyses of teacher salaries. 

However, a number of the analyses show that money is not the 

only thing that matters. It is certainly important and it certainly 

becomes more important to folks after, say, 5 years when they look 

around and see their other colleagues who graduated from college 

making much more money— 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, I mean, if we were hiring doctors we could put salaries out there at $50,000. We would find some doctors. I don’t 

think anybody would want to go to one, but I mean, we could find 

some doctors. 

And there has to be—what are we competing with in terms of 

skill set? The people with the skill sets that we are looking for, 

what do they make somewhere else compared to teaching? 

Ms. PESKE. I mean, I can’t answer that in terms of—I could speculate but I wouldn’t do that. But again, I would emphasize that 

while money is important, a crazy principal will drive you out faster than a low salary. 

Mr. SCOTT. Right. But I mean, we are talking—people are making choices all the way through the process. When they go to college, what do they major in? When they decide career choices, what 

choices do they make? And they look at salaries, and if there is a 

low salary you are not going to get the best and the brightest coming into teaching if the salaries are the worst on the lot. 

So my question is, we are competing for talent. You have got to 

pay for the talent that you are competing for. What are people with 

the skill set that we are looking for—what are they making compared to teaching? 

Ms. SINGER-GABELLA. First of all, I would agree that there are 

other factors besides salary, but my colleagues in Tennessee at the 

State Board of Education did an analysis to look at both starting 

salaries, which were not altogether necessarily too different, but 

then if you look 5 and 10 years out, looking at the differential in 

growth, so that someone, for example, who has a background in 

mathematics and a bachelor’s degree 10 years out—and I would 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

66 

have to go and get you the precise figures, but the salaries were 

pushing toward $100,000, whereas for 10 years out for a teacher 

in our state the salary would be closer to $45,000. 

Mr. SCOTT. And what does this do to your ability to recruit the 

best and the brightest in mathematics? 

Ms. SINGER-GABELLA. I think it makes it very challenging. Mathematics and science, where obviously the options are greatest, are 

the areas in which we are having the hardest time recruiting and 

keeping good teachers. 

Ms. HALL. Pardon me. I was going to add, we are recruiting 

science teachers right now and we are recruiting elementary and 

reading teachers and English language arts teachers, and math is 

where we lose them. They apply to our program, they start an application, and then they go take jobs that offer $70,000 to $80,000 

starting salaries. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, how can we reasonably expect to keep—to recruit and retain the best and the brightest if we are paying salaries 

half as much? 

Ms. GIST. I don’t think you are going to find anyone on this panel 

that would disagree with the importance of paying our great teachers much more than we do now. I think that is really important. 

I do think that—we have talked a little bit about career ladders, 

and giving our teachers additional leadership opportunities and opportunities to take their expertise and share it with their colleagues, and I think doing that in a way that allows them to increase their salaries is also a very positive thing to consider. 

But no disagreement about the need to make sure that our great 

teachers are better compensated. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, that is the only point I wanted to 

make. You know, we can talk around about how you get highly 

qualified teachers and train them right and this that and the other, 

but if you are not paying them a competitive salary for the skill 

set that we are looking for, you are not going to get the best and 

the brightest and we are going to always have the problem. 

I yield back. 

Chairman ROKITA. I thank the gentleman. 

Dr. Foxx is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you. 

Congressman Scott, I will tell you I worked in a university and 

community college. I think we have it backwards with salaries in 

this country. I think we should be paying the people at the elementary level what we pay college professors to begin with, because the 

college professors have the students that have already been filtered 

out. Seriously, I have said this all my life. 

There is one other thing which unfortunately is not very popular 

on your side of the aisle, and that is differential pay. We could get 

the people to come into math and science if we were willing to pay 

them what they are worth, but we have the unions and other 

groups of people who refuse to allow differential pay to be done. 

There really are answers to it. You all sort of moved around it, 

but it can be done. And you are right: It is a simple thing. But 

thanks for bringing it up, because I think it is a really important 

thing. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

67 

You talked about this, and every panel we have had—this is our 

13th panel—every panel we have had says we collect too much 

data at the federal level and we don’t have information. And you 

all have confirmed that again. What I would like to know very 

quickly is do you ever get any feedback on all that data? 

You are shaking your heads no. Okay. No. Okay. 

So it is useless. We are just wasting a lot of people’s time and 

money, and I wonder where it is all stored, which is also another 

expensive thing. So thank you for answering that. 

The next question I would like to ask is you have talked about 

teacher preparation programs and effectiveness. Tell us how you 

are measuring effectiveness in your programs and in what happens 

after the teachers go out. 

Dr. Gist? 

Ms. GIST. Yes, ma’am. I would be happy to start. 

We have recently adopted new standards, as I mentioned during 

my testimony, and the process that we are going through now is 

the development of our program approval process. And we are 

working closely with our partners in higher education as well as 

our partners in K–12 in the field to develop that program approval 

process. 

And it will include everything from the ways in which we are 

evaluating the quality through which our preparation programs are 

selecting excellent applicants and aspiring teachers, the way that 

they prepare them, meaning that we have certain expectations for 

them that include making sure that aspiring teachers have strong 

content, but also making sure that they have experiences in the 

field and making sure that when they are in the field with students 

that they are getting regular feedback on what is happening when 

they are with students, so they are not just there to experience it, 

but when they are there they are getting—someone is giving 

them—observing them and giving them feedback on what is happening. 

And then we are also going to be looking at outcomes. So we are 

going to be looking at once an aspiring teacher leaves a preparation 

program, what is their level of success following that? 

And we are looking at it—looking at that in a number of different ways. It includes everything from the evaluation that that 

teacher gets in the classroom once they are there; it includes the 

quality of their placements; it includes a number of different elements that we have created, and that information will be available 

through the report card that we are developing so that it is completely transparent. 

Chairwoman Foxx. Dr. Singer-Gabella? 

Ms. SINGER-GABELLA. I want to point out also, I think that we 

need to think about this again as a continuum—as a trajectory, so 

that we are talking—most good programs have benchmarks 

throughout their preparation. They have screening points in which 

they are allowing candidates to move through based on their performance up to that point. 

I had mentioned that before our candidate graduates we are requiring them to pass the edTPA, which is a really nice, performance-based measure. It gives us a very nice snapshot of our canCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

68 

didates’ ability to plan, to assess, to think systematically about 

data and to provide good feedback. 

Once our candidates are taking positions teaching, we really do 

take seriously the feedback that we get from employers and the extent to which they are staying in the field. So that feels like another important piece. 

We are interested, again, in looking at other measures—for example, student perception data. And then we are paying attention 

to persistence in the field. 

Chairwoman Foxx. Quickly. The time is almost up. 

Ms. PESKE. Sure. First I would say, I don’t think it is useless for 

us to report to you on Title II data. I think if we had few measures 

and they were comparable across states we would learn a great 

deal about what other states are doing, so I wouldn’t want you to 

abandon that altogether. 

Chairwoman Foxx. Ms. Hall? 

Chairman ROKITA. Quickly, please? 

Ms. HALL. Thank you. 

How do we measure for effectiveness? We absolutely look to how 

the school principal evaluates our folks, but we also have our own 

measures that we look at. As I said, it is across 3 years. You have 

3 years to build your practice to make sure it is—there is a consistency in the data that we are looking at. It includes eight to 10 clinical observations by one of our coaches that is observing clinical 

practice as an input, but a very important input. 

We look at professionalism. Are they a productive member of the 

community? Do they take locus of control? Do they take responsibility for what they are doing and not—or are they kid-blaming? 

And then last, we do use pre-and post-test data. 

Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you. 

Chairman ROKITA. Thank the gentlelady. 

Recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

Picking up on where Dr. Foxx left off, I would like to give Dr. 

Peske a couple seconds to see if she would indicate what data elements she would keep. 

And you don’t have to say now, but would you be willing to put 

that in the record or even write me a private letter? 

Ms. PESKE. Certainly. I would be willing to put it in the record 

and/or write you a private letter. 

Chairman ROKITA. Okay. 

And how about the other three of you? Would you be willing to 

say what elements you would like to keep? 

Now, of course you are—is that a yes? 

Let that record indicate all the witnesses have agreed to do such. 

Now, if you remember back to Brett Guthrie’s questions, he said, 

well, it is kind of—what I just asked you to do is a little bit unfair 

if you don’t know why you are being asked about all the data elements. You know, maybe you could provide better data if you know 

what was being done and why you were being asked for it. 

Have you had any correspondence, have you had any interaction 

with the Department of Education or anyone else as to why they 

are asking what they are asking? 

Dr. Gist? 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

69 

Ms. GIST. Well first of all, I think that the U.S. Department of 

Education has indicated an interest and a willingness to explore 

this and to figure out how we can do a better job. I don’t think they 

have an interest in, the leadership doesn’t have an interest in perpetuating these reporting structures. 

Chairman ROKITA. What human would? 

Ms. GIST. But I will also say— 

Chairman ROKITA. Right. 

Ms. GIST.—that Title II is not the only area where that happens. 

IDEA is another example of where there is a lot of data collected 

that isn’t necessarily improving performance. 

Chairman ROKITA. Have they gone down that road? What are we 

doing? What can you point to for trying to make this better? 

Ms. GIST. I mean, in the two examples that I have given I don’t 

think it has been—I mean, I think that the status quo remains in 

those two examples. 

Chairman ROKITA. Thank you. 

Anyone else want to chime in on that? 

Ms. Hall? It is okay if you don’t. 

Ms. HALL. I think I would like to answer from a practitioner perspective of what we look at. The data points that we look at that 

we think are important are when a teacher leaves. So retention 

and attrition are very important, but even more important is when 

during the school year does it happen, because that is going to inform our savviest districts of which pipelines are the best for them 

to pull their folks from, and we think it is a very important indicator. 

Chairman ROKITA. Anyone else? 

Ms. SINGER-GABELLA. Yes. I do think you want to ask the question about what data are comparable across states, and that is a 

really important point, and can we draw on that, and what are 

more appropriately gathered at the state level? These questions of 

how are certainly things that states, working with professional associations and institutions, can get into the weeds to really make 

sense of what is going on. 

Chairman ROKITA. Thank you. 

Differential pay—I would like your comments on the record. 

Dr. Gist? 

We will go right down the line. Yes, no, maybe so. 

Ms. GIST. Yes, and the question is how and under what circumstances. Certainly we need to pay physics teachers and others 

much more in order to have them and to be able to have a pool 

to select from. And I also believe that when done appropriately that 

performance should play a role, as well. 

Chairman ROKITA. What would be inappropriate? When done appropriately performance— 

Ms. GIST. I think making blanket decisions about—the tools need 

to be quality. It needs to be thoughtful and, you know— 

Chairman ROKITA. Data-driven. Evidence— 

Ms. GIST. Quality and multiple measures, not just one set of 

data. 

Chairman ROKITA. Someone has got to do a review, and that— 

Ms. GIST. Pardon? 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

70 

Chairman ROKITA. Someone has to do a review. That review has 

to be common across employees, that kind of thing? 

Ms. GIST. Right. And quality. Consistent— 

Chairman ROKITA. Quality. 

Ms. GIST. Right. So in other words, the tool that you are using 

needs to be looking for the right things and it needs to be implemented well. 

Chairman ROKITA. Do you have an example? 

Ms. GIST. We have just launched into a major effort to put new 

evaluation systems into place and we worked very carefully to look 

at the research and develop observation guides for evaluators, principals, and others who are going into classrooms, and so their tool 

has to be good, but also they have to be trained really well and prepared to be able to use the tool effectively. 

Chairman ROKITA. Dr. Singer? 

Ms. SINGER-GABELLA. I would agree that the how is really where 

we get into trouble, and we wouldn’t want to underpay the folks 

who are working at the primary level on critical language development. So it is sort of figuring out, how do we balance— 

Chairman ROKITA. Well, if they are bad— 

Ms. SINGER-GABELLA. Oh, yes, absolutely. I think no one disagrees that we want to make sure that people are accountable for 

strong performance. 

Chairman ROKITA. Thank you. 

Ms. PESKE. Yes, sir, we need differential pay for differential 

roles, for differential subjects, for teaching in various shortage 

areas, particularly our low-income and low-performing schools. 

Chairman ROKITA. Thank you. 

Ms. Hall? 

Ms. HALL. I wholeheartedly agree. The way we think of it at 

UTC is like the operating room. There are probably 10 to 12 to 15 

different jobs and levels of expertise that are all evaluated and paid 

differently in those operating rooms, and we think our schools 

should be the same. 

Chairman ROKITA. Thank you all. 

I will yield back and now recognize Mr. Polis. 

Mr. POLIS. Thank you. 

Before I get to my closing I want to address differential pay for 

a moment. There are many school districts across the country that 

have implemented generally increased pay for STEM professionals. 

We had a statewide program in Colorado for several years, in- creased pay—I believe it was $3,000 supplementary income for 

math and science teachers, hard-to-recruit areas. It was a very popular program. It had to be defunded in the Great Recession, as a 

lot of states had to cut their education expenditures. 

Certainly I would have interest, and if there are any of my colleagues across the aisle that would, in a federal pilot program to 

support teachers and supplement salaries in STEM fields, particularly in areas that it is hard to recruit teachers that serve impoverished kids. That could be a very high-leverage way to use our limited federal dollars to help ensure that particularly STEM’s teachers are able to work and support their families in very challenging 

work environments. So I think that is an area where hopefully initiatives will continue to move forward at the local level. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

71 

Again, the state level, we did have a program in Colorado, and 

I think had the resources been there we probably still would and 

it would be something to look into—to federally, as well. 

I want to thank our witnesses for their testimony and for sharing 

some really terrific expertise on how school districts, states, and 

the federal government and as well as teacher training institutions 

can work together to better prepare teachers so they can thrive in 

the classroom. 

I want to address the professional development piece. The teacher preparation piece, of course, absolutely critical and we are talking about actually looking at output-based indicators. We have had 

a similar issue with regard to professional development. 

The teacher entering the classroom after preparation is in no 

way, shape, or form as fully developed as they will be over time 

with professional development. Districts, the federal government, 

states all invest in professional development. 

How do we also see, or do you have any examples of how this 

revolution in data-and outcome-based measurements can also influence the effectiveness of teacher preparation programs to improve 

the quality of teachers in the classroom? 

Who would like to address that?’ 

Dr. Gist? 

Ms. GIST. Sure. I think one of the exciting things that has happened in our roll-out of our new educator evaluation systems is the 

connection between that work and professional development. 

We have for too long in our profession had these blanket, you 

know, everybody go to a certain building and everyone gets the 

same professional development. It may or may not be something 

that you need and/or are interested in. 

And so, just like we differentiate instruction in our classrooms 

for our students, we need to make sure that our professional educators have access to professional development and opportunities to 

grow and learn in areas in which they want to grow and learn and 

have been identified as areas in which they need to grow. 

Mr. POLIS. And I think for too long decisions have been made 

based on, you know, who has the slickest marketing, or what was 

trendy at the time. And if we can move to a more data-based way 

of making sure districts make data-based decisions that can improve the quality of teaching. 

Dr. Peske, did you want to address— 

Ms. PESKE. Yes, quickly. We also need to rely on our effective 

educators. So now that we have these educator evaluation systems 

in place with strong data we need to identify those educators who 

are exemplary with data and we need to learn from them. So rather than bring in all these vendors to give us professional development, we need to turn to the teachers who are doing this the best. 

Mr. POLIS. I look forward to soon introducing the Great Teachers 

Leading for Great Schools Act, which will revamp Title II of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to focus on intensive jobembedded professional development with transparency and outcome-based indicators. 

Really, learning starts with our preparation systems—both initial preparation as well as professional development. Teachers need 

pre-service opportunities to explore new strategies, the opportuniCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

72 

ties to work together sharing teaching strategies, engaging in 

meaningful and continuous professional work and development as 

they proceed through their careers. 

Innovation is occurring, as we heard from examples like the 

Urban Teacher Center and states like Massachusetts and Rhode Island, which are putting in place policies that ensure that teachers, 

districts, and the public have information about how to improve 

schools. We need to give social entrepreneurs and innovators the 

ability to innovate in this important field and ensure that our traditional programs are held accountable and focus on outputs that 

actually improve the quality of education that our next generation 

of students receive. 

I look forward to working with my colleagues to advance policies 

that invest in our nation’s educators to build a strong teacher preparation system. I think this hearing is a very good first start and 

look forward to working on legislation regarding some of the ideas 

that our experts presented in testimony today. 

And I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman ROKITA. I thank the gentleman. 

And for the record, I would like to say that I would be interested 

in learning more of the gentleman’s policies and language with the 

idea of partnering with him on different subjects. I appreciate the 

offer. 

I would like to thank the witnesses again for coming. It was very 

enlightening. I learned a lot. There is a method to my madness 

about offering to go last—my questioning, and that is I could listen 

more and I appreciate that. 

In the request I made of you during my 5 minutes of questioning 

that you are going to respond to, the specific request was to list 

those data elements that you thought were good to keep in—effective to keep in, but there is a corollary, perhaps, to that, and that 

is list for me elements that aren’t being collected that ought to be, 

in your opinion. That is just as valuable. 

And again, Mr. Guthrie has brought that up in his questioning 

but I am not sure for the record that we got really precise answers 

or recommendations from you. And I only task you with this because I think, frankly, your opinion is going to be—is going to 

weigh heavily for a lot of us, so I would encourage you to, in fact, 

respond. 

With that, again, I would like to thank the witnesses for the testimony as we continue to work through reauthorizations of the 

Higher Education Act and of the Student Success Act. 

And finding no further business before the committees, these 

subcommittees stand adjourned. 

[Additional Submissions by Mr. Davis follow:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

73 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 28 here 86746.028
74 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 29 here 86746.029
75 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 30 here 86746.030
76 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 31 here 86746.031
77 

[Additional Submissions by Mr. Hinojosa follow:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

78 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 32 here 86746.032
79 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 33 here 86746.033
80 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 34 here 86746.034
81 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 35 here 86746.035
82 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 36 here 86746.036
83 

[Questions submitted for the record and their responses follow:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

84 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 37 here 86746.037
85 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 38 here 86746.038
86 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 44 here 86746.044
87 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 45 here 86746.045
88 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 46 here 86746.046
89 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 47 here 86746.047
90 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 51 here 86746.051
91 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 52 here 86746.052
92 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 39 here 86746.039
93 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 40 here 86746.040
94 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 41 here 86746.041
95 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 42 here 86746.042
96 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 43 here 86746.043
97 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 59 here 86746.059
98 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 60 here 86746.060
99 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 61 here 86746.061
100 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 62 here 86746.062
101 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 63 here 86746.063
102 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 48 here 86746.048
103 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 49 here 86746.049
104 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 50 here 86746.050
105 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 53 here 86746.053
106 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 54 here 86746.054
107 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 55 here 86746.055
108 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 56 here 86746.056
109 

[Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the subcommittees were adjourned.] 

Æ 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER