'No Dream Denied: A Pledge to America's Children' by The National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (NCTAF)
Published by NCTAF, Washington, DC

What Still Matter Most: Quality Teaching In Schools Organized For Success
To ensure that beginning teachers are prepared to meet high standards, the Commission advocates the following criteria as benchmarks for teacher preparation, licensing, and hiring. They capture an emerging, research-based consensus about what teachers should know and be able to do to support student learning; they stand as the superscript for this entire report. When we speak of “highly qualified beginning teachers,” we mean teachers who:

• Possess a deep understanding of the subjects they teach
• Evidence a firm understanding of how students learn
• Demonstrate the teaching skills necessary to help all students achieve high standards
• Create a positive learning environment
  
• Use a variety of assessment strategies to diagnose and respond to individual learning needs
  
• Demonstrate and integrate modern technology into the school curriculum to support student learning
  
• Collaborate with colleagues, parents and community members, and other educators to improve student learning
  
• Reflect on their practice to improve future teaching and student achievement
  
• Pursue professional growth in both content and Pedagogy
• Instill a passion for learning in their students

HON. JAMES B. HUNT JR., CHAIRMAN
THOMAS G. CARROLL, Ph.D., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR © January 2003
National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future, Washington, DC

NO DREAM DENIED A PLEDGE TO AMERICA S CHILDREN
“A child, unlike any other, yet identical to all those who have preceded and those who will follow, sits in a classroom today, hopeful, enthusiastic, curious. In that child sleeps the vision and the wisdom of the ages. The touch of a teacher will make the difference.” Sharon M. Draper National Board Certified Teacher and National Teacher of the Year, 1997

Teaching From the Heart
More than half a century ago, the African-American poet Langston Hughes asked the question every visionary must face: “What happens to a dream deferred?” In response, for two generations, America has spoken from its conscience: “A dream deferred is a dream denied.” The question of whether dreams will be denied is especially pointed and penetrating in the context of our schools and what happens there—or does not happen—for all of America’s children. In 1996, recognizing the importance of a quality education, the National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (NCTAF) challenged the nation to provide every child with what should be his or her educational birthright: “competent, caring, qualified teachers in schools organized for success.” The Commission’s report, What Matters Most: Teaching for America’s Future, called for this objective to be met by 2006. Since the Commission’s report was issued, the nation has reached a consensus that wellprepared teachers are the most valuable resource a community can provide to its young people.

Thousands of school districts across the country are working to provide children with highly qualified teachers supported by strong professional teaching environments. Many of these schools deliver an education that ranges from good to world-class, and their students are achieving at high levels. Building on this momentum, the bipartisan passage of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 was a clear expression of national will. Recognizing that every American family deserves public schools that work, No Child Left Behind pledges highly qualified teachers in every classroom by the 2005-06 school year. It is a pledge we must keep. The law’s goal goes to the root of education in a democratic society: All children should have the opportunity to learn—regardless of income, background, or ethnic identity. It is the right law at the right time.

As the Commission noted in its 1996 report, these research-based criteria are supported by common sense: ”American students are entitled to teachers who know their subjects, understand their students and what they need, and have developed the skills to make learning come alive.” Progress toward the Commission’s goals has been impressive. But we are now more than halfway to 2006, and the nation is still far from providing every child with quality teaching. The shortfall is particularly severe in low-income communities and rural areas, where inexperienced and underprepared teachers are too often concentrated in schools that are structured for failure, rather than success. The price being paid by students who need quality teaching is unacceptable.

If we know that high quality teaching makes a difference, why isn’t every child in America getting it?
The conventional wisdom is that we lack enough good teachers. But, the conventional wisdom is wrong. The real school staffing problem is teacher retention. Our inability to support high quality teaching in many of our schools is driven not by too few teachers entering the profession, but by too many leaving it for other jobs. The ability to create and maintain a quality teaching and learning environment in a school is limited not by teacher supply, but by high turnover among the teachers who are already there—turnover that is only aggravated by hiring unqualified and underprepared replacements who leave teaching at very high rates. The extensive evidence for these assertions is laid out in the next section. That evidence paints a disquieting picture. In the mistaken belief that teacher supply is the core problem, quality teaching is too often compromised in an effort to recruit a sufficient quantity of teachers to fill classrooms. The results:

• Standards for entry into the profession are lowered
• Quality teacher preparation is undercut
• Licensure becomes a bureaucratic barrier to be side-stepped, instead of a mark of quality
  
• The mythology that “anyone can teach” gains more ground with each fall’s round of stop-gap hiring.

Today, thousands of unqualified individuals are in classrooms across the nation, hired because state laws and district policies are ignored in the name of meeting immediate needs of schools that appear to face “shortages.” But the real problem is that these schools are unable to retain a sufficient number of teachers with the proper credentials. We have mistaken the symptom for the problem.

Why Doesn't Every Child Have Quality Teaching?
Based on the research and data presented more fully in the detailed companion report to this summary, the Commission believes that “teacher shortages” never justify placing uncertified teachers in schools. No research evidence supports the claim that quality teacher preparation, rigorous program accreditation, or strong licensure and certification standards are barriers to providing the nation’s schools with a sufficient quantity of highly qualified teachers. There is no basis for sacrificing these standards of quality—even temporarily— on the altar of emergency. Taking a shortcut around quality-assurance measures only aggravates the very conditions that drive good teachers away from the schools and students that need them.

The Commission has observed that setting standards is like building the foundation of a house: Each new layer of blocks depends on the strength of those supporting it.

Students will not be able to meet high learning standards unless their teachers are prepared to meet high standards. It is vitally important to understand that a knowledge-based economy and a pluralistic society create High Expectations for teaching. What we said in 1996 rings ever more true today: “To help diverse learners master much more challenging content, today’s teachers must go far beyond dispensing information, giving a test, and assigning a grade.”

In order to prepare each child for successful employment and productive citizenship in the 21st century, teachers must:

• Know their subject areas deeply
• Understand how children learn
• Be able to use that knowledge to teach well
• Use modern learning technologies effectively
  
• Work closely with their colleagues to create rich learning environments.

The Teacher Retention Crisis
The Commission reaffirms its commitment to recruiting and preparing highly qualified teachers. Developing good teachers remains essential. But we have concluded that the nation cannot achieve quality teaching for every child unless those teachers can be kept in the classroom. The missing ingredient is finding a way for school systems to organize the work of qualified teachers so they can collaborate with their colleagues in developing strong learning communities that will sustain them as they become more accomplished teachers. Good teaching and good schools are mutually reinforcing. If we want quality teaching for every child, every school must become a place where teaching and learning thrive.

Teacher retention has become a national crisis. As we make clear in the full report that accompanies this summary, teacher turnover is now undermining teaching quality and it is driving teacher shortages. The superficial conclusion drawn from growing student enrollments, smaller classes, and retirements is that the supply of new teachers is insufficient to keep pace with these relentless pressures. But the facts speak otherwise: overall, the nation dramatically increased its supply of teachers during the 1990s and generally produces enough teachers to meet each year’s new needs. With the exception of the specific fields of mathematics, science, Special Education, and bilingual education, the teacher supply is adequate to meet the demand.

From 1984 to 1999 the annual number of new graduates earning bachelor’s and master’s degrees in education went up by more than 50 percent, to 220,000 annually. In 1999, approximately 160,000 of those graduates were new teachers with initial licenses, yet only 85,000 newly prepared teachers were hired that year. The number of teachers entering the schools increased steadily during the 1990s. The problem is that teacher attrition was increasing even faster. It is as if we were pouring teachers into a bucket with a fist-sized hole in the bottom. Despite their best recruiting efforts, many schools show a net loss of teaching staff each year. In 1999-2000, for example, the nation’s schools hired 232,000 teachers who had not been teaching the year before (i.e., new and reentering teachers, not just those changing schools). But one year later, the schools lost more than 287,000 teachers—55,000 more than had been hired—for a net loss of 24 percent. When we read the laments over how many teachers need to be hired each fall, and the cries of alarm over where they will come from, we should be asking a more useful question: “How many teachers left last spring—and why?”

No teacher supply strategy will ever keep our schools staffed with quality teachers unless we reverse debilitating turnover rates. Teacher turnover rates include those moving from one school to another as well as those leaving teaching. Turnover rates are high, but the figures for teacher attrition (those who leave teaching), are even more troubling. An analysis of the most recent data from the National Center for Education Statistics found that approximately a third of America’s new teachers leave teaching sometime during their first three years of teaching; almost half may leave during the first five years. Not surprisingly, turnover is highest in low-income urban schools. The turnover rate for teachers in high poverty schools is almost a third higher than the rate for all teachers in all schools. And attrition, the leak in the bucket, has been getting worse. In the 1987-88 school year, teacher entrants exceeded leavers by 3 percent, but during the 1990s the trend changed; by 1999-2000 teacher leavers exceeded entrants by 23 percent. Source: Richard M. Ingersoll, adapted for NCTAF from "The Teacher Shortage: A Case of Wrong Diagnosis and Wrong Prescription," NASSP Bulletin, 86 (June 2002) pp.16-31.

Is Retirement a Factor?
How much does retirement contribute to the high (and growing) rate of teacher attrition? Not as much as we might think. The number of retiring teachers is far below the number of newly qualified teachers. Over the next 10 years, about 700,000 teachers are projected to retire, accounting for about 28 percent of future hiring needs. Our present teacher preparation system can easily accommodate this retirement rate. Much more serious than retirement is the fact that the number of teachers leaving the profession for other reasons is almost three times larger than the number who are retiring.

Teacher Turnover: A Revolving Door
These data portray a teaching force with more than a million teachers entering or departing their schools annually—roughly a third of all teachers. Teaching is increasingly “a revolving door occupation with relatively high flows in, through, and out of schools.”

The Costs to Schools and School Systems
Some turnover is, of course, to be expected, as individuals leave to retire, start families, or pursue other jobs. Moreover, turnover can be positive when it brings new life to organizations, especially if those leaving have not been effective teachers. But excessive teacher turnover, particularly in low-income urban and rural communities, has huge financial, institutional, and human costs. We can, and should, put a price tag on the cost of this turnover. First, there is a largely hidden cost—the loss of the enormous public investment that goes into tuition and tax support for preparing new teachers—who then proceed to leave the schools early. We also should put a price tag on the cost of turnover at the school district level. Preliminary estimates of the financial cost of running our teachers through this revolving door every year are astronomical.

A recent analysis in Texas, for example, estimated that the cost of annual, statewide turnover could be “conservatively set at $329 million.” Each state and district would do well to accurately track and assess the real costs of excessive teacher turnover and attrition, which should not be accepted as “normal operating costs.” The churning of teaching staff keeps school administrators scrambling. Almost a third of all teachers in 1999-2000 were in transition. The day-to-day reality for a school with that many teachers in flux—whether the teachers in one school are being lost to another across town or dropping out of teaching altogether—is the same: disruption of the coherence, continuity, and community that are central to strong schools. The drains on school finances and human resources are particularly severe where chronic turnover and attrition produce high concentrations of underprepared and inexperienced teachers. When thrown into schools with high turnover and limited opportunities for mentoring by accomplished teachers, new teachers often feel “lost at sea.”

Accomplished teachers, including those who could serve as mentors, are stretched thin; they feel overburdened by the needs of their colleagues as well as those of their students. Districts with high turnover schools must continually pour money into recruitment and professional support for new teachers, often without reaping the dividends of sharpened instructional skills or improved student achievement. Teachers who initially benefit from staff-development investments in low-performing schools often end up leaving the profession or moving on to more “desirable” teaching positions in affluent communities, contributing to the talent drain in our most troubled schools.

Teacher Turnover And Attrition Have Unacceptable Costs
High turnover also undercuts the ability of schools to build and sustain the professional teaching communities needed to support reform. No price tag has yet been placed on this loss, but substantial investments of both time and money in instructional improvement and curriculum development are wiped out by high turnover rates. This is especially true in beleaguered schools, where teachers too often lack the leadership and the collegial opportunities they need to support and enrich their efforts to improve student achievement.

The Costs to Students—Low Income Students Lose the Most
The most serious long-term consequence of high teacher turnover is the erosion of teaching quality and student achievement. Inexperienced teachers (that is, those with less than two or three years of experience) are often noticeably less effective than their more senior colleagues. The American Association of School Administrators has found, for example, that the “overwhelming majority of high school principals are convinced that teacher experience matters. Seventy percent report that in their schools, teachers with more experience are more knowledgeable about curriculum, assessment, and instruction.” Not surprisingly, it is the lowest-income students who suffer most. Young people need stability in their lives; when school staff come and go in a parade of changing faces, children’s emotional and social development suffer the consequences.

Excessive teacher turnover in low-income urban and rural communities undermines teaching quality and student achievement. Typically, large urban schools with the highest percentages of poor and minority students have the highest turnover rates. They also have the highest percentages of first-year teachers, the highest percentages of teachers with less than five years of teaching experience, and the lowest percentages of veteran, accomplished teachers. Conditions in these schools simply do not support quality teaching. For example, a California survey found that teachers in high-minority, low-income schools report significantly worse working conditions—including inadequate facilities, less availability of textbooks and supplies, fewer administrative supports, and larger class sizes. Teachers are significantly more likely to say they plan to leave a school soon because of these poor working conditions.

A subsequent analysis of these data confirmed that turnover problems are more strongly influenced by school working conditions and salary levels than by the characteristics of the student population in these schools. The impact of high teacher turnover in low-income and high-minority schools falls directly on students because, for them, a churning faculty creates a true no-win situation. Having lost one or more of their teachers, they are forced to sit in classrooms taught by unqualified replacements or short-term substitutes, daily diminishing their chances of achieving a quality education. In one widely noted Tennessee study, children who had the least effective teachers three years in a row posted academic achievement gains that were 54 percent lower than the gains of children who had the most effective teachers three years in a row. Similar studies in Boston and Dallas have yielded comparable findings.The Education Trust concluded that “[t]he implication is that not only does teaching quality matter—it matters a lot. Students unfortunate enough to face several bad teachers in a row face devastating odds against success.” In high turnover schools the cycle of educational disadvantage is repeated from one generation to the next. It is time to break this cycle.

The teacher turnover/retention issue has deep roots and far-reaching consequences. To be sure, states and districts across the country have been hard at work setting high standards for students. But without equally high standards for teaching, we are inviting students to play a game that is forever rigged against them. The national mandate for addressing this problem, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, could not be more explicit. Its basic premise is that to meet high standards every child deserves high quality teaching in schools organized for success. To make the law work, we must reduce teacher turnover. The National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future is ready to work with education leaders at every level to support a high quality teaching profession in 21st century schools where children’s dreams are not denied.

A three-part strategy for meeting that commitment, which builds on recommendations that the Commission made in What Matters Most, is outlined in this summary and described in greater detail in the companion report.

1. We must organize every school for teaching and learning success.
2. We must insist on quality teacher preparation, program accreditation, and licensure.
3. We must develop and sustain professionally rewarding career paths for teachers from mentored induction through accomplished teaching.

The Commission calls on states, school systems, institutions of higher education, unions, school boards, business leaders, and the federal government to join us in setting an ambitious goal to accept the challenge to improve teacher retention by at least 50 percent by 2006, creating incentives for those moving toward this goal, and rewarding schools that achieve it.

Putting The Focus On Teacher Retention
When teachers are asked why they leave their teaching jobs, working conditions are at the top of the list. It is time to transform schools into genuine learning organizations that, for both students and teachers, respect learning, honor teaching, and teach for understanding. In 1996, the Commission called for initiatives to restructure time and staffing in order to give teachers regular opportunities to work with one another and to develop shared responsibility for instructional outcomes:

• We challenged policymakers to flatten school hierarchies and reallocate resources to send more dollars to the front lines of the schools.
• We called on funding agencies to invest more in teachers and technologies and less in nonteaching personnel and resources.
• We proposed that school systems select, prepare, and retain principals who understand teaching and learning, leaders who can transform schools into learning communities.

Since 1996 these recommendations have been strongly reinforced by new research on how people learn.

Schools Need To Be Organized Around What We Have Learned About Learning
Good teachers are attracted to and thrive in good schools. These schools are places where teaching and learning prosper, because they are focused on what we know about how both students and teachers learn and grow. Recent research, summarized by the National Academy of Sciences, has found that successful learning environments are those organized to be:

• Successful Schools Are Learner-Centered

• Successful Schools Are Assessment-Centered
  Teachers who are proficient in the use of well-designed assessment tools and strategies make learner-centered instruction possible. Sound assessment approaches provide continuous feedback that helps both students and teachers monitor learning while it is in progress. Revisions in learning activities can be made as needed, and extra effort or new strategies can be tried before it’s too late.
  

• Successful Schools Are Knowledge-Centered
  A focus on the learner does not mean that content is given short shrift. In successful schools full attention is given to mastering not only facts and figures but also to each student’s ability to make sense of what is known in a given field of knowledge. Whether it is fractions, ecological systems, or the proper use of grammar, each subject has its own building blocks and content standards that are essential for understanding and mastery. Furthermore, information literacy—the ability to find, interpret and evaluate, create, and share information with others—is a critical part of knowledge-centered learning in the 21st century.
  

• Successful Schools Are Community-Centered
  A learner-centered environment does not imply that students or teachers learn and work alone. Quality teaching and deep understanding depend on reflection that arises from discussion, collaboration, and building knowledge, not only with peers but also with others who are more experienced or advanced, including other students, teachers, parents, or members of the broader community. The coherence of learning norms and the quality of the school’s Learning Community will greatly affect the school’s ability to reach its learning goals.
  

Schools Need To Become Learning Communities With Shared Leadership
It is time to end the era of solo teaching in isolated classrooms. Good teaching thrives in a supportive learning environment created by teachers and school leaders who work together to improve learning—in short, quality teaching requires strong, professional learning communities. Collegial interchange, not isolation, must become the norm for teachers. Communities of learning can no longer be considered utopian; they must become the building blocks that establish a new foundation for America’s schools.

Classical top-down school leadership, designed for the factory-era schools of the 19th century, assumed that teachers needed to know little more than how to follow the textbook in a highly structured curriculum. But today there is far more information than any text can contain or any teacher can deliver. The information age requires more of teachers; as ever more is demanded of them, teachers must be recognized as professionals who have the expertise to make good teaching and learning decisions for their students. In this context of trust, teachers in professional learning communities can form collaborative networks of expertise that focus on professional growth and student achievement. Shared or “distributed leadership” brings the learning community together in a common commitment and shared responsibility for sustaining improvement.

Schools Need To Become Small, Well-Focused Learning Communities
Many educators, parents, and community leaders are now convinced that the model of the large, consolidated, “shopping mall” school has become antiquated; indeed, such schools have ceased to be effective venues for student learning. In smaller schools—typically 300 to 600 students—more flexible staffing, better use of time, and more responsive learning designs ensure that teachers and administrators get to know their students well and serve as their champions throughout their school careers. Numerous studies confirm that when small schools become the unit of reform, improved student achievement and real instructional change can result.

Personal relationships, student participation, academic performance, and intellectual orientation can all be strengthened in small schools. The benefits of smaller schools can also be significant for students in low-income inner city communities. There is evidence of substantially better attendance, lower rates of misbehavior and violence, stronger gains in reading (especially for limited-English-proficient students), better performance on writing assessments, higher graduation rates, and higher college-going rates when compared to large schools.

Schools Need To Use Modern Technologies To Support Learning Communities
Modern technologies increase the ability to organize schools around what we know about how students learn. They enable teachers to assess each student’s mastery of skills and content, so that teachers can align curriculum and instruction to help every student meet high standards. Appropriately deployed, new technologies can help students better understand and apply complex concepts, and help them move beyond intellectual stumbling blocks in order to delve deeply into the content of a Discipline. Networked information technologies also support and sustain teachers in learning communities. Networked learning communities can be based entirely within a school, providing teachers a “place” to reflect and collaborate with colleagues they might otherwise find scant opportunity to meet with in the busy school day. Or, they can extend across schools, districts, states, or even nations to provide much broader communities of practice. The value of these communities is particularly strong for new teachers, who often face difficulties in finding the support they need in their local schools. By participating in networked learning communities, they are able to share and expand their expertise through regular interactions with their colleagues and other leaders in the profession.

Action Steps
Good teachers are attracted to and thrive in good schools. We will achieve high quality teaching for every child only when we have high quality schools for every child. We invite state leaders, superintendents, school boards, principals, and teachers to join us in a national effort to:

• Operate schools according to what research tells us about how people learn
• Reallocate and appropriate funds to provide teachers and other school leaders with the time, flexibility, and resources they need to create and sustain small, and well-focused professional learning communities
• Reallocate the resources of large, low performing schools to support the creation of small learning communities, breaking down teacher isolation and student anonymity
  
• Select, prepare, retain, and reward superintendents, principals, teachers, and other school leaders who demonstrate the vision and skill to create schools that can meet 21st century needs
• Adopt modern technologies and make use of research findings that enable teachers to diagnose student learning needs and deploy appropriate teaching strategies that customize instruction appropriately
• Use Internet-based, networked, learning communities that enable teachers and students to participate in high-quality learning any time, anywhere
  
• Use multiple assessments and accountability indicators that give a clear and continuing picture of progress toward student learning goals.

To ensure that teachers are qualified to meet the teaching requirements and the learning needs of a digital age, we must insist on quality preparation for teachers, rigorous accreditation standards, and licensure that meets high standards. It is well past time to abandon the futile debate over “traditional” vs. “alternative” teacher preparation. The key issue for the Commission, and the nation, is not how new teachers are prepared but how well they are prepared and supported, whatever preparation pathway they may choose. Developing high quality teachers is the responsibility of all who take on the task of teacher preparation, whether in colleges and universities, in programs sponsored by school districts, or in nonprofit organizations. Because all routes lead to the classroom no matter who sponsors them, all who take those paths should meet the same high standards for teaching quality.

What All New Teachers Should Know and Be Able To Do
Great teachers have a deep understanding of the subjects they teach. They work with a firm conviction that all children can learn. They know and use teaching skills and a complete arsenal of assessment strategies to diagnose and respond to individual learning needs. They know how to use the Internet and modern technology to support their students’ mastery of content. They are eager to collaborate with colleagues, parents, community members, and other educators. They are active learners themselves, cultivating their own professional growth throughout their careers. They take on leadership roles in their schools and profession. Finally, they are models, instilling a passion for learning in their students. These criteria, and the others noted at the very outset of this summary, are based on a consensus that emerges from more than a decade of Policy development, experience, research, and classroom practice. They embody the principles of good teaching and accomplished practice that have been identified by the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC) and the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS).

Teacher Preparation The Commission has identified six dimensions of quality teacher preparation programs.

1. Careful recruitment and selection of teacher candidates. Thoughtful selection of candidates increases the likelihood that a teacher preparation program will successfully develop individuals who are academically well-prepared and appropriately suited to work with young children and youth.
2. Strong academic preparation for teaching. Teacher candidates, no matter their experience or type of preparation program, must have a sound knowledge base for teaching; they must become actively engaged with the content and methods of Inquiry that make up an academic discipline. But a college major or minor, or professional experience in the field, guarantees neither a command of subject matter nor the ability to teach it successfully. The knowledge base of teaching is incomplete unless candidates master not just the what of course content, but also the how of teaching it as well. To this end, teacher candidates should develop a clear understanding of professional, state, and district standards of learning in their discipline. Teachers also should understand what research has shown about how people learn and how that applies to learning in their particular content area.
3. Strong clinical practice to develop effective teaching skills. Integration of knowledge and skills in well-designed and supervised clinical practice, in diverse settings, under the supervision of faculty and accomplished teachers, is essential to developing highly qualified teachers. The lack of clinical skills and classroom experience is a significant factor in the high levels of burnout and attrition found among new teachers throughout the country.
4. Entry-level teaching support in residencies and mentored induction. Teachers are not “finished products” when they complete a teacher preparation program. Strong residency and mentored induction experiences during their initial years in the classroom provide beginning teachers with invaluable support as they lay the groundwork to become accomplished teachers. A well-planned, systematic induction program for new teachers is vital to maximize their chances of being successful in any school setting, but it is especially critical in high-need schools.
5. Modern learning technologies. Teachers in 21st century schools must become technology- proficient educators, well-prepared to meet the learning needs of students in a digital age. During their preparation and clinical practice experiences, teachers should become fluent in the use of these powerful tools, to promote student learning, diagnose stumbling blocks, use alternative strategies to address Learning Styles, and track and analyze student and class progress. Teachers also should be prepared to use technologies to support their own professional growth, participating in networked professional learning communities during their induction years, and sharing and expanding their expertise through regular interactions with colleagues and other educators throughout their careers.
6. Assessment of teacher preparation effectiveness. Programs that assess the performance of their teacher candidates are in a better position to improve. Assessment of teacher preparation means that teacher candidates are evaluated by more than final exams in their courses, the “comps” required by their degree programs, or by other graduation requirements. Ongoing formative assessments should encourage teachers to continually reflect on their learning and how it will be applied and improved in the classroom.

Taken together, these six teacher preparation components provide clear steps to success. When teacher preparation programs are organized around a coherent approach to building knowledge and developing strong teaching skills, when they include extensive clinical practice designed to meet the needs of schools and students, and when they provide early teaching support to their graduates, the rates of beginning teacher attrition are almost half the level found for beginning teachers who have not had this kind of preparation.

Accreditation of Teacher Preparation Accreditation is the primary vehicle for quality control of teacher preparation, as it is for many other professions. But because accreditation is not required of all teacher preparation, quality varies widely; excellent programs operate side-by-side with others that are out of touch with current knowledge and school needs. To ensure quality, the Commission continues to recommend that federal and state policymakers insist on accreditation for all teacher preparation institutions and programs. The U.S. Department of Education recognizes the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) as the professional accrediting body for colleges and universities that prepare teachers and other professional personnel for work in elementary and secondary schools. NCATE also has established Partnerships with 48 states to conduct joint reviews of colleges of education, and it has pilot tested and issued revised standards for assessing the quality of Professional Development schools.

Although the number of “alternative programs” for teacher preparation has rapidly expanded since the Commission issued its first report in 1996, there are still no clearly established and widely accepted standards for these approaches. However, alternate route programs offered by accredited colleges of education now must meet NCATE standards, and NCATE has begun to consider whether to review non-university providers of teacher preparation. The Commission believes that alternative programs should be held to quality standards that are equally as rigorous as those required of more traditional teacher preparation programs.

Accountability for Teacher Preparation at Federal, State, and Local Levels
The Higher Education Act Amendments of 1998 authorized federal and state agencies to measure, report on, and hold teacher preparation programs responsible for the quality of their graduates. The federal Title II “report cards” for institutions and states are a start in the accountability process. These reports may not tell policymakers and the public everything they need to know about quality teacher preparation, in part because they rely heavily on tests that provide incomplete measures of teaching competence. But if the reports are used well, they can create a broader discussion and deeper understanding of the state system that should guarantee a quality teacher for every student.

A full understanding of the quality of teacher preparation, however, must go beyond the academic success of candidates. It is time for all teacher education programs—traditional and alternative—to redouble their efforts to publicly demonstrate the “value-added” they bring to their students. Documentation efforts should include the extent to which graduates have developed and mastered the qualities of a highly qualified beginning teacher that are the starting point for this summary; they should also point to evidence of pupil learning that has occurred under the tutelage of teachers who are graduates of the program.

College and University Responsibility for Quality Teacher Preparation
Because the vast majority of the nation’s teachers are prepared in approximately 1,300 colleges and universities across the country, any meaningful discussion of accountability for quality teacher preparation must address institutional responsibility for success. College presidents, university chancellors, and deans need to take their place in the chain of accountability for the quality of teachers prepared at their institutions. That means moving quality teacher education to the forefront of institutional planning. Shortchanging teacher education results in weak programs with poor clinical training and little of the intensive, mentored support that quality teacher preparation requires. The presidents and boards of trustees of these institutions have a moral responsibility to America’s children. If these institutions and officials are unable to make this commitment, they should not be in the business of teacher preparation.

Licensure Should Testify That Beginning Teachers Are Well-Qualified
To practice certification or licensure is the state’s legal vehicle for establishing competence for members of professions, including teaching. In the strategy for ensuring teacher quality that the Commission outlined in its 1996 report, licensure played a central role. The Commission advocates that all teachers be licensed on the basis of demonstrated performance, including tests of subject matter knowledge, teaching knowledge, and the teaching skills that reflect the core competencies of a highly qualified beginning teacher. Through work on the No Dream Denied, A Pledge to America's Children Summary Report development of the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC), states are making progress on this front. But more must be done if licensure is to gain the respect it holds in other professions.

More Must Be Done To Improve Licensure
Teacher licensure remains a weak link in the chain of accountability for quality teaching, in large part because the content and quality of licensing standards across states is uneven and inconsistent. The haphazard menu of requirements, tests, and policies does nothing to create a credible benchmark for teacher preparation. Further, the standards required for new teachers are not always aligned with student content standards.

In a nation where 43 million Americans move each year, this crazy quilt of requirements means that the quality of teaching for our students depends on accidents of birth or residence. Most states test prospective teachers, but many are still not using true performancebased assessments that provide valid measures of teaching competence. In short, teacher licensure tests simply don’t measure up; many are weak indices of the depth of knowledge and skills all teachers must have. States also differ substantially in how they set passing scores. States have raised teaching standards substantially in the past decade; now they need to improve the measures of teaching competence that make standards credible. Further, loopholes can make licensing a mockery. Backdoor routes to the classroom have proliferated. Across the nation, thousands of unqualified individuals are in the classroom. Students are exposed to incompetence because school districts are unable to attract and retain teachers with credentials that represent real achievement.

Only a few states keep complete or accurate data on the extent to which their students are being taught by individuals who lack credentials in the subjects they are teaching. In the starkest terms, the failures of policies and practices, whether in federal or state government, in university preparation programs, or in school districts, are being shouldered by children. This is unconscionable. In most cases, teachers in high-poverty schools are more likely to be teaching out-of-field than are teachers in more affluent schools. And because students in high-poverty schools are the ones most likely to be taught by uncertified and out-of-field teachers, disadvantaged students have become the most blatant victims of constant quality compromises that are made to keep a sufficient number of teachers in classrooms.

It is unacceptable, as a matter of public policy, to hold students to academic standards that some of their teachers are unable to help them meet. It is time for full public disclosure. States and school districts should ensure that every teacher in every classroom has met teaching standards aligned with K-12 learning standards. The Commission believes it is time to make accountability for results a reality for everyone involved. The chain of accountability should include states, teacher preparation programs, and school districts. They all should be held responsible for enforcing high standards for all entrants to teaching coming from all forms of teacher preparation. All links in the chain should deny teaching appointments to unlicensed and unqualified individuals.

Improving Licensure Practices: Winds of Change
Considerable work is now under way at the state level, much of it led by the states themselves, in partnership with the Commission and other organizations committed to quality teaching. Important components of that work include the following:

• Professional Standards Boards
  Professional standards boards for teachers are a strong voice in the chorus for change. While the roles and functions of these boards vary, they have the authority, as in other professions, to accredit teacher preparation and license renewal programs, to set licensure standards and issue licenses, and to sanction licensed practitioners for misconduct. Some can truly set standards and requirements for practice, while others act in an advisory Capacity to state boards of education. As of 2002, nine states had independent boards of standards and practice; (two more had independent standards boards and two others had independent practice boards); four had semi-independent boards (three for both standards and practice; one for standards only); 12 had advisory boards of standards and practice; and seven states had no such boards.
  

• Cooperation Across States
  Fifteen states have been working with the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC) to develop a Test for Teaching Knowledge, based on the INTASC standards and designed to assess teachers’ knowledge of teaching prior to issuing the initial license. Four states (Connecticut, Indiana, Kentucky, and Ohio) are using a performance-based assessment before issuing the first professional license. Ohio and Arkansas use PRAXIS III, a classroom observation instrument, developed by the Educational testing Service, while Connecticut and Indiana use portfolio assessments based on the INTASC standards. The INTASC standards focus on the ability of beginning teachers to teach specific subjects. These portfolio assessments were developed to align with the National Board portfolio assessments, which are now widely accepted as tools to measure accomplished teaching.
  

• Tiered Licensure
  Tiered licensure systems are built in stages similar to those in other professional career ladders. They make explicit what is expected of teachers at each licensing stage, from the initial or provisional license, to the demonstration of the experience and expertise required for a full professional license, and finally to the expectations for the “master teacher” designation. At least 17 states are creating tiered systems that incorporate INTASC and NBPTS standards as measures for staged entry into the profession and advanced certification. Twenty-five states have been working to implement INTASC or similar standards for beginning teacher licensure, and 25 states accept National Board Certification for license renewal purposes and, in some cases, use Board Certification to grant the state’s highest professional license.
  
  

Action Steps
States, institutions of higher education, schools, and school districts can join us in ensuring that teacher preparation lays a strong foundation and that subsequent licensure guarantees high quality teaching, by taking the following two steps: 

• Insist on rigorous admission and graduation standards for teacher preparation programs to ensure all candidates are well-qualified to teach
  
• Require all preparation programs—“traditional” and “alternative”— to deliver rigorous education designed to develop and instill the attributes of highly qualified teachers
  
• Develop teacher preparation programs that are organized around the six dimensions of strong teacher education
  
• Create federal, state, and district level incentives to recruit and prepare teachers in high-need disciplines and local areas
• Establish and fund strong K-16 partnerships in which teacher preparation is closely aligned to the needs of schools and students.
  

• Insist that all teacher preparation programs meet rigorous accreditation standards
  
• Establish institutionwide and programwide leadership responsibility for the quality of teacher preparation
  
• Close programs that prove unable to produce high quality teachers
  
• Establish independent standards boards where they do not exist and create regulatory procedures for implementing standards board decisions
  
• Develop and use widely accepted standards and cut-off scores on licensing exams that are driven by a rigorous definition of teaching quality
  
• Develop multiple measures for licensure composed of rigorous tests of content knowledge, performance-based assessments of teaching skill, and portfolios documenting both content knowledge and teaching skill
• Apply sanctions to districts that hire unlicensed teachers and to schools that require teachers to teach out-of-field
  
• Make data on teacher licensure status and teaching assignments public
  
• Collect and use data on K-12 student achievement, teacher licensure, and teacher retention to improve the teacher preparation and licensure system
• Adopt multitiered licensing and advanced certification systems, from entry-level to accomplished teaching.
  

Creating strong learning communities in schools where teaching and learning can thrive and preparing high quality teachers to staff those schools are only a beginning. If we expect today’s new teachers to become tomorrow’s accomplished teachers, we must devote equal energy to building career paths that offer them the satisfactions of a rewarding profession. This means recruiting good teachers, supporting them with mentoring, sustaining them with professional growth opportunities and recognition, and rewarding them with pay that recognizes the value they provide to our nation.

Smart Recruitment and Staffing
The first step is still getting good teachers in the door. Too many good candidates never quite make it to the youngsters who need them most because job information is too scant, hiring procedures are antiquated, and administrative barriers are too daunting. Here, a combination of technology and common sense provides powerful tools to support change. States can streamline hiring procedures by creating Web sites that explain state requirements and procedures; districts can use their own sites to post openings centrally. Some districts already have established online application processes and satellite links to conduct long-distance interviews with prospective teachers.

In 2000, 27 states had Web sites devoted to recruitment and hiring. In addition, nine states now allow candidates to post résumés, applications, and other information online for prospective districts to examine, while three states have developed a common application form that can be used by any district in the state. Many states are developing recruitment strategies that start at the very beginning of the career pipeline. Twelve states have created programs to recruit new teachers in high schools, and six have recruiting programs based in community colleges. Twenty-seven states offer prospective teachers college scholarships or forgivable loans of various types. To meet staffing needs in high-need areas, some states and districts have used scholarships (e.g., Connecticut, Florida, Kentucky, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia), signing bonuses (e.g., Massachusetts, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and New York City), housing incentives (e.g., Chattanooga, TN; Baltimore, MD; Clark County, NV; and Santa Clara, CA), and other incentives to attract candidates.

One of the best ways to encourage teachers to work where the needs are greatest is to adopt policies that increase license reciprocity among states. Many states could make significant inroads into their teacher attrition problems with well-targeted recruitment and recertification efforts, aimed at just 5 or 10 percent of the teacher reserve pool in their state or region.

To improve mobility and encourage reentry, some states (e.g., California, Colorado, Florida, Mississippi, and Missouri) are reducing or changing coursework requirements for licensure. Easing or waiving requirements for teachers with out-of-state licenses has enabled districts in some states to draw on the pool of thousands of licensed teachers nationwide who currently are not teaching and to attract teachers willing to move to new teaching opportunities.

Creating a Professional Learning Community
Incentives and hiring improvements help bring teachers through the schoolhouse door. However, if we expect teachers to perform at the top of their game, they must be welcomed into a professional learning community built on:

• Sound induction, mentoring, and peer-review processes
  
• Professional development that supports sustained growth
  
• Effective use of time and technology
• Better pay and a better pay system.
  

Sound Induction, Mentoring, and Peer-Review Processes
Teaching is the only profession in which entry-level individuals are expected—from Day One—to do the same job and perform at the same level of competence as experienced practitioners. Our schools regularly put rookies into the starting lineup and are surprised when they strike out. Incongruously, teaching is the only professional field that lacks a formal structure for staged entry; there is generally no monitored progress through a residency, internship, apprenticeship, or other training experience. Schools need support systems through which every novice teacher is formally linked to an accomplished teacher and a team of educators who are responsible—and accountable—for his or her success.

While common sense alone might recognize the effectiveness of pairing “newbie” teachers with seasoned mentors, the value of mentoring is statistically borne out by research demonstrating that teachers without induction support leave the profession at a rate almost 70 percent higher than those who received it. In 2001, a total of 28 states reported that they had some form of mentoring program for new teachers, but only 10 states require mentoring programs and support the requirement with funding. The percentage of new, full-time teachers who participate in formal induction programs is growing, but slowly, from 59 percent in 1994 to 65 percent in 1998. Additional information on successful mentored induction strategies is contained in the Commission’s companion report to this document.

Peer Review and Assistance
Mentoring for new teachers is the first step on a path that leads to the career-long community of support needed to undergird accomplished teaching. Peer assistance and peer review support further career development. Peer assistance aims at helping new and veteran teachers improve their knowledge and skills by linking new teachers—or struggling veteran teachers—with consulting teachers, to provide continuing support by observing, modeling, sharing ideas and skills, and recommending materials for further study. Peer review adds a significant element to peer assistance. Consulting teachers conduct formal evaluations and make recommendations regarding the continued employment of participating teachers.

The Careers In Teaching program Rochester, NY, for example, provides support to teachers throughout their careers, as well as an Intervention program that assists and supports tenured teachers whose professional practice is in jeopardy. This intervention mechanism has also been used as a way to identify and remove teachers whose classroom practice is inadequate and resistant to improvement.

Professional Development That Supports Sustained Growth
Teachers are the ultimate knowledge workers. They are professionals whose practice must be continually upgraded as the content in their field changes, as research offers new perspectives, as new technologies become available, and as new students enter their classrooms. No Child Left Behind provides a base of federal funding resources targeted to professional development. States and districts should seize and build on this structure of opportunity. But, if we are to create schools organized for success, today’s professional development must go far beyond adding a few more days or even weeks of “drive-by” In-service training to teachers’ calendars.

Strong professional development opportunities must be embedded in the very fabric of public education. Just as we should design schools as learning communities around the principles of how children learn, so should professional development be structured around how adults learn. Countless studies confirm the elements that make staff development effective. Among them are focusing on student learning needs, engaging teachers in an analysis of their own practice, and giving teachers opportunities to observe and be observed by experts—with strong feedback. Furthermore, professional development for teachers cannot be “one size fits all.” As in business and other professions, the best development opportunities provide teachers with “just in time” and “just what’s needed” help. Such a pattern merits a greater focus on assessment literacy. This process requires not just time, but analytical tools and an understanding of the instructional options and resources available.

Effective Use of Time and Technology
Protected time—or the lack of it—can be the blessing or bane of teaching. Its essential connection to continuous professional growth is indisputable. Teachers need time to reflect on student learning needs, time to work with colleagues, time to observe, time to plan and collaborate, time to reflect on what is working, and time to take a step back and evaluate. Technology is perhaps the most important—and most under-utilized—tool for providing teachers access to the targeted professional development they need, when and how they need it. Online courses, informal support groups, and other network supported resources open the door to professional development opportunities far beyond what any school or district might be able to offer. Some states are creating online modules to ensure that all teachers have access to training in areas targeted to the teacher evaluation system.

Better Pay and Better Pay Systems
Pay matters. It impacts who decides to stay in teaching and who goes looking for greener pastures. Compensation systems signal what skills and attributes are valued and what kinds of contributions reap rewards. As a nation we say we value education, but what we pay teachers says otherwise. Good teachers are being driven away by the poor conditions under which they teach, the lack of professional respect they are accorded, and by scandalously low salary structures. Our teachers don’t just need better pay; they need a better pay system. New teachers, as well as experienced staff who top out on the pay Scale, need opportunities to advance in their careers—and their compensation—without having to vacate the classroom for the principal’s office, or for some other occupation.

It is time to increase teacher salaries to a competitive level that is commensurate with the contribution they make to our children and the nation. Raising salaries alone is not enough. Teachers need pay scales that honor not just their time in grade but the improving quality of their work—just as in any other occupation. To be competitive in today’s economy, length of service must not be the only criterion for getting a raise.