Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness
Committee on Education and the Workforce

Field Hearing On 
Highly Qualified Teachers and Raising Student Achievement

May 27, 2004

At the outset, I would like to welcome you all to the Valley of the Sun and especially welcome you to the University of Phoenix. It is a great honor to have the subcommittee here as it performs its noteworthy work on teacher quality.

As an institution of higher education, the University of Phoenix currently enrolls over 14,500 teachers or soon-to-be teachers in education-related degree programs. These individuals are either seeking the credential to become licensed teaching professionals or are returning to college to complete master’s or doctoral degrees, many in response to the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) requirements of highly qualified teachers. Others are seeking pay grade advances, while others are hoping to move to administration or to a specialty area such as bilingual education or reading. All told, this makes the University of Phoenix one of the largest programs of teacher preparation and professional development in the United States. It is from this perspective that I offer my thoughts on the condition of teacher preparation today. I have been asked to address my remarks to three areas – the importance of teacher quality; the need for NCLB highly qualified teacher requirements; and the efforts of the University of Phoenix to help schools ensure teachers have at least acceptable, if not superior, subject matter knowledge for the subjects they teach.

Much like baseball and apple pie, no one can argue with the concept that having the highest quality teachers in the classroom in America is a good thing. Although we in the education field have long proclaimed the importance of having qualified and caring teachers within K-12 school settings, studies linking teacher quality to proved student performance are limited. Researchers such as William Sanders, Richard Ingersoll, and Linda-Darling Hammond have been able to put some form of quantitative measurement to the degree of importance that qualified teachers play in students’ academic success. Their findings show that the teacher, and his or her professional qualifications, has the greatest effect on a student’s academic success. This comes as no surprise.

While no one argues with this concept, determining exactly what constitutes a high-quality teacher is a bit more difficult to identify and define. Certainly teachers must have a solid working knowledge of the content they will teach. For the University of Phoenix this concept is paramount. Indeed, we insist that our faculty members be practitioners within their respective fields of expertise and licensed to teach in the public school systems. Pedagogical knowledge or the skills, expertise, and experiences necessary to teach a class well cannot be minimized. To say that a teacher’s quality should be measured by one area of expertise alone, such as their knowledge of or degrees within a specific content area, can trivialize the importance of producing an overall professional educator. How one teaches a course in terms of understanding the various methods students use to learn, using accepted content standards on which to base instruction, and applying appropriate assessment methods to verify that standards have been met, are all vital requirements of a high-quality teacher. The University of Phoenix, as well as many other teacher preparation programs throughout the country, believes in producing a well-rounded teacher: one who knows his or her content area, understands and practices the methods of learning and instruction, and handles the daily rigors of a K-12 environment well.

The Secondary and Elementary Education ACT or No Child Left Behind (NCLB) is an ambitious piece of legislation. Through forces not necessarily within their control, many states find themselves in the position of having a shortage of qualified, licensed teachers willing to instruct. This often results in non-certified teachers in the classroom, by means of emergency or temporary certification.

The intent of NCLB is to eliminate this problem and thereby ensure that every child has a highly qualified teacher. NCLB addresses qualification by placing a heavy emphasis on adequate content knowledge in order to ensure that persons entering the teaching profession have documented expertise in the area in which they wish to teach. The guidelines as put forth in NCLB for states to certify individuals as "highly qualified" are as follows:

Various changes have been made to these guidelines in response to states concerns over being unable to meet the aforementioned requirements for individuals teaching in rural areas, teaching across multiple science areas, and teaching multiple core academic areas.

NCLB Teacher Quality Grants also mandate that states must follow certain variables in order to receive the federal grant monies. Variables in this mix include:

These variables appear to make assumptions about the quality of state certification systems and the quantity of individuals interested in teaching. Yet, there is substantial debate about whether these assumptions are adequately supported though either state certification or research-related data.

Many states have developed or are initiating programs that provide alternative routes to teacher certification, particularly for mid-career professionals. The goal of such programs is to draw a diverse pool of individuals with backgrounds in particular fields into the teaching profession. Requirements for an alternative teaching license vary by state. Generally, applicants must hold a bachelor's degree in the subject to be taught, achieve a passing score on state-required examinations, complete some type of teacher preparation program (these are usually provided by school districts), and possibly fulfill a supervised teaching internship. After satisfactory completion of these requirements, the applicant will be issued a teaching credential.

There can be great differences from state-to-state as to what additional training and coursework is required and how much support is offered to the new teacher once he or she is in the classroom. Typically, alternative programs require no prerequisite course work in education for admission. College graduates from all accredited universities, including international ones, are admitted. The candidate’s subject matter knowledge can be demonstrated by examination as well as by the major. The candidate’s professional knowledge is gained by placing him or her in the classroom as the responsible teacher of record. The primary faculty members who instruct the teacher candidates are classroom teachers serving as on-site mentors.

Admission to an alternative certification program is usually predicated upon the teaching candidates going through the hiring process of a school district and then being placed as a beginning teacher of record, with no previous education coursework or experience. The evaluation of candidates is based on their demonstrated competencies with the students they teach and by their students’ achievement, which of course varies greatly between school districts and states.

The charge to create alternative routes to certification is an indicator of the desire from NCLB authors to continue mandating rigorous regulatory procedures. These mandates affect both approval of teacher education programs and the individuals who pursue these programs, while establishing less regulatory-laden routes (and more circumspect in quality) for those who don’t. This is very troublesome for the University of Phoenix and other teacher-preparation institutions. We work very hard to meet state requirements but these efforts can be easily sidestepped by state alternative routes. As evidenced above, these alternative certification routes often ignore content and pedagogical preparation in favor of "on the job training." While we laud the goal of preparing more teachers for the classroom, the situation creates two systems of certification; one highly regulated and one with little regulatory and assessment requirements.

NCLB has done many positive things for improving teacher quality. It puts states’ "feet to the fire" to provide the necessary proof and documentation of how teachers are tracked within their profession by schools/districts and makes state agencies responsible for verifying the quality of teachers. NCLB requirements do make teacher education programs more responsible for the content areas of their graduates and their ability to meet state certification/licensure examinations (also through Title II of the Higher Education Act).

However, there are some issues with implementation of NCLB. The statute requires states and school districts to comply with the provisions of the new law while ignoring the importance of the two key requirements related to teachers. States feel they have been pressured to implement NCLB provisions related to school choice, supplemental services, and academic testing immediately. The choice and supplemental service provisions uproot students and take money out of school district funds, which many feel could be used to train and retain more qualified teachers.

It is not enough to test students and label them and their schools as failing. We must help teachers work effectively as the professionals they are and encourage retention and growth as well as an increase in effectiveness. The federal government has not fulfilled its promise to the states to create the plans and definitions necessary to recruit, retain, and support quality teachers (Leaving Teachers Behind, 2003). By working with districts, the teachers unions, other community organizations, as well as state and local governments, the NCLB can assist in ensuring that the plans necessary to fulfill the promises of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 2001 may be realized. This includes working together to define what a highly qualified teacher is in each state, to determine what kinds of information should be presented on the school report cards, and to create the programs and plans necessary to create equity in the teaching force (Leaving Teachers Behind, 2003).

Colleges of education are faced with difficult choices in the debate over teacher quality. The following section addresses some of the decisions made by the University of Phoenix in addressing teacher quality.

At the University of Phoenix the College of Education is seeking national accreditation from the Teacher Education Accreditation Council (TEAC). Our application for the teacher education and administration programs will be submitted by September 1, 2004. The decision to seek programmatic accreditation is tied directly to benefits to our students. Many states are beginning to tie their state licensure standards to graduation from a programmatically-accredited course of study.

All of the master’s programs offered in the College of Education are aligned to the unit standards set forth by the National Council for Accreditation for Teacher Education (NCATE). The program curricula are aligned to applicable state standards and the program standards designed by the Specialty Areas Studies Board approved by NCATE. In this way, the University intends to prepare students to sit for state licensure exams and provide the competencies sought by each state in credentialing teachers.

The College of Education currently offers the following Master of Arts in Education initial licensure programs: Elementary Teacher Education, Secondary Teacher Education, Special Education, and Administration and Supervision. These programs are approved to be offered in Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Michigan, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Wyoming and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. In addition, the College of Education is in the planning stages of offering two additional initial licensure programs: the Bachelor of Science in Elementary Education and the Master of Arts in Education in Early Childhood Education.

To satisfy the highly qualified teacher mandate of the No Child Left Behind legislation, the University is developing 24 upper-division credit hours in each of the content areas of mathematics, English, and history. By offering these courses we will assist educators who are, for whatever reason, teaching out of their content areas to be in compliance and to remain in their current classroom.

Teacher Education candidates must pass their state’s professional knowledge exam prior to being issued an institutional recommendation for certification/licensure by the University. Performance on these exams is reported in the annual Higher Education Act (HEA) Title II report, produced each spring by each state. On average, our aggregate student scores on the professional knowledge exam meet or exceed a 98% pass rate.

The College of Education has several mechanisms in place to assess candidate quality and progress. The progression requirements of each program determine whether the candidate is ready to move forward in the program and begin the student teaching or internship experience. Progression requirements include:

Throughout the program, each candidate is required to develop his or her own Electronic Portfolio with specific artifacts included as evidence of knowledge and skills. These artifacts are evaluated against established rubrics and are aligned to our program standards. Candidates must maintain minimum competencies on the portfolio and receive a passing graded score on the overall product at the end of the program.

During student teaching, candidates complete a teacher work-sample project in which they must create a multiple-week, standards-based unit; create and implement pre- and post- assessments; make accommodations for diverse learners; and reflect on the unit once it is completed. As an added component of this assignment, candidates must track the progress of two students and detail the students’ progress during the unit. The teacher work sample is a graded assignment, the results of which affect whether the student passes or fails student teaching.

During the administrative internship, candidates compile the vast amounts of material they accumulate and performance evaluations into an Internship Notebook. Along with the materials and evaluations, candidates must provide reflections on the various stages of the internship experience. The notebook is a graded assignment with significant impact on passing or failing the internship experience.

Throughout the Special Education, Elementary, and Secondary Teacher Education programs, candidates are required to complete a minimum of 100 hours of verified field experience, covering a variety of developmental levels. The focus of each observation is related to specific course content. Documentation is maintained in the candidate’s professional portfolio.

Student teaching is an integral component of the Special Education, Elementary, and Secondary Teacher Education programs. It provides candidates with a field-based experience at the appropriate grade and content level. Student teachers work with a cooperating teacher from a school site as well as a University of Phoenix faculty advisor. The student teaching experience is designed to enhance practical experience in a controlled environment and to emphasize the achievement of state standards leading to certification. This experience presents individuals with growth opportunities that best prepare them to assume the duties of a certified classroom teacher.

Each candidate in the Master of Arts in Education, Administration and Supervision program is required to complete a practicum experience in an appropriate P-12 school. Candidates are under the direct supervision of a University faculty supervisor and a licensed school administrator who will acts as the site supervisor. The practicum is divided into three sections (EDA 590 A/B/C) each of which coincides with the coursework completed in the master's program.

Alumni of the College of Education are surveyed to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the programs in order to continually monitor and update the curriculum. Alumni are asked to evaluate texts, assignments, faculty knowledge, faculty preparedness, faculty facilitation, applicability of course content, curriculum, and academic rigor. The alumni survey provides valuable data about a graduate’s experience with the Education programs.

Employers of alumni from the College of Education are asked to rate our graduates on the quality of teacher preparation, instructional design and planning skills, management of instruction and students, use of assessment measures, communication, collaboration, willingness to participate in professional development, demonstration of content and professional knowledge, and integration of technology. The University terms employers of our students "shadow consumers" of our programs and places high value on this feedback.

In addition to the local campus programs, the University of Phoenix offers Master of Arts in Education programs through the online delivery modality. These degree programs are Arizona-approved programs. As indicated in the NCLB, approximately one third of all school districts in the United States are classified as rural. The online delivery allows students located outside the state of Arizona in all settings access to complete the necessary coursework to become a certified teacher. In particular, the Master of Arts in Education/Teacher Education (MAED/TED) program is an Arizona-approved teacher preparation program, which upon successful completion of the program, qualifies a student to sit for an Arizona teaching certificate and/or obtain an Institutional Recommendation from the University of Phoenix. Although this program provides a viable option to address the nationwide teacher shortage, the University has encountered many roadblocks to offering the program to students nationwide.

We believe the University of Phoenix is in a position to assist America by providing more highly qualified teachers. Many times these efforts are stymied by roadblocks and challenges. The following outlines the main categories of challenges the University of Phoenix has encountered regarding student teacher placement and certification through our online program of study.

In some states, the higher education board expects all schools that have a "physical presence" established within the state, evidenced by student teaching in that state, have state-specific program approval. Therefore, although the University has no contact with the state other than the presence of a student teacher/resident, we cannot secure a student teaching placement unless we obtain the said state approval. The University continues to seek approvals in additional states to offer the teacher preparation programs, but the timeframe for obtaining these approvals is often extremely protracted. Therefore, if a student enrolls from one of these states, the University must obtain a partnership with a state institution that has the requisite home state approval. While we have established partnerships with other institutions, most were partnerships developed with a "one time placement" in mind. The majority of these partnerships will not facilitate future student teachers.

As mentioned earlier, many states have adopted a requirement that students must attend NCATE-accredited institutions in order to become licensed. Institutions that are NCATE accredited will not partner with institutions that are not. As a result, in NCATE states, University of Phoenix is unable to form any partnerships.

A few states have unique teacher certification programs. This means that an Arizona teaching certificate is not at all comparable. Consequently, students who obtain an Arizona certificate are unable to become certified in these states without an abundance of additional coursework or other items, such as teaching experience in the state of certification.

Departments of education, higher education boards, and institutions of higher education are in a constant state of flux trying to ensure that the quality of teachers and educational personnel is at a premium. As a result, policies and procedures change frequently, as do the relationships between different educational agencies. The No Child Left Behind legislation may encourage yet more changes in many agencies with which the University of Phoenix deals on a regular basis. As a result of these changes, one of the most challenging aspects for any multi-state institution will be to maintain awareness and affiliation with the range of state licensing agencies.

It is not often that one gets the opportunity to advise a distinguished body like this on how to solve national issues. I do not believe that the problems related to producing the additional number of high quality teachers we require are insurmountable. Under the present system, however, we will be hard-pressed to solve them. There is a saying in the literature of continuing quality improvement that goes, "every process is perfectly designed to produce the results it is producing." And MIT’s Peter Senge has maintained that for the most part "structure determines behavior." We believe that it is possible to mount a national effort that could make a significant difference in educating excellent teachers and that institutions like the University of Phoenix are perfectly suited to the task. The creation of standards for teacher preparation is currently a state-by-state endeavor and the process of navigating the intricacies and nuances of every state’s process is daunting, expensive and time consuming. Very often the requirements are arcane and the process is designed to discourage innovative approaches. So long as the status quo largely remains, our efforts to produce significant numbers of teachers who are prepared to really make a difference will produce uneven and disappointing results.

Like any issue of national magnitude, creating a nation of highly qualified teachers will not be an easy task, especially when there is little-to-no consensus on the definition of the problem. There are many issues, including states’ rights to oversee the process of licensure, funding availability, as well as the performance of colleges of teacher education and the performance of individual teachers in the classroom. Assessment of individual teacher performance is itself a complex issue. Some states have taken an approach of merely counting content area academic credits to determine highly qualified teachers, but other states have chosen to take a more holistic approach to determining professional qualifications. We would urge you to consider the latter approach as the better way to determine teaching qualifications.

A teacher should be judged on the whole of their performance, including pedagogical approach, classroom management, and content. Merely adding semester hours does not guarantee a highly qualified teacher. Nor does the absence of a specific course on a transcript condemn a teacher to mediocrity or substandard performance.

Thank you for allowing me to present this testimony on behalf of the University of Phoenix. I would also like to thank the staff of the University’s College of Education for their assistance in the preparation of these remarks.

Reference

Leaving teachers behind: How a key requirement of the No Child Left Behind Act (Putting a Highly Qualified Teacher in Every Class) has been abandoned. (2003). Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. Washington, D.C.